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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed January 12, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1-3, 4, 6, 8, and 10-13. The previous specification objection has been withdrawn due to the newly submitted and accepted “Abstract” dated 01/12/2026. The previous claim objections and 112b rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The previous claim objection of claim 4 and 112b rejection of claim 8 listed below is maintained. The previous 103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[AltContent: ]In claim 4, line 2 “further having additional QC” should be “further having additional Quality Control (QC)”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the OC and/or tooling setups being located at different mounting positions with an angle difference of more than 15 degrees and less
than 60 degrees around the center of rotation of the indexing axis and not located at the
null position” in lines 11-14. The examiner cannot find in the specification any recitation of the claimed ranged. Furthermore, on page 009, ll. 3-7 of the specification, the original disclosure states “an angle difference of >15° / >20° / >22° / >25° / >30° / >45° / >60° around the center of rotation of the swivel axis”, but does disclose the angle difference as a range but rather as different values (i.e. the use of “/” which means “or” separates alternatives in writing). Lastly, the original disclosure further states the angle difference of >60° which is greater than 60 degrees. As such, the limitation is regarded as new matter.
Claims 2-13 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the machine table" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (EP 0823310 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kitamura discloses: an industrial finishing machine tool (Figures 1-18 and see also col. 5, ll. 50-55) offering improved accessibility during the manufacturing sequence (Applicant is reminded, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the finishing machine tool having at least:
a machine bed (element 2);
a rotatable indexer (element 6) defining an indexing axis (see figure 1 annotated below X-X axis) and mounted to the machine bed (see figure 1 annotated below showing the rotatable indexer (element 6) operably mounted to the machine bed (element 2));
a workpiece holder (element 4) mounted to the rotatable indexer (see figure 1 annotated below showing the workpiece holder (element 4) operably mounted to the rotatable indexer (element 6);
at least two Quality Control QC and/or tooling setups (elements 302/303) mounted to the rotatable indexer on a right or left side of a null position around an axis of the workpiece holder (see figure 1 annotated below showing portions of the tooling setups (elements 302/303) operably mounted to the rotatable indexer (element 6) on the right side of a null position of the axis (X2-X2 axis) of the workpiece holder (element 4)) such that the QC and/or tooling setups rotate with the workpiece holder around the indexing axis in a fixed relationship to each other or other dressing arrangements and to the axis of the workpiece holder (see col. 7, ll. 32-37
where the prior art discloses element 6 (rotatable indexer) comprises a rotary disc (element 51), a fixing disc (element 53), a second index motor (element 52), wherein the rotary disc (element 51) can be indexed in “a B-direction” (see B arrow) by means of the second index motor (element 52), see figure 14 showing the tooling setups (elements 302/303) mounted on element 51, thus the tooling setups are capable of rotating with the workpiece holder around the indexing axis in a fixed relationship to each other or other dressing arrangements and to the axis of the workpiece holder, as recited.) the OC and/or tooling setups being located at different mounting positions (see figure 1 annotated below); and
a finishing tool (element 343/343a) mounted to the machine bed (see figure 1 annotated below showing the finishing tool (element 343/343a) operably mounted to the machine bed (element 2)) so as to finish a workpiece (element W) when the workpiece is mounted in the workpiece holder (see figures 15-18),
wherein, in this configuration, the finishing machine tool offers kinematics free of collision risk when processing the finishing tool, preferably dressing the finishing tool, or changing out the workpiece (Giving that the prior art meets the structural limitations of the machine tool including the machine bed (element 2), rotatable indexer (element 6), workpiece holder (element 4), at least two QC and/or tooling setups (elements 302/303), finishing tool (elements 343/343a) in a configuration, and there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the finishing machine tool offer kinematics free of collision risk when processing the finishing tool, preferably dressing the finishing tool, or changing out the workpiece, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kitamura appears to be silent wherein the OC and/or tooling setups being located at different mounting positions with an angle difference of more than 15 degrees and less than 60 degrees around the center of rotation of the indexing axis and not located at the null position.
