DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on 04/19/2024. Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-11, and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 16-22 have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 7-11, and 13-14 filed on 04/19/2024. The cancellation of the terms in question have been fully accepted, thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 13 are considered to have addressed the objections previously submitted, and as such the claim objections set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims are considered to have addressed the 112(b) rejections previously submitted. As such, they are withdrawn.
112(b) issues persist with claims
The applicant’s amendments to claims 1 are considered sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in the previous actions, which indicated the claims as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US Patent No. 8708780).
However, see the new rejections set forth within the action, indicating the claims as unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Patent No. 8708780) in view of Flores et al. (US PG Pub No. 20170129070).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 04/19/2024 with respect to the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in the previous actions, which indicated the claims as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US Patent No. 8708780) being unsustainable due to amendments to the claim(s) and that previously disclosed modifying reference of Inagaki (JP 2005161499) fails to cure the deficiencies have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection from the previous office action has been withdrawn.
As the first and second cutting groups are attached to the tool body and cutting materials are within that body, Yamamoto fails to disclose the groups being enclosed within that region. As such, the limitation is considered not anticipated and the rejection is withdrawn. However, please see the new rejection set forth within the action addressing the inadequacies.
In light of the applicant’s remarks about the “circumferential angle” and the annotated figure, the examiner believes the intended language was actually for a “central angle.” A circumferential angle, more usually referred to as an inscribed angle, begins from the circumference of the circle, and is pointed towards the center to some degree.
Central angle = Angle subtended by an arc of the circle from the center of the circle. Inscribed angle = Angle subtended by an arc of the circle from any point on the circumference of the circle. Also called circumferential angle and peripheral angle.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
1273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A “circumferential” angle would start at a point and go out, and as such, since the carrier member was along the circumference of the honing tool, it was considered to have covered the twenty degrees down to the origin point of the angle.
However, with regards to this term, the specification doesn’t provide the support for redefining the term. As such, the applicant’s arguments pertaining to the “circumferential angle” not being anticipated are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, and 8-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Patent No. 8708780) in view of Flores et al. (US PG Pub No. 20170129070).
In regards to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses
a honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) for machining an inner face of a bore in a workpiece with the aid of at least one honing operation, in particular for honing cylinder surfaces in the production of cylinder blocks or cylinder liners for reciprocating piston engines, comprising:
a tool body (rotary tool 13, fig. 1-10) that defines a tool axis (see annotated fig. 2A);
a first cutting group (plurality of first extension components 23, fig. 1-10), attached to the tool body (rotary tool 13, fig. 1-10), having a plurality of radially feedable first carriers (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10) that are feedable radially (col. 3 line 66 – col. 4 line 7: First extension components 23 … and second extension components 24… are alternately accommodated in the slits 22 in a movable manner in the radial direction of the tool body 21) with respect to the tool axis (see annotated fig. 2A) by means of an associated first cutting group feeding system (at least rod accommodation hole 21a, first extension rod 25, second extension rod 26, and plurality of slits 22 housing first extension components 23; col. 4 lines 5-7: are alternatively accommodated in the slits 22 in a movable manner in the radial direction of the tool body 21), wherein each first carrier (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10) covers, on its radial outer side, a circumferential angle range of at least 20° (20° or less) and carries,
on its outer side, a single first cutting material body (grindstone 11, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) that is wide in the circumferential direction or a plurality of narrow first cutting material bodies (crude-processing grinding surfaces 11a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) that are arranged in a manner spaced apart from one another (see annotated fig. 3); and
PNG
media_image2.png
347
1203
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a second cutting group (plurality of second extension components 24, fig. 1-10), attached to the tool body (rotary tool 13, fig. 1-10), having a plurality of radially feedable second carriers (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10) that are feedable radially (col. 3 line 66 – col. 4 line 7) with respect to the tool axis (see annotated fig. 2A), independently of the first carriers (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10), by means of an associated second cutting group feeding system (plurality of slits 22 housing first extension components 24; col. 4 lines 5-7), wherein each second carrier (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10) carries, on its radial outer side (see annotated fig. 3), a single narrow second cutting material body (finish-processing grinding surfaces 12a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10),
wherein all the cutting material bodies (grinding surfaces 11a and 12a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) of the first and the second cutting group (plurality of first and second extension components 23, 24, fig. 1-10) are arranged in an axially short cutting region that has a length (see annotated fig. 4A/4B), measured in the axial direction, which is less than an effective outside diameter (see annotated fig. 4A) of the cutting groups with the cutting material bodies fully retracted.
