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 .
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitations “a virtual plane surface” and “the virtual plane surface”. These limitations are indefinite because they are unclear and fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what they mean. Specifically, do these limitations refer to the “virtual plane surface” recited in claim 1, or do they refer to a different “virtual plane surface”? Examiner suggests designating these as first and second “virtual plane surface” if they are indeed different. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
Maier in view of Shiner1 and Shiner2
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 5160232 A (“Maier”), GB 471709 A (“Shiner1”), and GB 452750 A (“Shiner2”).
Maier pertains to drill bits (Abstr.; Figs. 1-27). Shiner1 pertains to twist drills (Figs. 1-5; p. 1, lines 9-14). Shiner2 pertains to twist drills (Figs. 1-5; p. 1, lines 8-25). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Maier discloses a method of producing a drill (Figs. 26-27; 9:13-60), the drill comprising
a drill main body (Fig. 2, main body as shown), the drill main body comprising a chip discharge flute (Figs. 1, 2, flute 15), a rake surface (Fig. 2, rake surface 21) and a cutting blade (Figs. 1, 2, blade edges 4 and 5), a tip end being formed at a first side of an axial direction of a drill axial center of the drill main body (Fig. 2, tip end at element 43, drill axis 20),
the drill being rotated around the drill axial center (Figs. 1, 2, drill has the same cross-section arranged in a helical spiral around the drill axis 20; this limitation is interpreted to mean that the drill has a structural arrangement that is the same, when rotated in a helical spiral about the drill axis, for at least some axial distance),
the drill main body being formed extending in a direction of the axial direction (Fig. 2, drill main body is formed extending longitudinally in the direction of the drill axis 20),
the cutting blade being formed at the tip end side of the drill main body (Figs. 1, 2, blade edges 4 and 5 is formed at the tip end at element 43),
the chip discharge flute having a helical shape formed on the drill main body and helically extending from the tip end side of the drill main body toward a rear end side of the drill main body (Fig. 2, flute 15 has a helical shape on the main body and extends from tip end at element 43 towards the rear end of the drill; 5:28-31),
and the rake surface being formed facing the chip discharge flute at the tip end side of the drill main body and extending from the cutting blade along the chip discharge flute (Fig. 2, rake surface 21 faces flute 15 and extends from tip end at element 43 towards the rear end of the drill),
the method comprising steps of:
preparing a workpiece, to be processed to produce the drill... (Figs. 26, 27, bit 72 to be processed into a drill),
forming a ground groove on the rake surface by grinding the rake surface, in a direction extending along the chip discharge flute... (Figs. 1, 2, groove 23 extends along flute 15; Figs. 21, 26, 27; 9:13-60),
and the rotary whetstone has a rotating body shape projecting in a radial outward direction of the rotary whetstone axial center and around the rotary whetstone axial center (Figs. 26, 27, tool 74 has a circular body shape and projects radially outward from and around the whetstone axis 75),
wherein the groove formation step forms the groove having an inner groove wall surface and an outer groove wall surface (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
where the inner groove wall surface of the groove is arranged on an inward side of the groove in a drill radial inward direction of the drill axial center, and the outer groove wall surface of the groove is arranged on an outward side of the groove in a drill radial outward direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
and the outer groove wall surface is oblique to the rake surface (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
[AltContent: textbox (“Rake surface”)][AltContent: textbox (“Inner groove wall surface”)][AltContent: textbox (“Outer groove wall surface”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Radial outward direction)][AltContent: textbox (Radial inward direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Center axis of drill)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
91
179
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maier Fig. 1 (annotated, portion enlarged)
PNG
media_image2.png
358
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
366
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Maier Figs. 1 and 2
Maier does not explicitly disclose the following with respect to the production of the drill bit embodiment of Figs. 1-2:
preparing a workpiece, to be processed to produce the drill on which the cutting blade, the chip discharge flute and the rake surface have been formed;
forming a ground groove on the rake surface by grinding the rake surface, in a direction extending along the chip discharge flute by using a rotary whetstone turning around a rotary whetstone axial center thereof,
wherein in the groove formation step, the rotary whetstone axial center of the rotary whetstone is arranged to intersect the drill axial center when the drill axial center and the rotary whetstone axial center are projected onto a virtual plane surface parallel with the drill axial center and the rotary whetstone axial center,
the inner groove wall surface is perpendicular to the rake surface.
However, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious this claim.