However, it there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle difference of the different mounting positions would result in a difference in function of the Kitamura et al. industrial finishing machine tool. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the angle of Kitamura would have a
reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle difference to be more than 15 degrees and less than 60 degrees around the center of rotation of the indexing axis and not located at the null position as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 009, ll. 3-7) and further offers an acceptable angle difference of 60 degrees or more, therefore there is no criticality placed on the angle claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 4, Kitamura discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1 including a plurality of tool setups (elements 302/303) which include a touch probe (element 303 and see also col. 10, ll. 19-24) mounted on the rotatable indexer (see figure 1) which are rotated with the workpiece holder (see rejection of claim 1 above page 7). However, Kitamura appears to be silent of further having additional QC and/or tooling setups or tooling elements selected from one of the group of setups/elements consisting of touch probes, optical probes, reference marks, and cleaning stations, the setups/elements mounted to the rotatable indexer such that the setups/elements rotate with the workpiece holder in a fixed relationship thereto.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitamura to provide additional QC and/or tooling setups or tooling elements selected from one of
the group of setups/elements consisting of touch probes, optical probes, reference marks, and cleaning stations, the setups/elements mounted to the rotatable indexer such that the setups/elements rotate with the workpiece holder in a fixed relationship thereto, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of additional tooling setups, specifically the touch probe, would necessarily provide an additional means for measuring in the event the first tooling setup (touch probe) fails, thus preventing the machine tool from being inoperative during processing. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV))
Regarding claim 5, Kitamura discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1 and further discloses alternate embodiments (Figures 19-22). However, Kitamura appears to be silent further having additional tooling elements selected from one of the group of tooling elements consisting of measuring elements (e.g., touch probes), workpiece cleaning devices, workpiece handling devices, and labeling devices mounted to the machine bed or mounted to any machine structure in between the machine bed.
Kitamura alternate embodiment (Figures 21-22 see also col. 13, ll. 48-50) discloses an industrial finishing machine tool (element 500 and see also col. 13, ll. 58 – col. 14, ll. 1-5 where the prior art discloses element 500 comprises the same complex machine means as those of the first embodiment (Figures 1-18)) and silent further having additional tooling elements selected from one of the group of tooling elements consisting of measuring elements (e.g., touch probes), workpiece
cleaning devices, workpiece handling devices (element 422 and see also col. 14, ll. 38-48), and labeling devices mounted to the machine bed or mounted to any machine structure in between the machine bed (see figures 21-22 showing the workpiece handling devices (element 422) operably mounted to the industrial finishing machine tool (element 500 which includes the machining bed (element 2)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitamura to incorporate the teachings of Kitamura alternate embodiment to provide additional tooling elements selected from one of the group of tooling elements consisting of measuring elements (e.g., touch probes), workpiece cleaning devices, workpiece handling devices, and labeling devices mounted to the machine bed or mounted to any machine structure in between the machine bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a workpiece handling devices would necessarily allow the user to automatically interchange unfinished/finished workpieces from the machine tool during operations, thus increasing productivity.
Regarding claim 6, Kitamura discloses: the industrial finishing machine tool of claim 1, wherein the rotatable indexer is mounted in a circular or oval shaped arrangement around the rotatable indexer, whereby a radial mass of the circular or oval shaped arrangement influences an amount of additional tooling elements such that elements the rotatable indexer are provided with improved accessibility to the additional tooling elements (see claim interpretation under 112 rejection above (pages 4-5 above) and see figure 1 showing the rotatable indexer (element 6) in a
circular or oval shaped arrangement, thus being capable of having the radial mass of the circular or oval shaped arrangement influences the amount of additional tooling elements such that elements on the movable part (element 51) of the rotatable indexer are provided with improved accessibility to these elements, as recited.).
Regarding claim 7, Kitamura discloses: the industrial finishing machine tool of claim 1, wherein the rotatable indexer is mounted on at least one linear indexer (element 60).
Regarding claim 8, Kitamura discloses: the industrial finishing machine tool of claim 1, wherein the machine table (element 61) of the rotatable indexer contains a slide (element 65) or an alignment surface with clamping devices (Giving the limitation requires the machine table having the slide “or” the alignment surface with clamping devices,, and since the prior art meets at least one of the following limitations, thus the prior art meets claim 8), such that the workpiece holder on the machine table can be configured to be brought into different static positions (Z-direction arrow) thereby enabling a flexible positioning of the workpiece holder, thus obtaining high flexibility for the set-up of new processes and workpieces (See col. 7, ll. 45-46 where the prior art discloses element 61 comprises element 65 (slide), see also col. 7, ll. 43-44 where the prior art disclose element 61 (which comprises the slide (element 65)) is moved along a Z-axis guide (see figure 1 showing Z-direction arrow), thus giving that the prior art disclosed the workpiece holder (element 4) operably on the machine tool (element 61) which contains the slide (element 65) moving in the static
positions (Z-direction arrow) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the workpiece holder on [[it]] the machine table can be configured to be brought into different static positions with respect to the other elements thereby enabling a flexible positioning of the workpiece holder, thus obtaining high flexibility for the set-up of new processes and workpieces, as recited.), wherein further, for radius grinding, the workpiece is configured to be brought proximate or to the center of the rotatable indexer for increased radius accuracy through use of just one moving axis (see figure 1 showing the workpiece (element W) in the center of the rotatable indexer (element 6) and operably moved through one moving axis (X-direction arrow), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having for radius grinding, the workpiece is configured to be brought proximate or to the center of the rotatable indexer for increased radius accuracy through use of just one moving axis, as recited.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (EP 0823310 A1) in view of Helle (US Patent No. 5,738,564).
Regarding claim 2, Kitamura discloses: the industrial finishing machine tool of claim 1, configured to enable a pivoting angle (B-direction angle) of the rotatable indexer.
However, Kitamura appears to be silent wherein the pivoting angle of the rotatable indexer is more than 100° in both pivoting directions starting from the zero position at which position the workpiece axis is parallel to the tool axis.
Helle is also concern in an industrial finishing machine tool (Figures 1-4 and see also col. 4, ll. 21-39) comprising a machine bed (element 1), a rotatable indexer (element 40), a workpiece holder (element 44) having a workpiece axis (+B axis), a finishing tool (element 25) having a tool axis (see figure 1 annotated below X-X axis), and being configured to enable a pivoting angle (+C angle) of the rotatable indexer is more than 100° in both pivoting directions starting from the zero position at which position the workpiece axis is parallel to the tool axis (See figure 1 annotated below showing the machine tool in a zero position where the workpiece axis (+B axis) is parallel with the tool axis (X-X axis) with the pivoting angle (+C angle) pivoting in both directions (left-right arrows of the +C angle), see also col. 6, ll. 63-65 where the prior art discloses element 40 (rotatable indexer) is permits rotation of element 44 (workpiece holder of “360°”, thus being capable of enabling the pivoting angle of the rotatable indexer to be more than 100° in both pivoting directions starting from the zero position at which position the workpiece axis is parallel to the tool axis, as recited.).
PNG
media_image2.png
776
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitamura to incorporate the teachings of Helle to provide wherein the pivoting angle of the rotatable indexer is more than 100° in both pivoting directions starting from the zero position at which position the workpiece axis is parallel to the tool axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the claimed angle of the pivoting angle of the rotatable indexer would necessarily allow the user to rotate the workpiece at multiple different locations during operations, thus enhancing the capabilities of the machine tool.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (EP 0823310 A1) in view of Junker (US Pub. No. 2017/0252886).
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 1, but appears to be silent further having two or more workpiece holders or spindle workheads mounted on the rotatable indexer.
Junker is also concern in an industrial finishing machine tool (Figures 1-10 and see also paragraph 0047) comprising a rotatable indexer (element 9) and further having two or more workpiece holders (elements 12/13) or spindle workheads (elements 10/11) mounted on the rotatable indexer (see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitamura to incorporate the teachings of Junker to provide two or more workpiece holders or spindle workheads mounted on the rotatable indexer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of different workpiece holders/spindle workheads would necessarily provide the predictable result of holding a plurality of different workpiece to be machined, thus increasing productivity and efficiency of operations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (EP 0823310 A1) in view of Burri (US Pub. No. 2014/0130320).
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura discloses: the industrial finishing machine tool of claim 1, wherein further, the finishing machine includes: (a) at least one second linear indexer (element 67) is mounted to the machine bed (see figure 1); and
b) a finishing tool head (element 41/42) having at least one finishing tool powered therein (see figures 4, 7, and 16 showing a plurality of different finishing tool powered therein) mounted to the turret.
However, Kitamura appears to be silent wherein the finishing machine includes the at least one second linear indexer combined and mounted under a turret which combination is mounted to the machine bed and the finishing tool head mounted to the turret.
Burri is also concern in an industrial finishing machine tool (Figure 1 element 1 and see also paragraph 0026) comprising a machine bed (element 5), a rotatable indexer (element 6) mounted to the machine bed (see figure 1), a tooling setup (element 9), at least one second linear indexer (element 15) combined and mounted under a turret (element 16) which combination is mounted to the machine bed (see figure 1) and finishing tool head (element 7) having at least one finishing tool powered therein (element 4) mounted to the turret (see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitamura to incorporate the teachings of Burri in order to provide wherein the finishing machine includes the at least one second linear indexer combined and mounted under a turret which combination is mounted to the machine bed and the finishing tool head mounted to the turret. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the finishing tool head be rotatable via the turret would necessarily allow the finishing tool to be rotatably arranged with the machine tool in order to process the workpiece at multiple different locations, thus increasing productivity.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (EP 0823310 A1) in view of Higaki (JP2012121085).
Regarding claim 10, Kitamura discloses: a method (Figures 1-18 and see also col. 5, ll. 50-55) of using the industrial finishing tool of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above (pages 9-12), wherein the method includes the steps of:
rotating the rotatable indexer to receive a workpiece (element W) in the workpiece holder (see figure 1 showing the rotatable indexer (element 6) rotating (B-arrow) and receiving the workpiece);
charging the workpiece and clamping it in place in the workpiece holder (see col 2., ll. 10-12 where the prior art disclose utilizing the workpiece holder (element 4) provided with element 16 on which a “workpiece” can be “detachably attached” and see also col. 9, ll. 24-27 where the prior art discloses element 4 (workpiece holder) comprises element 40 being “an air chuck” (i.e. clamping) in order to secure the workpiece);
rotating the rotatable indexer to a work position such that the workpiece may be finished by the finishing tool (see figure 1 showing the rotatable indexer (element 6) rotating (B-arrow), see also col. 5, ll. 7-8 where the prior art discloses utilizing the feed means (rotatable indexer) for moving the workpiece relative to the tool, and see also figure 8 showing one of many work positions where the workpiece is indexed in the B1-direction such that the workpiece is finished by the finishing tool);
using the finishing tool, finishing the workpiece (see figures 8 and 15-18).
However, Kitamura appears to be silent wherein the step of (a) rotating the rotatable indexer to receive a workpiece in the workpiece holder, and the step of (e) once the workpiece obtained a target form, rotating the workpiece holder to a discharge position and discharging the workpiece.
Higaki is also concern in providing a method of using the industrial finishing tool (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0011) wherein the industrial finishing tool comprises a machine bed (element 11), a rotatable indexer (element 16 and see also paragraph 0016), a workpiece holder (element 17) mounted to the rotatable indexer (see figures 1-3), and a finishing tool (elements 30A-30B) having grinding/polishing tools (see paragraph 0018). Higaki further teaches wherein the method comprises the step of (e) once the workpiece obtained a target form, rotating the workpiece holder to a discharge position and discharging the workpiece (see paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses the workpiece is thinned “to the target thickness” (target form) via rough/finish grinding and see paragraph 0025 where the prior art discloses once the process is completed, element 16 (rotatable indexer) is “rotated” with the workpiece (element 1) to a “carry-out position” (discharge position) and the workpiece is released from element 17 (workpiece holder) and picked up via element 19 and transported).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitamura to incorporate the teachings of Higaki in order to provide the step of (e) once the workpiece obtained a target form, rotating the workpiece holder to a discharge position and discharging the workpiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize providing the automated
workpiece charger to perform the charging/discharging steps would necessarily provide an automated means from loading/unloading the workpiece during operations, thus increasing accuracy and productivity.
Regarding claim 11, Kitamura discloses: the method of claim 10, further including the following steps: rotating the workpiece holder on the rotatable indexer such that one QC and/or tooling setup on the rotatable indexer can interact with the finishing tool (see figure 14 and see also col. 5, ll. 7-9), the QC and/or tooling setup being located in a fixed relationship with respect to the workpiece holder (see figure 1); and alternating between processes of either machining, grinding, dressing (see figures 7-8, 14, and 15-16 showing alternating between process such as machining (figures 7-8), grinding (figures 15-16), and dressing (figure 15)).
Regarding claim 12, Kitamura modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejections of claim 1 and 10, but appears silent of including the following additional steps: rotating the workpiece holder on the rotatable indexer to a position such that the workpiece in the workpiece holder can be measured from a measurement device; and alternating between processes of machining, grinding, dressing, and/or inspecting and/or cleaning, and/or labelling, in order to obtain a target form on the workpiece.
Higaki is also concern in providing a method of using the industrial finishing tool (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0011) wherein the industrial finishing tool
comprises a machine bed (element 11), a rotatable indexer (element 16 and see also paragraph 0016), a workpiece holder (element 17) mounted to the rotatable indexer (see figures 1-3), and a finishing tool (elements 30A-30B) having grinding/polishing tools (see paragraph 0018). Higaki further teaches wherein the method comprises including the following additional steps: rotating the workpiece holder on the rotatable indexer to a position such that the workpiece in the workpiece holder can be measured from a measurement device (see paragraph 0018 where the prior art discloses element 16 (rotatable indexer) is rotated to grinding position (a position) and see paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a thickness detecting means element 40” (measurement device) for detecting a thickness of the workpiece); and alternating between processes of machining, grinding, dressing, and/or inspecting and/or cleaning, and/or labelling, in order to obtain a target form on the workpiece (see paragraph 0018 where the prior art discloses processes alternating from rough grinding, finishing grinding, and polishing via processing means (element 30A/30B/30C), see paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses the workpiece is thinned “to the target thickness” (target form) via rough/finish grinding, thus having the alternating processes and being capable of obtaining the target form on the workpiece).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitamura to incorporate the teachings of Higaki in order of including the following additional steps: rotating the workpiece holder on the rotatable indexer to a position such that the workpiece in the workpiece holder can be measured from a measurement device; and alternating between processes of machining, grinding, dressing, and/or inspecting and/or cleaning,
and/or labelling, in order to obtain a target form on the workpiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize providing a measurement device to measure the workpiece to a desired target form would necessarily provide the predictable result of accurately measuring the workpiece during operations in order to obtain the desired target form.
Regarding claim 13, Kitamura discloses: the method of claim 10, further including the following steps: rotating the workpiece holder on the rotatable indexer such that a measuring device on the rotatable indexer can measure a finishing tool on its spindle (see figure 1 showing the rotatable indexer (element 6) rotating (B-arrow), see also col. 5, ll. 7-8 where the prior art discloses utilizing the feed means (rotatable indexer) for moving “the grindstone measuring device” (measuring device) relative to the tool (finishing tool), and see col. 12, ll. 28-36 where the prior art discloses element 303 as the grindstone measuring device that touches element 343a (finishing tool) in order to be measured), and alternating between processes of machining, dressing, and/or inspecting/measuring, in order to obtain a target form on the tool (see col 12, ll. 26-52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights