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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 Mar 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception of an abstract idea (mathematical concepts and mental processes) without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong one:
Independent claims 1, 12, 16, 19, and 20 each recite checking for grinding wheel breakout by “determining a contact signal during the movement over the tip region, the contact signal indicating contact of the dressing tool with the tip region of the grinding wheel; and determining a breakout indicator by analyzing the contact signal, the breakout indicator indicating whether a grinding wheel breakout is present.” These steps of “determining a contact signal” and “determining a breakout indicator” amount to no more than making an observation, evaluation or judgement, which has been determined by the courts to be a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). The contact signal simply indicates whether there is contact between two elements, and the breakout determination is simply determining whether breakout is present. Both of these determinations can be performed in the human mind. These determinations are made at such a high level of generality that they can be practically performed in the human mind (MPEP 2104.04(a) III. A.). Additionally, these determinations relate to mathematical concepts, which have been deemed to be abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. A.). Although not recited in the claims, applicant’s specification indicate that the breakout indicator is compared to a threshold to determine whether breakout is present. This step is not recited in the claims, but does indicate that the abstract idea of the breakout indicator is a mathematical concept which can be used for comparing one value to another. The analysis in this paragraph applies to each of the independent claims.
Specifically regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, each of these claims recites additional abstract ideas including “determining a cutting power signal… indicating an instantaneous metal-cutting power” and “determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout”. Similarly to the determinations discussed in the paragraph above, these are abstract ideas relating to determinations that can be performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts relating to comparison or evaluation of data. Therefore, each of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 (and claims 5-7, 9, and 14-15 dependent therefrom) recites an abstract idea.
Additionally regarding claim 12, the claim recites additional abstract ideas including “detecting a slip between the workpiece and the workpiece spindle”, “determining at least one measured variable comprising at least one of : a rotational speed difference… and an angular deviation determined by a comparison of an angular position…”, and “determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the at least one monitored measured variable”. Similarly to the determinations discussed in the paragraphs above, these are abstract ideas relating to determinations that can be performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts relating to comparison or evaluation of data. Therefore, claim 12 (and claim 13 dependent therefrom) is directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally regarding claim 16, the claim recites additional abstract ideas including “determining a cutting energy indicator…representing a measure for an integrated metal-cutting energy”, and “determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the cutting energy indicators”. Similarly to the determinations discussed in the paragraphs above, these are abstract ideas relating to determinations that can be performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts relating to comparison or evaluation of data. Therefore, claim 16 (and claim 17 dependent therefrom) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract ideas do not result in an improvement of the technology or technical field into which they are directed. The additionally recited elements of independent claims 1, 12, 16, 19, and 20 of machining a workpiece with a grinding machine involving movement of a grinding wheel relative to a workpiece clamped on a spindle, and moving a dressing tool over a tip of the grinding wheel are general recitations of known grinding methods and apparatuses. These additional elements serve only to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the filed of use (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claims as a whole, involve known standard machining steps, with the abstract ideas of making determinations and evaluating data. These determinations are not integrated into the claimed machining methods or apparatuses in such a way as to change or improve their operation in any way. The claimed determining of a breakout indicator and the additional abstract ideas which lead to this determination, does not result in the claimed grinding method or apparatus changing or improving in function in any way. The result of implementing the claimed abstract ideas is merely the abstract determination of whether or not breakout is present. This determination is not used to implement an improved method or design. Additionally, the dependent claims 5-9, 13-15, and 17 do not provide any integration of the abstract ideas into the practical application, as these claims merely provide additional limitations on the abstract ideas themselves. Specifically, claims 5, 13 specify sensors for collecting data. However, as these sensors are conventional generic sensors and simply generate the abstract data upon which the determination is made, this is a simple extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); insignificant extra-solution activity includes “a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process”). Claims 6-7, 9, and 14-15 simply further specifies the abstract data. See arguments for explanation as to why claims 8, 10, and 11 successfully integrate the abstract idea into the technology, which may assist in drafting the claims to overcome the 101 rejections.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited additional elements are general recitations of known grinding methods and apparatuses which are not related to the alleged inventive concept. Specifically, the claims recite methods and apparatuses for machining a workpiece involving movement of a grinding wheel relative to a workpiece clamped on a spindle, and moving a dressing tool over a tip of the grinding wheel. These are well-known conventional methods and structures which are not related to the inventiveness at hand, and thus are simply indicative of the field of use for the abstract ideas. In other words, the claimed determining of a breakout indicator, which is the crux of the entire invention and at the culmination of each of the claimed abstract ideas, does not result in the claimed grinding method or apparatus changing or improving in function in any way. Put another way, the claimed methods steps and controllers for making the claimed determinations involve steps of observing and evaluating a known machine for making a determination of operating conditions of the machine rather than affecting or improving the use of the machine. Thus, the recitation of the machine elements is merely defining the field of use for the claimed abstract determinations and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the dependent claims 5-9, 13-15, and 17 do not add any details which amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, as these claims merely provide additional limitations on the abstract ideas themselves.
