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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 12/18/2025 have been entered, wherein claims 11-19 are pending. Accordingly, claims 11-19 have been examined herein.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The examiner notes that a specification never appears to be filed. It appears only the specification from the WO document was submitted. For clarity, the examiner recommends submitting a clean specification including the most recent amendments.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 11, “by means of a tactile measuring element or a contactless measuring device”
Claim 14, “by means of a measuring sensor”
Claim 15, “by means of a laser”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 11-14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landi (US PGPUB 20160129510) in view of Zhang (US PGPUB 20180128608) and further in view of Yanase (US PGPUB 20130115856) and yet further in view of Ronneberger (US Patent 6577917) and Graf et al. (US PGPUB 20050055836), hereinafter Graf.
Regarding claim 11, Landi teaches a method for grinding or polishing a gearwheel or a workpiece with a toothing-like profile (fig. 1, gears I1 and I2) in a grinding or polishing machine (fig. 1), wherein the grinding or polishing machine comprises at least two workpiece spindles (fig. 1, workpiece spindles 14 and 15) for receiving the workpiece (fig. 1) and at least one grinding or polishing spindle (fig. 1, worktool carrier spindle 3) with a grinding or polishing tool (fig. 1, grinding wheel 5), wherein
the method comprises the steps of:
a) Grinding or polishing of a first workpiece (fig. 1) received on a first workpiece spindle (spindle 14) of the at least two workpiece spindles (fig. 1) [0049];
b) In a temporally parallel manner to the grinding or polishing of the first workpiece (paragraphs 0051-0052, Landi teaches during the grinding step of gear I1, gear I2 is fitted and fixed on the carrier spindle 15): Receiving a second workpiece on a further workpiece spindle of the at least two workpiece spindles [0051] and measuring a toothing or a toothing-like profile of the second workpiece in order to determine a position of tooth gaps or profile gaps (Landi teaches the centering sensor 19 detects the angular position of the gear I2 [0052]. Landi also teaches the centering sensor 19 is suited to detect the flanks of the gear so as to determine the angular position of the gear [0024]),
c) After completion of the grinding or polishing of the first workpiece [0050]: Grinding or polishing of the second workpiece received on the further workpiece spindle using the determined position of the tooth gaps or profile gaps [0052-0054].
Landi does not explicitly teach
wherein the measurement of the toothing or the toothing-like profile comprises scanning of tooth flanks or profile flanks of only one or several tooth gaps or profile gaps of the tooth gaps and profile gaps by means of a tactile measuring element or a contactless measuring device, in order to determine an effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks;
Grinding or polishing of the second workpiece received on the further workpiece spindle using the measured effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks as a basis,
wherein an inductive sensor is additionally arranged in the grinding or polishing machine, with which the position of all of the tooth gaps or profile gaps are determined.
However, Zhang teaches a method for measuring and evaluating gear precision which includes scanning and building up an actual model of the tested gear via scanned data which is collected via a measuring and scanning device with three-dimensional digital imaging ability such as a scanning electron microscope [0034], wherein the actual model of the gear is overlapped with a standard 3D model [0035], selecting a section of the overlapped model to compare [0036] and judging if the point on the actual model section exceeds a tolerance zone selected on the actual model [0037].
Specifically, Zhang teaches wherein the measurement of the toothing or the toothing-like profile comprises scanning of tooth flanks or profile flanks of only one or several tooth gaps or profile gaps of the tooth gaps and profile gaps (fig. 1-2, wherein the measurements include scanning several tooth gaps or profile gaps) by means of a tactile measuring element (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”) or a contactless measuring device (scanning device with three-dimensional digital imaging ability such as a scanning electron microscope [0034]), in order to determine an effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks [0036-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Landi to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to provide wherein the measurement of the toothing or the toothing-like profile comprises scanning of tooth flanks or profile flanks of only one or several tooth gaps or profile gaps of the tooth gaps and profile gaps by means of a tactile measuring element or a contactless measuring device, in order to determine an effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Landi to incorporate the scanner and measurement techniques of Zhang for the measuring sensor 19 and measurement techniques of Landi. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known measurement sensor and measurement technique for another known measurement sensor and measurement technique to obtain the predictable results of measuring the gear to determine the position of the gear. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to determine what sections of the gear are oversized and by how much (as taught by Zhang, [0037], fig. 3).