Shiner1 discloses:
wherein the groove formation step forms the groove having an inner groove wall surface and an outer groove wall surface (Figs. 1-5, grooves 2, with inner groove wall surfaces 4 and outer groove wall surfaces 5, see annotated Fig. 1 below),
where the inner groove wall surface of the groove is arranged on an inward side of the groove in a drill radial inward direction of the drill axial center, and the outer groove wall surface of the groove is arranged on an outward side of the groove in a drill radial outward direction (Figs. 1-5, grooves 2, with inner groove wall surfaces 4 and outer groove wall surfaces 5, see annotated Fig. 1 below),
the inner groove wall surface is perpendicular to the rake surface, and the outer groove wall surface is oblique to the rake surface (Figs. 1-5, grooves 2, with inner groove wall surfaces 4 perpendicular to the rake surface, and outer groove wall surfaces 5 oblique to the rake surface, see annotated Fig. 1 below).
[AltContent: textbox (“Outer groove wall surface”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Inner groove wall surface”)]
[AltContent: textbox (Radial outward direction)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (“Rake surface”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radial inward direction)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
305
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shiner1 Fig. 1 (annotated)
Shiner2 discloses:
wherein the groove formation step forms the groove having an inner groove wall surface and an outer groove wall surface (Figs. 1-5, grooves b),
where the inner groove wall surface of the groove is arranged on an inward side of the groove in a drill radial inward direction of the drill axial center, and the outer groove wall surface of the groove is arranged on an outward side of the groove in a drill radial outward direction (Figs. 1-5, grooves b),
the inner groove wall surface is perpendicular to the rake surface, and the outer groove wall surface is oblique to the rake surface (Figs. 1-5, grooves b of Fig. 1 have inner groove wall surfaces that are perpendicular to the rake surface, and grooves b of Fig. 4 have outer groove wall surfaces oblique to the rake surface).
PNG
media_image5.png
331
620
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
303
315
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
305
319
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Shiner2 Figs. 1 and 3-5
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Shiner1 with Maier to modify the trapezoidal cross section of the Maier grooves 23 (Maier Figs. 1-2, 5:46-6:18) to a different groove configuration (i.e., groove cross section), such as the recited groove configuration of claim 1, which is disclosed by Shiner1. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the choice of the groove cross section is obvious to try and is a design choice based on how the chips are broken into smaller pieces and removed during a particular drilling application (e.g., a particular drill size being rotated at a particular drilling speed for a particular workpiece material) (Maier 5:60-6:18, “From the point of view of forces, this asymmetric arrangement has almost no importance, since it serves solely for removing the chips after cutting from the main cutting edge 4 or 5 as much as possible in an even flow along a limited friction surface. The limits of the friction surface are defined here by the alternating guide grooves 23 and guide ribs 24, and due to the even transport of the chips a jamming thereof is avoided, relieving thereby the drill surface at the tool. The surface quality of the drill surface is improved. Since the guide grooves and ribs 23 and 24, which run parallel in the flute flanks, continue until they reach the primary cutting edge 4 and 5, they act there as chip-breakers.”). The implementation of the desired groove cross section is within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see Shiner1 Figs. 1-5; Shiner2 Figs. 1-5; Maier Figs. 1-25, each disclosing various groove cross sections), where the actual choice could be determined experimentally to see which cross section design breaks down chips best, removes the most chips, and/or yields the best drilling performance (e.g., speed of operation, durability of the drill bit, quality of produced hole, etc.) for the particular drilling application (see Shiner1 p. 1, lines 36-52, “The present invention is based upon the observation which has been made during extensive investigations in connection with drills of the character in question”). Applicant has not disclosed that the recited groove configuration of claim 1 provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs (see Spec. p. 20, lines 20-24, “As shown in FIG. 4, in each of the embodiments previously described, the inner groove wall surface 321 is perpendicularly arranged to the rake surface 24. However, the concept of the present disclosure is not limited by this. It is acceptable to form the inner groove wall surface 321 which is slightly tilted to the rake surface 24.”). Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this groove configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
To the extent the inner groove wall surface 4 of Shiner1 does not meet the limitation “is perpendicular to the rake surface”, Shiner2 teaches other cross-sectional shapes for the grooves, including ones where the inner groove wall surface is perpendicular to the rake surface (Shiner2, Fig. 1, rectangular grooves b with perpendicular inner groove wall surface; Figs. 3-5, p. 1, lines 49-57, also disclosing V-shaped, semi-cylindrical, and “of any other convenient form”). Examiner notes that Shiner1 and Shiner2 have the same inventor. Based on the various disclosed groove cross sections (Shiner1 Figs. 1-5; Shiner2 Figs. 1-5; Maier Figs. 1-25), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Shiner1 (outer groove wall surface oblique to the rake surface) and Shiner2 (inner groove wall surface perpendicular to the rake surface) with Maier to modify the trapezoidal cross section of the Maier grooves 23 (Maier Figs. 1-2, 5:46-6:18) to the recited cross section of claim 1 for the same reasons discussed above.
With respect to the “preparing”, “forming”, and “wherein in the groove formation step” limitations, Maier teaches producing a drill by taking a bit 72 and performing various machining operations on it using a cutter or a grinding wheel (Figs. 26, 27; 9:13-60). Specifically, Maier teaches that the tool 74 can move radially relative to the drill bit (Fig. 27, element 77), in the axial direction of the drill bit (Fig. 26, elements 78 and 83), and can be angled relative to the drill bit (Figs. 26, 27, element 80, also note angle of tool 74). Further, the drill bit 72 can move towards and away from the tool (Fig. 27, element 80), in the axial direction (Fig. 26, elements 81 and 82), can rotate axially clockwise and counterclockwise (Fig. 27, elements 79 and 89), including in a helical/spiral manner (9:36-38), and can be angled relative to the tool (Fig. 26, element 80). Maier explains that a single tool 74, using these “various production steps separately” (9:14-16), would be able to produce the drill of Fig. 21. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that these machining procedures could be used not only for the drill of Fig. 21, but used to produce all of the drills (and their grooves) disclosed in Maier because they are less complex than the drill embodiment of Fig. 21 (9:51-60, “This can take place through swinging, but also through displacement or twisting according to double arrow 80. All this can be done with the single tool 74, for instance through twisting and swinging. The rule is here that from several motions to be performed concurrently, each component, tool or bit, performs at least one of these motions and that these motions are superimposed.”). Examiner notes that techniques for grinding/machining/sharpening helical flutes (which would also apply to grinding grooves on the rake surface), including moving and rotating the tool and/or the drill bit, are well known in the art (US 3098325 A (“Gudmundsen”) Figs. 1-5; US 20170203374 A1 (“Tempelmeier”) Figs. 1-3; US 6419561 B1 (“George”) Figs. 5, 7-9).
Thus, based on this Maier teaching (Figs. 26, 27; 9:13-60) and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art regarding drill manufacturing (as evidenced by other prior art), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to apply these taught movements to perform the recited method steps of claim 1 to produce grooves on the rake surface of the drill, including:
preparing a workpiece, to be processed to produce the drill, on which the cutting blade, the chip discharge flute and the rake surface have been formed (e.g., obtaining a drill already having a cutting blade, a flute, and a rake surface; or alternatively, taking a blank, cutting a flute (thereby creating a rake surface) and creating a cutting blade at the tip end of a bit to prepare the drill bit for the next step);
forming a ground groove on the rake surface by grinding the rake surface, in a direction extending along the chip discharge flute by using a rotary whetstone turning around a rotary whetstone axial center thereof (e.g., angling the tool while holding the tool stationary, and rotating the drill while also moving it axially, and grinding groove 23 on the rake surface 21, extending along flute 15 (similar operation to forming a drill flute helix); 9:36-41, “for the control of the spiral ascent”),
wherein in the groove formation step, the rotary whetstone axial center of the rotary whetstone is arranged to intersect the drill axial center when the drill axial center and the rotary whetstone axial center are projected onto a virtual plane surface parallel with the drill axial center and the rotary whetstone axial center (e.g., when viewed from the perspective shown by the arrow in annotated Figs. 26-27 below, axis 75 of the whetstone intersects axis 73 of the drill bit 72 when projected onto a virtual plane that is parallel to both axis 73 and axis 75 and extends perpendicularly in and out of the paper in the perspective of Figs. 26 and 27 (the virtual plane would be located to the left of axis 73 in Figs. 26-27)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply these taught movements to perform the recited method steps of claim 1 to produce a groove on the rake surface of the drill because grinding the grooves in this manner is more economical and can be done with a basic rotary grinding tool and a workholder, as taught by Maier, compared to other methods than may be impractical due to dimensional constraints (the helical twist of the drill and its flutes limits tool access to the rake surface) and/or may require expensive equipment (e.g., waterjet or laser cutting). Further, if a reference teaches every claimed element of the article (the drill with grooves as claimed and disclosed in Maier Figs. 1-3), secondary evidence may be cited to show public possession of the method of making the article (e.g., Maier Figs. 26-27; 9:13-60). MPEP § 2121.01(I).
[AltContent: textbox (One example of the “virtual plane”)]
[AltContent: textbox (“Arranged to intersect” when viewed from this side perspective)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Arranged to intersect” when viewed from this side perspective)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image8.png
787
788
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
478
804
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Maier Figs. 26 and 27 (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Maier further discloses wherein the chip discharge flute has a helical shape turning in a first side of a drill circumferential direction of the drill axial center toward the tip end side from the rear end side of the drill main body (Figs. 1, 2, flute 15; Examiner notes that “a first side of a drill circumferential direction” means a clockwise axial rotation when viewing the tip end of the drill (Spec. Fig. 2)),
Maier does not explicitly disclose:
the groove formation step moves the workpiece toward a first side of the axial direction while rotating the workpiece, relatively with respect to a location of the rotary whetstone, in the first side of the drill circumferential direction.
However, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious this claim.
For the same obviousness rationale discussed for claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to apply the Maier teachings concerning the drill production movements (Figs. 26, 27; 9:13-60) to perform the recited method steps of claim 2, including:
the groove formation step moves the workpiece toward a first side of the axial direction while rotating the workpiece, relatively with respect to a location of the rotary whetstone, in the first side of the drill circumferential direction (e.g., moving the drill 72 axially upward, while rotating the drill clockwise, relative to a stationary tool 74, such that a groove is formed starting from the tip end 43 to the rear end of the drill; 9:36-41, “for the control of the spiral ascent”).
Regarding claim 3, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Maier further discloses wherein the chip discharge flute has a helical shape turning in a first side of a drill circumferential direction of the drill axial center toward the tip end side from the rear end side of the drill main body (Figs. 1, 2, flute 15; Examiner notes that “a first side of a drill circumferential direction” means a clockwise axial rotation when viewing the tip end of the drill (Spec. Fig. 2)),
Maier does not explicitly disclose:
the groove formation step moves the workpiece toward a second side which is opposite to the first side of the axial direction while rotating the workpiece, relatively with respect to a location of the rotary whetstone, in the other direction of the drill circumferential direction.
However, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious this claim.
For the same obviousness rationale discussed for claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to apply the Maier teachings concerning the drill production movements (Figs. 26, 27; 9:13-60) to perform the recited method steps of claim 3, including:
the groove formation step moves the workpiece toward a second side which is opposite to the first side of the axial direction while rotating the workpiece, relatively with respect to a location of the rotary whetstone, in the other direction of the drill circumferential direction (e.g., moving the drill 72 axially downward, while rotating the drill counterclockwise, relative to a stationary tool 74, such that a groove is formed starting rear end of the drill to the tip end 43; see 9:36-41, “for the control of the spiral ascent” (the opposite movement results in a spiral descent), Examiner interprets “the other direction of the drill circumferential direction” to mean a counterclockwise axial rotation when viewing the tip end of the drill (Spec. Fig. 2, “second side”)).
Regarding claim 7, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Maier does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the groove formation step arranges the rotary whetstone axial center of the rotary whetstone to be oblique to the drill axial center, so that the cutting blade in contact with the rake surface to be ground is arranged closer to the rear end side of the drill main body than to an intersection point between a virtual plane surface and the drill axial center, the virtual plane surface passing through an outer circumferential end position of the cutting blade and being orthogonal to the rotary whetstone axial center.
However, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious this claim.
For the same obviousness rationale discussed for claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to apply the Maier teachings concerning the drill production movements (Figs. 26, 27; 9:13-60) to perform the following recited method steps of claim 7, including:
wherein the groove formation step arranges the rotary whetstone axial center of the rotary whetstone to be oblique to the drill axial center (Figs. 26, 27, as shown, the axial center of the whetstone is oblique with respect to the drill axial center),
so that the cutting blade in contact with the rake surface to be ground is arranged closer to the rear end side of the drill main body than to an intersection between a virtual plane surface and the drill axial center (e.g., grinding a groove at the tip end of the drill (and taking the virtual reference plane at that location), where the angle of the groove is nearly parallel to the drill center axis (but slightly inward towards the drill center axis), and the length of the drill is relatively short (e.g., 4 inches), which would result in the cutting blade 4/5 being closer to the rear end of the drill than the intersection point (e.g., more than 4 inches due to the near parallelism of the grooves (and thus the virtual reference plane) with the drill’s center axis),
the virtual plane surface passing through an outer circumferential end position of the cutting blade and being orthogonal to the rotary whetstone axial center (Figs. 1, 2, 26, 27, a virtual plane surface can be drawn that passes through the outer circumferential end position of the cutting blade (blades 4 and 5) and is orthogonal to the whetstone axial center).
Examiner notes that claim 7 is very broad and its determination depends on at least four things. It depends on (1) the length of the drill (i.e., the location of the rear end side relative to the tip end side), (2) the helical angle of the flute, (3) the position of the rotary whetstone that is used as the reference for “the virtual plane surface passing through an outer circumferential end position of the cutting blade and being orthogonal to the rotary whetstone axial center”, and (4) the angle of the rotary whetstone during the groove formation step.
Maier in view of Shiner1, Shiner2, and Fabish
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 5160232 A (“Maier”) in view of GB 471709 A (“Shiner1”), GB 452750 A (“Shiner2”), and US 3610075 A (“Fabish”).
Maier pertains to a drill bit and method of producing the drill bit (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, 26-27). Shiner1 pertains to twist drills (Figs. 1-5; p. 1, lines 9-14). Shiner2 pertains to twist drills (Figs. 1-5; p. 1, lines 8-25). Fabish pertains to a drill bit and method of producing the drill bit (Figs. 2, 4; 1:30-34). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 5, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Maier discloses wherein the rotary whetstone has a primary whetstone surface and a secondary whetstone surface (Figs. 26, 27, tool 74 has a primary annular surface and a secondary annular surface on the opposite side of the disc tool 74).
Maier does not explicitly disclose the primary whetstone surface forms one of two surfaces from a projecting vertex of the projected rotating body shape and a tapered annular shape extending around the rotary whetstone axial center, the secondary whetstone surface forms the other surface and has an annular shape extending around the rotary whetstone axial center, and in the groove formation step, the inner groove wall surface of the groove is formed by the primary whetstone surface, and the outer groove wall surface of the groove is formed by the secondary whetstone surface.
However, the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2/Fabish combination makes obvious this claim.
Fabish discloses:
wherein the rotary whetstone has a primary whetstone surface and a secondary whetstone surface, the primary whetstone surface forms one of two surfaces from a projecting vertex of the projected rotating body shape and a tapered annular shape extending around the rotary whetstone axial center, the secondary whetstone surface forms the other surface and has an annular shape extending around the rotary whetstone axial center (Figs. 2, 4; 4:36-43, rotary whetstone 76 having primary whetstone surface 72 and secondary whetstone surface 74, where these surfaces form a projected rotating body shape and a tapered annular shape extending around the rotary axis, where the projecting vertex is at the intersection of surfaces 72 and 74).
PNG
media_image10.png
416
195
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fabish Fig. 4
Based on Maier (Figs. 26, 27; 9:13-60, disc grinding tool 74) and the whetstone disclosed by Fabish, a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of this application would recognize that there are different shaped grinding tools that could be used to create the modified grooves of the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination (see also US 4605347 A (“Jodock”) Figs. 7, 8, grinding tool in the shape of a truncated cone; US 3178857 A (“Grob”) Figs. 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, grinding tool in the shape of a truncated cone; Gudmundsen Figs. 1-5, grinding tool 40 having a rounded outer edge). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that one way of grinding the modified grooves 23 of the Maier/Shiner1/Shiner2 combination would be to use a different grinding tool (instead of the one disclosed in Maier) that has an outer edge with a triangular shape (as viewed from a side profile), such as that disclosed by Fabish, Jodock, and Grob. Thus, by doing so, the following limitations are met and would have been obvious:
wherein the rotary whetstone has a primary whetstone surface and a secondary whetstone surface, the primary whetstone surface forms one of two surfaces from a projecting vertex of the projected rotating body shape and a tapered annular shape extending around the rotary whetstone axial center, the secondary whetstone surface forms the other surface and has an annular shape extending around the rotary whetstone axial center (see Fig. A below),
in the groove formation step, the inner groove wall surface of the groove is formed by the primary whetstone surface, and the outer groove wall surface of the groove is formed by the secondary whetstone surface (see Fig. A below, the inner and outer wall surfaces of modified groove 23 are formed by the primary and secondary whetstone surfaces respectively).
The obviousness rationale for claim 5 is otherwise the same as for claim 1.
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: textbox (Tapered annular shape)][AltContent: textbox (Projected rotating body shape)]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotary whetstone axial center)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rake surface 21)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Modified groove 23)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner groove wall surface)][AltContent: textbox (Outer groove wall surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Secondary whetstone surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Primary whetstone surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Projecting vertex)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Downward grinding movement)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (Radial outward direction)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Radial inward direction)]
Fig. A (for claim 5)
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 4 and 6 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected.
Specification – The objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Claims – The objections to claim 7 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejections of claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are hereby withdrawn. But see new § 112(b) rejection of claim 7 due to amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding the recited groove configuration of claim 1, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments. Applicant’s remaining arguments for claim 1 are addressed in the rejection above. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 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 KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723