Accordingly, claims 1, 5-9, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to one or more abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “an angular deviation which has been determined by a comparison of an angular position of the workpiece spindle after the machining of the workpiece, a corresponding angular position of the workpiece itself, an angular position of the workpiece spindle before the machining of the workpiece and a corresponding angular position of the workpiece itself.” This is confusingly worded and unclear. Exactly what values are being compared here. Why is “a corresponding angular position of the workpiece itself” recited twice? Are these the same angular position? This language recites determining “an angular deviation” by “a comparison”, but it appears that two or three angular positions are accounted for here, making it unclear what is actually being compared. For the purposes of this examination, a single comparison between any two of these claimed angular positions will be read as satisfying the claim, as this is examiner’s best understanding of the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency upon rejected claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the deviation indicator" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what claim element is being referred to here, or if this is meant to be a generic term for any of the optionally determined differences or deviations. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the integral" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This makes it unclear if a particular integral is being referred to here. For the purposes of this examination, this will be interpreted as “an integral” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hug (US 2020/0180104, previously cited) in view of Mavro-Michaelis (US 2006/0035565, previously cited) and Schweizer (US 2020/0189016).
Regarding claim 1, Hug teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts during continuous generating grinding of pre-toothed workpieces with a generating grinding machine, the generating grinding machine comprising a tool spindle (30), at least one workpiece spindle (50), and a dressing device with a dressing tool (80), wherein a grinding wheel (31) having a worm-shaped profile with one or more worm threads is clamped onto the tool spindle (fig 1; [0056]), the grinding wheel being rotatable about a tool axis (B), and wherein the workpieces (51) are adapted to be clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle (fig 1; [0057]), wherein the method comprises: machining the workpieces with the generating grinding machine, wherein for the machining the workpieces are clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle and are successively moved into generating engagement with the grinding wheel (described [0057]); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout, wherein the automatic checking comprises moving a tool (sensor 60) over a tip region of the grinding wheel ([0085]; measures at outer diameter of grinding wheel); determining a contact signal during the movement over the tip region, the contact signal indicating contact of the tool with the tip region of the grinding wheel (the sensor may be a contact displacement sensor as described [0024], [0085]), and determining a breakout indicator by analyzing the contact signal, the breakout indicator indicating whether a grinding wheel breakout is present ([0083] describes determination of breakout with sensor 60; [0085] describes the determination may be based on a contact sensor).
Hug does not teach determining a cutting power signal during machining, determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout depending on a time course of the cutting power signal, or performing the automatic checking for grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout. Mavro-Michaelis teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including determining a cutting power signal during the machining of a workpiece ([0046], [0048]), the cutting power signal indicating an instantaneous metal-cutting power during the machining of each individual workpiece ([0009]); determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the cutting power signal ([0048]; determines if preset limit is exceeded), wherein the warning indicator depends on a time course of the cutting power signal over the machining of a workpiece ([0048]; measured multiple times over the course of machining); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout ([0049]; checks for a second value if the first preset value is exceeded). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a cutting power signal indicating an instantaneous metal-cutting power during the machining of the workpieces of Hug, and determine a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout form the cutting power signal depending on a time course of the cutting power signal and subsequently perform the automatic checking for actual grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout, as power monitoring is a known method for determining wheel wear, and performing the initial determination based on cutting power before performing the subsequent checking for actual breakout allows a reliable determination of breakout to be provided and confirmed as taught by Mavro-Michaelis ([0006], [0048-0049]).
Hug does not teach the automatic checking of the grinding wheel for actual grinding wheel breakout involves moving the dressing tool over the tip region of the grinding wheel (in Hug, the contact sensor is separate from the dressing tool). However, it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Schweizer teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including automatically checking a grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout by moving a dressing tool (22) over a tip region of a grinding wheel (2) to determine a contact signal indicated breakout (fig 2; [0070]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dressing tool of Hug to perform the determination of the contact signal for determining a breakout indicator, as monitoring contact with the dressing wheel is a known technique achieving the predictable result of monitoring a grinding wheel breakout as taught by Schweizer ([0069-0070]), resulting in fewer components necessary to achieve the determination.
Regarding claim 6, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hug further teaches the dressing device comprises a dressing spindle on which the dressing tool is clamped ([0038]). Hug does not teach the contact signal comprises a tip dressing power signal. Schweizer further teaches the dressing device (22) comprises a dressing spindle (not shown, but indicated by rotational arrow and rotational axis in fig 2) on which the dressing tool is clamped, and wherein the contact signal comprises a tip dressing power signal which is representative of the power consumption of the dressing spindle during the movement over the tip region ([0070-0071]; “power consumption” of the axial drive). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the power consumption of the spindle of Hug as the contact signal, as the power consumption of the spindle is indicative of contact between the dressing tool and grinding wheel which can indicate damage on the grinding wheel as taught by Schweizer ([0070-0071]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hug further teaches the breakout indicator indicates a location of the grinding wheel breakout along at least one of the worm threads of the grinding wheel ([0085] breakout is indicated at location on external diameter of grinding wheel); and wherein the method comprises: dressing the grinding wheel if the breakout indicator indicates the presence of a grinding wheel breakout ([0083], last sentence).
Regarding claim 9, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Schweizer further teaches (when the dressing tool is used for the contact measurement as detailed in the rejection above) the automatic checking of the grinding wheel for a grinding wheel breakout comprises dressing the grinding wheel with at least one dressing stroke (as described [0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Hug further teaches the dressing device comprises a dressing spindle on which the dressing tool is clamped ([0038]), wherein the method comprises determining a breakout measure by analyzing a time course of the contact signal during the checking ([0083-0085]; analyzes changes in diameter over time), the breakout measure reflecting at least one characteristic of the grinding wheel breakout (variation in local diameter reflects measure of breakout [0083]); and depending on the breakout measure, repeating the dressing of the grinding wheel ([0083], last sentence). Hug does not teach determining a dressing power signal representative of the power consumption of the dressing spindle or tool spindle during the dressing. a tip dressing power signal. Schweizer further teaches the dressing device (22) comprises a dressing spindle (not shown, but indicated by rotational arrow and rotational axis in fig 2) on which the dressing tool is clamped, and determining a dressing power signal is representative of the power consumption of the dressing spindle during the dressing ([0070-0071]; “power consumption” of the axial drive). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a dressing power signal during dressing, representative of the power consumption of the dressing spindle or tool spindle during the dressing of Hug, as the power consumption of the spindle is indicative of contact between the dressing tool and grinding wheel which can indicate damage on the grinding wheel as taught by Schweizer ([0070-0071]).
Regarding claim 11, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Hug further teaches the analysis of the time course of the dressing power signal includes: determining a fluctuation variable, wherein the fluctuation variable indicates local changes in the magnitude of the dressing power signal (when dressing power is used as the measured signal as detailed in the rejection of claim 10 above) along at least one of the worm threads (as described in [0083] of Hug, local fluctuations in the diameter of at least one of the worm threads is indicated by the signal).
Regarding claims 14-15, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mavro-Michaelis further teaches the warning indicator (when determined based on the modification of Hug in view of Mavro-Michaelis as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) depends on the occurrence of a sudden steep rise and subsequent steep drop in the cutting power signal during the machining of an individual workpiece (rises and drops shown in fig 2); and wherein the cutting power signal is a measure of instantaneous power consumption of the tool spindle during the machining of a workpiece ([0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Hug teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts during continuous generating grinding of pre-toothed workpieces with a generating grinding machine, the generating grinding machine comprising a tool spindle (30), at least one workpiece spindle (50), and a dressing device with a dressing tool (80), wherein a grinding wheel (31) having a worm-shaped profile with one or more worm threads is clamped onto the tool spindle (fig 1; [0056]), the grinding wheel being rotatable about a tool axis (B), and wherein the workpieces (51) are adapted to be clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle (fig 1; [0057]), wherein the method comprises: machining the workpieces with the generating grinding machine, wherein for the machining the workpieces are clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle and are successively moved into generating engagement with the grinding wheel (described [0057]), wherein the method comprises executing a continuous or discontinuous shifting movement between the grinding wheel and the workpieces along the tool axis (displaced along z direction as detailed [0056], [0086]); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout, wherein the automatic checking comprises moving a tool (sensor 60) over a tip region of the grinding wheel ([0085]; measures at outer diameter of grinding wheel); determining a contact signal during the movement over the tip region, the contact signal indicating contact of the tool with the tip region of the grinding wheel (the sensor may be a contact displacement sensor as described [0024], [0085]), and determining a breakout indicator by analyzing the contact signal, the breakout indicator indicating whether a grinding wheel breakout is present ([0083] describes determination of breakout with sensor 60; [0085] describes the determination may be based on a contact sensor).