Landi, as modified, does not explicitly teach
Grinding or polishing of the second workpiece received on the further workpiece spindle using the measured effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks as a basis,
wherein an inductive sensor is additionally arranged in the grinding or polishing machine, with which the position of all of the tooth gaps or profile gaps are determined.
However, Yanase teaches a gear grinding method which includes measuring a gear workpiece (fig. 2) and the an initial cutting position of the grinding wheel is set in accordance with the largest deviation amount among the tooth thickness deviation amounts of the measurement points and the corresponding points [0037]. Overall, Yanase teaches Grinding or polishing of the second workpiece received on the further workpiece spindle using the measured effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks as a basis, wherein the grinding or polishing according to step c) is carried out by specifying grinding or polishing parameters which take into account the effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks (Yanase’s teaching of setting the initial cutting position of the grinding wheel in accordance with the largest measured deviation amount is interpreted as Grinding or polishing of the second workpiece received on the further workpiece spindle using the measured effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks as a basis, wherein the grinding or polishing according to step c) is carried out by specifying grinding or polishing parameters which take into account the effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Landi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Yanase to provide Grinding or polishing of the second workpiece received on the further workpiece spindle using the measured effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks as a basis, wherein the grinding or polishing according to step c) is carried out by specifying grinding or polishing parameters which take into account the effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks. Specifically, it would have been obvious to set the position of the grinding wheel of Landi according to the measured oversize of the tooth or profile flanks (as measured by Zhang). Doing so would allow the grinding to address the measured oversizes, thereby promoting a properly sized workpiece. Additionally, doing so would promote customized grinding of the workpieces in order to promote accurate final dimensions of each workpiece.
Landi, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein an inductive sensor is additionally arranged in the grinding or polishing machine, with which the position of all of the tooth gaps or profile gaps are determined.
However, Ronneberger teaches a process and apparatus for the automatic measurement of processing and workpiece characteristics when grinding gears, wherein a workpiece is measured with multiple sensors 23 and 24 fitted on an adapter head 22 within multiple planes 26-28 to determine a multitude of parameters including position and position chamber of the upper and lower end face of the gear, the number of teeth and the variation in tooth pitch around the workpiece circumference, the angular position of the tool spaces, the flank machining allowance before grinding, the helix angle beta, the temperature, and vibrations of the workpiece (col. 4, lines 27-49). Additionally, Ronneberger teaches wherein the two or more sensors are fitted on the adapter head, which are designed for the measurement of several like or unlike physical characteristics (col. 5, lines 34-37). Overall, Ronneberger teaches including a plurality of sensors to measure several like or unlike physical characteristics of the same workpiece.
Additionally, Graf teaches a device for the aligning of workpiece with pre-cut teeth on gear finishing machines. Specifically, Graf teaches in order to avoid having to provide for unnecessarily large hardening depths and to balance and minimize the wear on the left and right flanks of the fine machining tool, it is therefore attempted to keep the material allowance for the fine machining as small as possible. For the fine machining of the teeth this means in practice that the depth of cut per flank for material removal is only a few hundredths to at most two tenths of a millimeter. If, as is generally the case, the left and right flanks are machined in the same operation, this demands a very accurate alignment of the precut teeth relative to the fine machining tool, so that the latter can be brought exactly into the center of the tooth spaces to be machined, in order to achieve uniform material removal from the left and right flanks of the workpiece [0002]. In the aligning process, a non-contact functioning measuring probe, the aligning probe, is located at a geometrically suitable point in the working area of the machine. The aligning probe operates on an inductive principle. For the alignment the work spindle is rotated, and the angular positions of all the tooth flanks of the gear blank to be machined are measured by the aligning probe. Subsequently the average value of all the tooth space centre lines is calculated. This average value is compared with a desired value stored in the machine control system. The workpiece can now be aligned by turning the work spindle through an angle corresponding to the difference between the measured average value and the pre-defined desired value; that is, the average value and the desired value are brought to coincide in the machine control system [0003]. Overall, Graf teaches wherein an inductive sensor (aligning probe operating on inductive principle [0003]) is additionally arranged in the grinding or polishing machine [0003], with which the position of all of the tooth gaps or profile gaps are determined (Graf teaches the angular positions of all the tooth flanks of the gear blank to be machined are measured by the aligning probe [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Landi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Ronneberger and Graf to provide wherein an inductive sensor is additionally arranged in the grinding or polishing machine, with which the position of all of the tooth gaps or profile gaps are determined. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a plurality of sensors to take measurement of several like or unlike physical characteristics of the workpiece (as taught by Ronneberger), wherein a first sensor is the sensor of Landi, as modified, and wherein the second sensor is the inductive sensor of Graf in order to sense the positions of all the tooth flanks of the gear. Doing so would allow the grinding wheel to properly align to the workpiece for processing. Additionally, doing so would balance and minimize the wear on the left and right flanks of the machining tool and achieve uniform material removal from the left and right flanks of the workpiece [0002 of Graf]. Doing so would also provide measurement of several like parameters (as taught and desired by Ronneberger, col. 5, lines 34-37), which promotes quality of the workpiece by verifying the sensed parameters.
Regarding claim 12, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Landi, as modified, teaches wherein a plurality of tooth gaps or profile gaps are scanned when performing step b) (figs. 1-2 of Zhang, wherein the measurement technique of Zhang was incorporated into Landi. See above rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Landi, as modified, teaches wherein all tooth gaps or profile gaps are scanned when performing step b) (figs. 1-2 of Zhang, wherein the measurement technique of Zhang was incorporated into Landi. See above rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Landi, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the measurement according to step b) is carried out by means of a measuring sensor as the tactile measuring element.
However, Yanase teaches a gear grinding method which includes a tactile measuring element (measurement probe 17 serving as a contact-type sensor), wherein the measurement probe 17 detects the flank surfaces of the teeth of the gear [0045, fig. 2] in order to determine deviations of the surface of the gear [0048]. Overall, Yanase teaches a contact type sensor as a tactile measuring element for measuring the surface of a gear.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Landi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Yanase to provide wherein the measurement according to step b) is carried out by means of a measuring sensor as the tactile measuring element. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the measurement probe 17 of Yanase for the measurement sensor of Zhang (as previously incorporated into Landi). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known measurement sensor for another known measurement sensor in order to obtain the predictable results of measuring the surface of the gear workpiece.
Regarding claim 19, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Additionally, Landi, as modified, teaches wherein the tactile measuring element (measurement probe of Yanase, as incorporated above in claim 14) is arranged on a linear slide (fig. 1 of Landi, workpiece carrier slide 11) with which it can be moved and positioned in a translatory direction (paragraph 0018 of Landi).
Regarding claim 16, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Landi, as modified, teaches wherein the grinding or polishing according to step c) is carried out by specifying grinding or polishing parameters which take into account the effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks (see above rejection of claim 11 for more details, wherein Landi was further modified to incorporate grinding according to the effective oversize on the tooth flanks or profile flanks).
Regarding claim 17, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Landi, as modified, teaches wherein the grinding or polishing parameters include feed speed between the grinding or polishing tool and the second workpiece (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “and/or”) and/or a number of grinding or polishing strokes (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “and/or”) and/or an amount of infeed of the grinding or polishing tool to the second workpiece (see above rejection of claim 11. The position of the grinding wheel of Landi is set according to the measured effective oversizes of the tooth or profile flanks. Therefore, the influenced parameter is the amount of infeed of the grinding tool to the second workpiece).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landi (US PGPUB 20160129510) in view of Zhang (US PGPUB 20180128608) and further in view of Yanase (US PGPUB 20130115856) and yet further in view of Ronneberger (US Patent 6577917) and Graf et al. (US PGPUB 20050055836), hereinafter Graf, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pryor et al. (US Patent 4547674), hereinafter Pryor.
Regarding claim 15, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Landi, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the measurement according to step b) is performed by means of a laser as the contactless measuring device.
However, Pryor teaches a optical triangulation gear inspection method and device, wherein a laser 50 (fig. 2A) is utilized to focus a beam by lens 51 to project a spot on a portion of a tooth of gear 45. A microcomputer analyzes the array outputs to determine the position of the spot and therefore, the surface of the gear (col. 3, lines 10-25). Overall, Pryor teaches a laser to determine the position of a surface of the gear.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Landi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Pryor to provide wherein the measurement according to step b) is performed by means of a laser as the contactless measuring device. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the laser measurement sensor of Pryor for the measurement sensor of Zhang (as incorporated into Landi). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known measurement sensor for another known measurement sensor to obtain the predictable results of measuring and determining a position of a surface of a gear workpiece.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landi (US PGPUB 20160129510) in view of Zhang (US PGPUB 20180128608) and further in view of Yanase (US PGPUB 20130115856) and yet further in view of Ronneberger (US Patent 6577917) and Graf et al. (US PGPUB 20050055836), hereinafter Graf, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chan et al. (US PGPUB 20180028898), hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 18, Landi, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Landi, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein after grinding or polishing according to step c), the ground or polished toothing or the toothing-like profile of the second workpiece is measured again.
However, Chan teaches a method of measuring and grinding a workpiece, wherein the workpiece is scanned and measured (step 204, fig. 13), wherein the workpiece is processed (Step 216, fig. 13), wherein after processing the workpiece is measured and verified if the shape of the workpiece matches the desired shape [0070, step 218), wherein the workpiece is reprocessed if the shape is not verified and moved along if the workpiece is verified (fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Landi, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Chan to provide wherein after grinding or polishing according to step c), the ground or polished toothing or the toothing-like profile of the second workpiece is measured again. Specifically, it would have been obvious to measure the second workpiece again after grinding in order to verify if the shape of the workpiece matches the desired shape (as taught by Chan), wherein the second workpiece is reprocessed if the shape is not verified and moved along if the second workpiece is verified (as taught by Chan). Doing so would verify the workpiece is properly shaped before finishing processing, which prevents the delivery of workpieces not to specification. Additionally, doing so promotes quality of the process and workpieces by verifying if the workpieces match the desired shape before finishing processing.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the amended language of claim 11 and that the rejection should be withdrawn. Specifically, Applicant argues Landi does not teach the use of an additional sensor. Similarly, Applicant argues Zhang and Yanase teach a measuring element, without any indication that it should be used in combination with an inductive measuring element. Applicant also argues Graf does not provide the suggestion of working with two sensor systems. Overall, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach using a second sensor to determine the allowance on a tooth flank, as presently claimed (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). However, Landi, Zhang, Yanase and Graf were not the only references relied upon. Rather, Ronneberger (US Patent 6577917) was relied upon to teach a process and apparatus for the automatic measurement of processing and workpiece characteristics when grinding gears, wherein a workpiece is measured with multiple sensors 23 and 24 fitted on an adapter head 22 within multiple planes 26-28 to determine a multitude of parameters including position and position chamber of the upper and lower end face of the gear, the number of teeth and the variation in tooth pitch around the workpiece circumference, the angular position of the tool spaces, the flank machining allowance before grinding, the helix angle beta, the temperature, and vibrations of the workpiece (col. 4, lines 27-49). Additionally, Ronneberger teaches wherein the two or more sensors are fitted on the adapter head, which are designed for the measurement of several like or unlike physical characteristics (col. 5, lines 34-37). Overall, Ronneberger teaches including a plurality of sensors to measure several like or unlike physical characteristics of the same workpiece. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the combination of features in amended claim 11 provides the very advantageous possibility of centering being carried out quickly via the inductor sensor and exact measurement is taken into account by measuring using the tactile or contactless sensor. Applicant submits the prior art does not teach or suggest a combination of two different measuring systems within the meaning of amended claim 11 (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach the very advantageous possibility of centering and exact measurement, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., centering and exact measurement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Overall, the prior art teaches the amended limitations, wherein Ronneberger was relied upon as an intermediary reference to teach the use of two sensors for measuring the same workpiece. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the additionally cited prior art fails to cure the deficiencies of Landi, as modified, and that the prior art rejections should be withdrawn. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Landi, as modified, (as now including the teachings of Ronneberger), teaches the language of claim 11. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723