PNG
media_image3.png
496
1271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yamamoto fails to disclose that the first and second cutting groups are arranged “entirely” in the axially short cutting region which is shorter than the effective outside diameter. This is understood generally as resultant of different regions having a proportional relationship with each other. However, Yamamoto (see fig. 13 – ann. 1 below) does disclose a honing tool with cutting groups arranged entirely in a short cutting region that is less than the effective outside diameter.
Yamamoto and Flores are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of honing tools has a tool body and shells disposed on the tool body, and at least two honing stone sets each provided with two or more honing stones are provided.
Flores teaches:
[0012] The tool according to the invention is characterized in that two, three, or four or even five honing stones are arranged on a common shell...
[0013] As a result of this, it is possible to design the honing stones to be very short and to produce a conicity or widening of the bore even where the recess is located.
[0014] Because canting of the short honing stones when traveling across the recess is reliably prevented by the arrangement according to the invention of several honing stones on one shell that is bridging the recess, the stock removal rate of the honing tool according to the invention is very high even for widening or plateau honing of bores with recesses.
[0015] The tool according to the invention is of a very compact configuration because, due to the arrangement of several honing stones on a shell, the number of components is relatively minimal. In particular, the tool length is relatively short and, moreover, the tool according to the invention requires only a minimal idle travel past the bore to be machined so that the tool can be used even when tight space conditions are present, for example, because the bearing seat of a crankcase occupies space.
PNG
media_image4.png
595
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamamoto and incorporate the teachings of Flores, shortening the honing stones to reside in an axial length shorter than the diameter, resulting in a compact configuration allowing the tool to be used in tight spaces ([0015]), increasing its versatility and adaptability to different workpiece conditions.
In regards to claim 2, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the case of a first cutting material body (grindstone 11, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) that is wide in the circumferential direction,
but fails to disclose that “an aspect ratio between the axial length and the width measured in the circumferential direction is 3 or less, in particular less than 1,”
and/or in that, in the case of a narrow first cutting material body (crude-processing grinding surfaces 11a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) and/or in the case of a narrow second cutting material body (finish-processing grinding surfaces 12a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10),
but fails to disclose “an aspect ratio between the axial length and the width measured in the circumferential direction is 5 or more, in particular in the range from 8 to 25.”
Though Yamamoto fails to explicitly disclose the aspect ratios for the first and second cutting material bodies to respectively range between 3 to zero, in particular 1 to zero, and 5 or more, in particular 8 to 25, the range of aspect ratios are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result.
In this case, the recognized result is appropriate sizing of the grinding elements within the grinding tool . Too thin of grinding surface in the circumferential direction could result in deformations and even breakage in the tool while under stress, creating irregularities within the workpiece and increasing costs for material replacement and repairs. Too wide of an element would interfere with the placement of other elements and also increase material costs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide aspect ratios for the first and second cutting material bodies to respectively range between 3 to zero, in particular 1 to zero, and 5 or more, in particular 8 to 25 as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05(II), it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the grind stone widths and lengths to have an aspect ratio within the claimed range, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 3, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cutting material bodies (grindstone 11, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) attached to a first carrier (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10) cover, with their external cutting faces, a total circumferential angle range that corresponds to at least 30% or at least 50% of the circumferential width of the outer side (see annotated fig. 3) of the first carrier (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10).
PNG
media_image5.png
375
1066
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein each first carrier (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10) carries two first cutting material bodies (crude-processing grinding surfaces 11a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) on its radial outer side, and/or in that a mutual spacing between immediately adjacent first cutting material bodies (crude-processing grinding surfaces 11a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) lies in the order of the circumferential width of the first cutting material bodies (crude-processing grinding surfaces 11a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) or less (see annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
465
1203
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one second carrier (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10) is arranged between first carriers (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10) that are adjacent in the circumferential direction (see annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
465
1203
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first carriers (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10) and the second carriers (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10) are arranged in a manner distributed irregularly in the circumferential direction (see annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
595
1203
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) has an integrated joint (see annotated fig. 4A) for coupling the tool body (rotary tool 13, fig. 1-10), with limited movability, to a connection piece (see annotated fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image9.png
831
1271
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second cutting material bodies (finish-processing grinding surfaces 12a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) are mounted in an elastically resilient manner (through the use of accommodation grooves 32, fig. 4A and spring bands 33, fig. 4A; col. 4 lines 31-36: Furthermore, two accommodation grooves 32 are formed along the outer periphery of the first extension components 23 and the second extension components 24, and spring bands 33 that bias the first and second extension components 23 and 24 inward in the radial direction are fitted in these accommodation grooves 32) with regard to the tool body (rotary tool 13, fig. 1-10).
PNG
media_image10.png
294
978
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 10, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, characterized by comprising a guide group having a plurality of guide strips (guide members 40, fig. 3-4, 8-10) distributed around the circumference of the tool body (rotary tool 13, fig. 1-10).
In regards to claim 11, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 10, wherein one, a plurality or all of the guide strips (guide members 40, fig. 3-4, 8-10) are arranged immediately next to a second carrier (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10).
PNG
media_image11.png
465
1203
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cutting group feeding system (at least rod accommodation hole 21a, first extension rod 25, second extension rod 26, and plurality of slits 22 housing first extension components 23; col. 4 lines 5-7) and/or the second cutting group feeding system (plurality of slits 22 housing first extension components 24; col. 4 lines 5-7) has an axially displaceable feeding element (first extension rod 25; col. 4 lines 17-23: The rod accommodation hole 21a accommodates a first extension rod 25, which has a hollow structure, in a movable manner in the axial direction, and also accommodates a second extension rod 26, which is disposed within the first extension rod 25, in a movable manner in the axial direction. The first extension rod 25 has two cone sections 27, and tapered surfaces 27a of these cone sections 27 are disposed facing inclined surfaces 23a of the first extension components 23), which has a first conical portion (first cone section 27, see fig. 4A) and a second conical portion (second cone section 27, see fig. 4A) axially offset therefrom (see fig. 4A), wherein the first carriers (first extension components 23, fig. 1-10) and/or the second carriers (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10) have, on their radial inner side, two axially offset inclined faces (inclined surfaces 23a, fig. 4A) that are configured to cooperate with the first and the second conical portion (first and second cone sections 27, fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image12.png
448
1187
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 16, Yamamoto discloses
the honing tool as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein each first carrier carries three, four, five, six or seven first cutting material bodies, and/or in that a mutual spacing between immediately adjacent first cutting material bodies lies in the order of the circumferential width of the first cutting material bodies or less.
However, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate parts, where in the instant case, to have more than two of the first cutting material bodies with the same structure of what is included in Yamamoto’s rotary tool structure is only a slight variation therefrom and would not produce an unexpected outcome and would have therefore constituted an obvious mechanical choice expedient at the time of applicants' invention, as increased number of grinding stones would provide additional structure for increased surface area for increase surface finishing coverage and efficiency. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In regards to claim 18, Yamamoto as modified
the honing tool as claimed in claim 8, wherein an axial spacing (see annotated fig. 4A) between an articulation point (see annotated fig. 4A) of the joint and a spindle-remote end of the cutting region (see annotated fig. 4A/4B) is smaller than the effective outside diameter (see annotated fig. 4A) of the cutting groups with the cutting material bodies fully retracted.
PNG
media_image9.png
831
1271
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 19,
the honing tool as claimed in claim 9, wherein the second carriers (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10) have, close to or next to a second cutting material body (finish-processing grinding surfaces 12a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10), an elastic portion (see annotated fig. 4A) with cutouts (accommodation grooves 32, fig. 4A) and spring elements (spring bands 33, fig. 4A) formed integrally with the carrier (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10).
PNG
media_image10.png
294
978
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 20, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool as claimed in claim 10, wherein the guide strips (guide members 40, fig. 3-4, 8-10) are arranged only within the cutting region (see annotated fig. 4A/4B).
PNG
media_image13.png
282
1008
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 21, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool as claimed in claim 11, wherein a circumferential spacing between a second carrier (second extension components 24, fig. 1-10) and the guide strip (guide members 40, fig. 3-4, 8-10) is less than the width of the guide strip in the circumferential direction (see annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image11.png
465
1203
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The claimed method is rejected as 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Patent No. 8708780) in view of Flores et al. (US PG Pub No. 20170129070).
In regards to claim 13, Yamamoto as modified discloses
a fine machining method for machining the inner face of a bore in a workpiece (abstract: A rotary tool of a honing apparatus is provided with honing grindstones that grind a cylinder bore, and guide members that slide in a guide hole of a tool guide),
in particular for fine machining cylinder surfaces in the production of cylinder blocks or cylinder liners for reciprocating piston engines (col. 1 lines 19-25: Cylinder blocks of engines have cylinder bores that accommodate pistons in a slidable manner. The inner surface of a cylinder bore is honed by using a rotary tool equipped with a honing grindstone. If clogging or shedding occurs on the honing grindstone, the cylinder bore cannot be properly ground, resulting in reduced processing accuracy for the cylinder bore),
wherein the fine machining method comprises at least one honing operation (col. 1 lines 19-25), in which an expandable honing tool is moved back and forth within the bore in order to create a reciprocating movement in the axial direction of the bore and at the same time is rotated in order to create a rotary movement superimposed on the reciprocating movement
(col. 3 lines 29-58: FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an operating process of the honing apparatus 10... The driving unit 14 has a built-in electric motor or actuator (not shown). The driving unit 14 can rotate the rotary tool 13 in the direction indicated by an arrow .alpha., as well as vertically move the rotary tool 13 in the direction indicated by an arrow .beta... The tool guide 20 guides the rotary tool 13 to the cylinder bore 17 and is disposed such that the center of the guide hole 19 is positionally aligned with the center of the cylinder bore 17.
(14) Referring to FIG. 2A, when a honing process is to be performed... Then, while rotating as well as moving in the vertical direction, the rotary tool 13 grinds an inner surface (inner cylindrical surface) 17a of the cylinder bore 17 to a predetermined dimension)
Col. 6 lines 38-52: Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 7, when the rotary tool 13 is lowered to the cylinder bore 17, the rotary tool 13 starts rotating as well as moving upward and downward, and the first extension components 23 are pressed toward the extended position. Then, a honing process by the crude-processing honing grindstones 11 continues until the inner diameter of the cylinder bore 17 reaches a predetermined value. Subsequently, when the honing process by the honing grindstones 11 is completed, the first extension components 23 are pulled toward the contracted position, whereas the second extension components 24 are pressed toward the extended position. Subsequently, a honing process by the finish-processing honing grindstones 12 continues until the inner diameter of the cylinder bore 17 reaches a predetermined value. When the rotary tool 13 is lifted upward upon completion of the honing process, the aforementioned electrolytic dressing is performed on the rotary tool 13 again)
wherein, during the honing operation, a honing tool having the features of claim 1 is used.
In regards claim 14, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the fine machining method as claimed in claim 13, wherein a honing operation is carried out as a multistage honing operation, wherein, in a first honing stage,
a first cutting group is pressed against the bore inner face and a bore shape that differs from a circular-cylindrical shape is created by means of the first cutting group, by means of axially irregular material removal, starting from an initial shape, and
in that subsequently, in a second honing stage, a second cutting group is fed and, by means of the second cutting group, a desired surface structure is created on the bore inner face substantially without changing the macro shape of the bore (
Col. 6 lines 38-52: Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 7, when the rotary tool 13 is lowered to the cylinder bore 17, the rotary tool 13 starts rotating as well as moving upward and downward, and the first extension components 23 are pressed toward the extended position. Then, a honing process by the crude-processing honing grindstones 11 continues until the inner diameter of the cylinder bore 17 reaches a predetermined value. Subsequently, when the honing process by the honing grindstones 11 is completed, the first extension components 23 are pulled toward the contracted position, whereas the second extension components 24 are pressed toward the extended position. Subsequently, a honing process by the finish-processing honing grindstones 12 continues until the inner diameter of the cylinder bore 17 reaches a predetermined value. When the rotary tool 13 is lifted upward upon completion of the honing process, the aforementioned electrolytic dressing is performed on the rotary tool 13 again).
In regards to claim 15, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the fine machining method as claimed in claim 14, wherein honing is carried out with path control in the first honing stage (col. 6 lines 38-52; as the drive unit controls the motion of the rotary tool up and down and causes the rotation, this is understood as path control, as the path and process being taken is being dictated is controlled by the control unit of the honing tool) and/or is carried out with force control in the second honing stage.
In regards to claim 22, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the fine machining method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the bore shape is rotationally symmetric (since the bore is cylindrical, the shape is understood as rotationally symmetric).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Patent No. 8708780), Flores et al. (US PG Pub No. 20170129070) and in further view of Inagaki (JP 2005161499).
In regards to claim 7, Yamamoto as modified discloses
the honing tool (honing apparatus 10, fig. 1-10) as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose that wherein the first cutting material bodies (grindstone 11, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) “are shorter in the axial direction than the” second cutting material bodies (finish-processing grinding surfaces 12a, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10).
However, Inagaki teaches “[0026] FIG. 8A shows a case where a new honing head 1 with a grindstone is mounted on a grinding machine… When the curvature is r, when the head main body moves RR in the direction of the arrow in FIG. 8B, a pair of maximum-length grindstones 10A fixed in the moving direction of the outer peripheral surface 3 are applied to the work surface having the inner radius R. Touch to start grinding. At this stage, the grindstone 10B is such that the inner corner hits the work surface, and the grindstone 10C does not participate in grinding....[0027] The time when the grindstones 10A, 10B, 10C on the outer peripheral surface 3 of the head main body start to contribute to grinding has a slight difference for each grindstone... In this way, each time the surface of the grindstone is changed, the position of the grindstone that participates in the grinding first differs, and the wear of the entire grindstone advances and a favorable result is obtained.”
PNG
media_image14.png
290
462
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Yamamoto and Inagaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of honing tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamamoto to incorporate the teachings of Inagaki and provide grinding stones of different lengths, so that “the wear of the entire grindstone advances and a favorable result is obtained (Inagaki ¶[0026]).
In regards to claim 17, Yamamoto as modified
the honing tool as claimed in claim 7, wherein an axial length of the first cutting material bodies (grindstone 11 as modified, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10) is less than 80% and/or more than 50% of the axial length of the second cutting material bodies (finish-processing grinding surfaces 12a as modified, fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10).
PNG
media_image15.png
468
1067
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note:
As endpoints of the recited “axial lengths” are undefined, then lengths such as distance to midpoint and other portions are considered to meet the limitation of “an axial length of” and element.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723