Hug does not teach determining a cutting energy indicator representing a measure for an integrated metal cutting energy for machining the respective workpiece with the generating grinding machine, determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the cutting energy indicators, wherein the warning indicator depends on how the cutting energy indicators change in the course of the shifting movement during the production of a plurality of workpieces of one production batch. Mavro-Michaelis teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including determining a cutting energy indicator ([0009]) representing a measure for an integrated metal cutting energy for machining a respective workpiece with the generating grinding machine ([0039]), determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the cutting energy indicators, wherein the warning indicator depends on how the cutting energy indicators change in the course of the shifting movement during the production of a plurality of workpieces of one production batch (discussed in [0040] as well as [0048-0049]) and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout ([0049]; checks for a second value if the first preset value is exceeded). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determining a cutting energy indicator representing a measure for an integrated metal cutting energy for machining the respective workpiece with the generating grinding machine of Hug, determine a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the cutting energy indicators, wherein the warning indicator depends on how the cutting energy indicators change in the course of the shifting movement during the production of a plurality of workpieces of one production batch as energy monitoring is a known method for determining wheel wear over the course of several workpieces, and performing the initial determination based on cutting energy before performing the subsequent checking for actual breakout allows a reliable determination of breakout to be provided and confirmed as taught by Mavro-Michaelis ([0006], [0048-0049]).
Hug does not teach the automatic checking of the grinding wheel for actual grinding wheel breakout involves moving the dressing tool over the tip region of the grinding wheel (in Hug, the contact sensor is separate from the dressing tool). However, it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Schweizer teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including automatically checking a grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout by moving a dressing tool (22) over a tip region of a grinding wheel (2) to determine a contact signal indicated breakout (fig 2; [0070]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dressing tool of Hug to perform the determination of the contact signal for determining a breakout indicator, as monitoring contact with the dressing wheel is a known technique achieving the predictable result of monitoring a grinding wheel breakout as taught by Schweizer ([0069-0070]), resulting in fewer components necessary to achieve the determination.
Regarding claim 17, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Mavro-Michaelis further teaches (when the cutting energy indicator is employed as detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above), the cutting energy indicator is a measure of the integral of power consumption of the tool spindle during the machining of an individual workpiece (as detailed in [0057-0058], an average of power consumption is used as an energy indicator).
Regarding claim 19, Hug teaches a generating grinding machine comprising a tool spindle (30) on which a grinding wheel (31) having a worm-shaped profile with one or more worm threads can be clamped (fig 1; [0056]; note that the grinding wheel is not positively recited as a part of the claimed machine), at least one workpiece spindle (50) for driving pre-toothed workpieces (51) to rotate about a workpiece axis ([0057]), and a dressing device with a dressing tool (80), and a machine controller (70; [0060]) configured to execute a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts comprising, machining the workpieces with the generating grinding machine, wherein for the machining the workpieces are clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle and are successively moved into generating engagement with the grinding wheel (described [0057]); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout, wherein the automatic checking comprises moving a tool (sensor 60) over a tip region of the grinding wheel ([0085]; measures at outer diameter of grinding wheel); determining a contact signal during the movement over the tip region, the contact signal indicating contact of the tool with the tip region of the grinding wheel (the sensor may be a contact displacement sensor as described [0024], [0085]), and determining a breakout indicator by analyzing the contact signal, the breakout indicator indicating whether a grinding wheel breakout is present ([0083] describes determination of breakout with sensor 60; [0085] describes the determination may be based on a contact sensor).
Hug does not teach determining a cutting power signal during machining, determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout depending on a time course of the cutting power signal, or performing the automatic checking for grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout. Mavro-Michaelis teaches a generating grinding machine for executing a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including determining a cutting power signal during the machining of a workpiece ([0046], [0048]), the cutting power signal indicating an instantaneous metal-cutting power during the machining of each individual workpiece ([0009]); determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the cutting power signal ([0048]; determines if preset limit is exceeded), wherein the warning indicator depends on a time course of the cutting power signal over the machining of a workpiece ([0048]; measured multiple times over the course of machining); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout ([0049]; checks for a second value if the first preset value is exceeded). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a cutting power signal indicating an instantaneous metal-cutting power during the machining of the workpieces of Hug, and determine a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout form the cutting power signal depending on a time course of the cutting power signal and subsequently perform the automatic checking for actual grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout, as power monitoring is a known method for determining wheel wear, and performing the initial determination based on cutting power before performing the subsequent checking for actual breakout allows a reliable determination of breakout to be provided and confirmed as taught by Mavro-Michaelis ([0006], [0048-0049]).
Hug does not teach the automatic checking of the grinding wheel for actual grinding wheel breakout involves moving the dressing tool over the tip region of the grinding wheel (in Hug, the contact sensor is separate from the dressing tool). However, it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Schweizer teaches a generating grinding machine configured to execute a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including automatically checking a grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout by moving a dressing tool (22) over a tip region of a grinding wheel (2) to determine a contact signal indicated breakout (fig 2; [0070]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dressing tool of Hug to perform the determination of the contact signal for determining a breakout indicator, as monitoring contact with the dressing wheel is a known technique achieving the predictable result of monitoring a grinding wheel breakout as taught by Schweizer ([0069-0070]), resulting in fewer components necessary to achieve the determination.
Regarding claim 20, Hug teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (71) comprising a computer program ([0060]), the computer program comprising instructions which cause a machine controller (70) in a generating grinding machine that further comprises a tool spindle (30) on which a grinding wheel (31) having a worm-shaped profile with one or more worm threads can be clamped (fig 1; [0056]) and configured to be driven to rotate about a tool axis (B), at least one workpiece spindle (50) for driving pre-toothed workpieces (51) to rotate about a workpiece axis ([0057]), and a dressing device with a dressing tool (80), to carry out a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts comprising, machining the workpieces with the generating grinding machine, wherein for the machining the workpieces are clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle and are successively moved into generating engagement with the grinding wheel (described [0057]); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout, wherein the automatic checking comprises moving a tool (sensor 60) over a tip region of the grinding wheel ([0085]; measures at outer diameter of grinding wheel); determining a contact signal during the movement over the tip region, the contact signal indicating contact of the tool with the tip region of the grinding wheel (the sensor may be a contact displacement sensor as described [0024], [0085]), and determining a breakout indicator by analyzing the contact signal, the breakout indicator indicating whether a grinding wheel breakout is present ([0083] describes determination of breakout with sensor 60; [0085] describes the determination may be based on a contact sensor).
Hug does not teach determining a cutting power signal during machining, determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout depending on a time course of the cutting power signal, or performing the automatic checking for grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout. Mavro-Michaelis teaches a generating grinding machine for executing a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including determining a cutting power signal during the machining of a workpiece ([0046], [0048]), the cutting power signal indicating an instantaneous metal-cutting power during the machining of each individual workpiece ([0009]); determining a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout from the cutting power signal ([0048]; determines if preset limit is exceeded), wherein the warning indicator depends on a time course of the cutting power signal over the machining of a workpiece ([0048]; measured multiple times over the course of machining); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout ([0049]; checks for a second value if the first preset value is exceeded). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the instructions of Hug to determine a cutting power signal indicating an instantaneous metal-cutting power during the machining of the workpieces of Hug, and determine a warning indicator for a possible grinding wheel breakout form the cutting power signal depending on a time course of the cutting power signal and subsequently perform the automatic checking for actual grinding wheel breakout if the warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout, as power monitoring is a known method for determining wheel wear, and performing the initial determination based on cutting power before performing the subsequent checking for actual breakout allows a reliable determination of breakout to be provided and confirmed as taught by Mavro-Michaelis ([0006], [0048-0049]).
Hug does not teach the automatic checking of the grinding wheel for actual grinding wheel breakout involves moving the dressing tool over the tip region of the grinding wheel (in Hug, the contact sensor is separate from the dressing tool). However, it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Schweizer teaches a generating grinding machine configured to execute a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including automatically checking a grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout by moving a dressing tool (22) over a tip region of a grinding wheel (2) to determine a contact signal indicated breakout (fig 2; [0070]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the instructions of Hub use the dressing tool of Hug to perform the determination of the contact signal for determining a breakout indicator, as monitoring contact with the dressing wheel is a known technique achieving the predictable result of monitoring a grinding wheel breakout as taught by Schweizer ([0069-0070]), resulting in fewer components necessary to achieve the determination
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hug, Mavro-Michaelis, and Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ribbeck (US 2016/0199963).
Regarding claim 5, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hug does not teach an acoustic sensor acoustically detecting the engagement of the dressing tool with the grinding wheel, wherein the contact signal comprises an acoustic signal determined using the acoustic sensor. However, Schweizer further teaches a contact signal comprising an acoustic signal for detecting the engagement of the dressing tool with the grinding wheel (Schweizer [0069]; determines contact by noise); and Ribbeck further teaches determining engagement of a dressing tool with a grinding wheel with an acoustic sensor (40; [0067]). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an acoustic sensor in the grinding machine of Hug and to detect the contact signal with an acoustic signal determined using the acoustic sensor, as this is a known method achieving the predictable result of determining contact between a dresser and grinding wheel as taught by Ribbeck ([0067]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hug (US 2020/0180104, previously cited) in view of Hirano (US 5525092) and Schweizer (US 2020/0189016).
Regarding claim 12, Hug teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts during continuous generating grinding of pre-toothed workpieces with a generating grinding machine, the generating grinding machine comprising a tool spindle (30), at least one workpiece spindle (50), and a dressing device with a dressing tool (80), wherein a grinding wheel (31) having a worm-shaped profile with one or more worm threads is clamped onto the tool spindle (fig 1; [0056]), the grinding wheel being rotatable about a tool axis (B), and wherein the workpieces (51) are adapted to be clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle (fig 1; [0057]), wherein the method comprises: machining the workpieces with the generating grinding machine, wherein for the machining the workpieces are clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle and are successively moved into generating engagement with the grinding wheel (described [0057]); and automatically checking the grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout if a warning indicator indicates a possible grinding wheel breakout (warning indicator described in the discussion of Hirano below; the automatic checking of Hug occurs whether or not this indicator is determined), wherein the automatic checking comprises moving a tool (sensor 60) over a tip region of the grinding wheel ([0085]; measures at outer diameter of grinding wheel); determining a contact signal during the movement over the tip region, the contact signal indicating contact of the tool with the tip region of the grinding wheel (the sensor may be a contact displacement sensor as described [0024], [0085]), and determining a breakout indicator by analyzing the contact signal, the breakout indicator indicating whether a grinding wheel breakout is present ([0083] describes determination of breakout with sensor 60; [0085] describes the determination may be based on a contact sensor).
Hug does not teach detecting a slip between the workpiece and the workpiece spindle during the machining of the workpieces by determining at least one measured variable comprising at least one of a speed difference and angular deviation determined by comparison of an angular position of the workpiece spindle and workpiece. Hirano teaches a method for controlling a grinding wheel including detecting a slip between the workpiece and the workpiece spindle during the machining of the workpieces by determining at least one measured variable comprising at least one of: (a)a rotational speed difference between a rotational speed of the workpiece spindle and a resulting rotational speed of the workpiece (note that this is an optional alternative, Hirano teaches the other claimed alternative), and (b) an angular deviation which has been determined by a comparison of an angular position of the workpiece spindle after the machining of the workpiece and a corresponding angular position of the workpiece itself (col 7, line 56- col 8, line 10; angular position of workpiece after machining is compared with angular position of workpiece spindle to determine slippage), and determining a warning indicator for possible grinding wheel breakout (although breakout is not explicitly described in Hirano, indication of slippage is an indicator of possible breakout) from the at least one monitored measured variable (col 7, line 56- col 8, line 10; if difference exceeds a threshold, abnormal operating condition is indicated). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect a slip between the workpiece and the workpiece spindle of Hug during the machining of the workpieces by determining at least one measured variable comprising at least one of a speed difference and angular deviation determined by comparison of an angular position of the workpiece spindle and workpiece, as this determination allows the workpieces to be machined with high accuracy as taught by Hirano (col 2, lines 31-48).
Hug does not teach the automatic checking of the grinding wheel for actual grinding wheel breakout involves moving the dressing tool over the tip region of the grinding wheel (in Hug, the contact sensor is separate from the dressing tool). However, it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Schweizer teaches a method for determining grinding wheel breakouts including automatically checking a grinding wheel for an actual grinding wheel breakout by moving a dressing tool (22) over a tip region of a grinding wheel (2) to determine a contact signal indicated breakout (fig 2; [0070]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dressing tool of Hug to perform the determination of the contact signal for determining a breakout indicator, as monitoring contact with the dressing wheel is a known technique achieving the predictable result of monitoring a grinding wheel breakout as taught by Schweizer ([0069-0070]), resulting in fewer components necessary to achieve the determination.
Regarding claim 13, Hug, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as described above. Hirano further teaches (when the angular deviation of Hirano is included as detailed in the rejection of claim 12 above) a meshing probe (19) for determining in a contactless fashion an angular position of a workpiece which is clamped onto the at least one workpiece spindle, and wherein the deviation indicator, the rotational speed and/or the respective angular position of the workpiece are/is sensed with the meshing probe (as detailed in fig 1 and col 5, lines 28-33, contactless magnetic meshing probe is used to determine rotation number which is used for the comparison).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 Mar 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed method is not an abstract idea, and therefore does not warrant a rejection under 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are full of steps for making determinations and collecting and comparing data which clearly falls under the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claimed signals are real-time electronic measurements implemented by the claimed machine for the purpose of monitoring the physical state of the machine. However, the monitoring of state of the machine is an abstract idea itself. As detailed in the rejection above, the determination of a breakout indicator is simply a determination of the state of the machine. This determination is not used in the claims to alter or improve the grinding machine in any way. Applicant’s arguments that the claimed machine results in “a system that is more reliable, efficient, and less prone to costly failures” does not reflect any actual claimed element in claims 1, 5-7, 9, 12-17 and 19-20. In other words, the result of the claimed determinations is simply determining a breakout indicator. The machine associated with these determinations is a conventional machine which is not changed or affected by this determination.
Applicant argues that the specific implementations of the claimed measurements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. However, these implementations merely result in the generation of the abstract data which is then organized to have mathematical determinations made. This does not amount to anything more than generation of data, which is an abstract idea. For more specific reasons as to why these implementations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, see the rejections above.
However, the implementation in claims 8, 10, and 11 does amount to an integration of the abstract idea into the claimed machine. As claims 8, 10 and 11 actually perform a dressing step in response to the breakout indicator, these claims positively integrate the abstract idea into the machine and result in an improved system. Examiner suggests reciting an additional claimed step in the independent claims which actually uses the determination of the breakout indicator to implement an improvement, as simply monitoring the machine and making the determination is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into the machine. Applicant’s specification appears to have support for steps which stop the machine to prevent damage, continuing machining while blocking off the damaged region of the grinding wheel, or eliminating the breakout by dressing the grinding wheel, which may be implemented into the claims so as to overcome the current 101 rejections.
Regarding claim 12, applicant argues that Hug does not anticipate the claimed slip detection or dressing tool breakout detection. However, as detailed in the rejection above, these limitations are rendered obvious by Hirano and Schweizer.
Regarding claims 1, 19, 20, and their dependents, applicant argues that Hug teaches away from using the dressing tool as a diagnostic probe. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Hug does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (MPEP 2143.01 I). Applicant further argues that Mavro-Michaelis and Lei do not teach this limitation. However, as detailed in the rejections above, Schweizer renders this claim limitation obvious.
Regarding claim 16, applicant argues that Mavro-Michaelis does not teach the claimed shifting movement. However, as broadly claimed, this movement is merely the movement that occurs during machining of the workpiece, which is described by both Hug and Mavro-Michaelis. Applicant further argues that Mavro-Michaelis does not teach the claimed trend analysis. It is unclear what specific claim limitation applicant is referring to in this argument, but Mavro-Michaelis does teach integrating or averaging the data, which appears to be the claimed energy indicator being “a measure of the integral” recite din claim 17. As currently recited, claim 16 fails to distinguish over the cutting energy indicator rendered obvious by Mavro-Michaelis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar machining methods and devices are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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 at 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights