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 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 11-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow (US 1221844) in view of Kilgore (US 4787132), Deakin (US 3410154) and Utsumi et al. (US 20040261568, hereinafter ‘Utsumi’).
Regarding claims 11-19 and 22, Dow discloses a material removal/milling machine (claim 19) having a tool holder 65 and a milling tool (Page 1, Lines 27-35) (claim 14). Dow does not disclose the machine being self-balancing, including the claimed hollow ring.
Kilgore discloses a self-balancing hollow ring 1 containing a plurality of media being at least three (claim 12) roller ball bearings 4 (claim 16) in a notch 3 that is secured to a rotating shaft 24. The number of balls is selected to fill less than half of the hollow ring (see Fig. 2) (claim 13). The notch is open on an outer diameter of the hollow ring and the plurality of media are arranged and configured to freely move within said hollow ring, including against an inside diameter of the hollow ring when being rotated (claim 22) to dynamically balance the rotating shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to secure the self-balancing ring of Kilgore inside or outside of the material removal machine of Dow (claim 18), on the rotating shaft near the tool holder with bolts (Col. 3, Lines 60-63 of Kilgore) (claim 17) in order to dynamically balance the material removal bit or endmill when the tool holder is being axially rotated (claim 15), as explicitly taught and supported by Deakin at Column 1, Lines 29-41 which discusses that self-balancing devices are suitably exchanged between engines and metal machining (i.e. material removal) devices. None of Dow, Kilgore or Deakin explicitly disclose the notch being trapezium-shaped, however, Kilgore simply states that the size and shape of the notch 3 is “sized shaped to allow free circumferential movement of the weights 4 in the groove 3” (Col. 4, Lines 10-12).
Utsumi discloses a similar self-balancing mechanism 20, wherein the notch 20c is trapezium-shaped (see Fig. 2) to allow the media 20d to freely move in all circumferential and radial directions (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the notch shape to be trapezium-shaped, as taught by Utsumi, in order to ensure that the media is provided with enough clearance to be fully moveable in all desired directions during use to effectively balance the machine.
Regarding claims 21 and 23-25, as the modified material removal machine of claim 11 includes the self-balancing device of Kilgore, Kilgore discloses that a ring 7 is fitted over the outside diameter of the hollow ring. The ring retains the plurality of material within the notch (which is trapezium-shaped, as modified above). The ring is press-fit onto the hollow ring and secured by a shrink fit (Col. 4, Lines 20-26).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow (US 1221844), Kilgore (US 4787132), Deakin (US 3410154) and Utsumi et al. (US 20040261568) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (DE 102008031106, hereinafter ‘Bauer’).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of claim 11 above does not disclose the claimed second hollow ring.
Bauer discloses a similar balancing mechanism, wherein a first 5’ and second 5” hollow ring are provided, containing a first and second plurality of media 6 that are arranged and configured to freely move within said second ring independently from said plurality of media in the first hollow ring to dynamically balance the machine on which the balancing mechanism is installed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of claim 11 by duplicating the hollow ring, as taught by Bauer, in order to more effectively balance the rotating apparatus of the machine. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722