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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 11-15 are new. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are currently amended. This action is non-final.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, consider -- the distance being determined by a width of the first grinding wheel, , and other grinding parameters comprising rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece, such that the second grinding wheel grinds the helical fault lines that the first grinding wheel has produced during grinding.
For claims 9, 10, 14, 15, the language “in a same direction top the one direction but at a different rotational speed” is unusual, consider -- in a same direction [[top]] as the one direction but at a different rotational speed--
Claims 14 and 15 are duplicates. One of the claims should be canceled, or the claims amended so they are not duplicates.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“feed device” in claim 5; no corresponding structure disclosed
“control device” in claim 5; as best described in [0025].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
Claim 1-15 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 limitations “the distance being determined by a width of the first grinding wheel and a feed rate in the longitudinal axial direction and other grinding parameters comprising rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece, such that the second grinding wheel grinds the helical fault lines that the first grinding wheel has produced during grinding”. Claim 11 similarly recites the limitation “wherein the distance between the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel is determined based on a width of the first grinding wheel, a feed rate of the first grinding wheel in the longitudinal axial direction and grinding parameters comprising rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece.” MPEP 2163 provides that “There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed.”, however also provides that “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing” and that “The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art.”.
In this case, the applicant, as part of a method, requires the determination of the distance between the first and second grinding wheel, taking into account a number of factors, including a width of the first grinding wheel, a feed rate, rotational speeds of the grinding wheel and the workpiece, so that helical fault lines are ground. This limitation in the claim lacks written description because the specification is not sufficiently detailed to describe how those factors (feed rate, width, rotational speeds) to determine the distance between the two grinding wheels. The instant disclosure also does not provide for any examples of how the multiple inputs of width of the first grinding wheel, a feed rate, rotational speeds of the grinding wheel and the workpiece are used to determine the distance, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found the inventor to have had possession of the claimed invention given the lack of description of the steps used to derive the distance from the inputs. Therefore claims 1 and 11 lack written description, and claims 2-4 and 12-15 are rejected as dependent on claims 1 and 11.
Claim limitations “feed device” and “control device” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The disclosure fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of a “feed device”, the claimed functionality being that the feed device causes a relative movement between the workpiece and the grinding wheel in the longitudinal axial direction of the workpiece. Specifically, while the disclosure provides for rollers 14, 15 which provide for relative rotational movement of the workpiece and the grinding wheels ([0021,0023,0024]), this does not support the use of the rollers feeding the workpiece in an axial direction.
The disclosure fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of a “control device”, generally only reciting that the control device adjusts a distance between the grinding wheel ([0015]), without describing whether it, for example, is a mechanical, electrical, computer, etc. type of device that provides for adjustment of a distance between the two grinding wheels.
Therefore, the claim lacks written description and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Claims 6-7 rejected as dependent. For the purposes of examination, these limitations (“feed device” and “control device”) will be interpreted to be any structure that is capable of performing the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 5-7 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 limitations “feed device” and “control device” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The disclosure fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of a “feed device”, the claimed functionality being that the feed device causes a relative movement between the workpiece and the grinding wheel in the longitudinal axial direction of the workpiece. Specifically, while the disclosure provides for rollers 14, 15 which provide for relative rotational movement of the workpiece and the grinding wheels ([0021,0023,0024]), this does not support the use of the rollers feeding the workpiece in an axial direction.
The disclosure fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of a “control device”, generally only reciting that the control device adjusts a distance between the grinding wheel ([0015]), without describing whether it, for example, is a mechanical, electrical, computer, etc. type of device that provides for adjustment of a distance between the two grinding wheels.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 6-7 rejected as dependent. For the purposes of examination, these limitations (“feed device” and “control device”) will be interpreted to be any structure that is capable of performing the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junker (US 20130165022 A1) in view of Yamanaka (JP H04193473 A), and as evidenced by Weiss (US 20050208878 A1)
With respect to claim 1, Junker discloses: A method for cylindrical grinding of cylindrical workpieces on a grinding machine ([0001]), the method comprising the steps of:
aligning axes of rotation of a first grinding wheel and a workpiece parallel to one another (first grinding wheel is one of the plurality of wheels 5, figs. 2a, 3, and 4; fig. 2a and 3 shows the workpiece 1 with an axis 2 parallel to that of the grinding wheel 5; [0046-0047]; [0050] also describe the parallel straight rotational axes 2 of the workpiece and 6 of the grinding wheel) ;
moving the first grinding wheel relative to the workpiece during grinding in a longitudinal axial direction of the workpiece (the workpiece is fed in an axial direction as indicated by arrow 22, fig. 3; [0044], thus from a fixed vantage point of the workpiece, the grinding wheel is relatively moved);
providing a second grinding wheel (a second grinding wheel of plurality of griding wheels 5, figs. 3 and 4; [0047,0048]) that follows the first grinding wheel at an always constant distance (the distance is determined by intermediate space 24, [0042], which is in turn determined by the width of the grinding wheel and a gap, 18; [0042, 0049]) , the distance being determined by a width of the first grinding wheel (determined by the width of the grinding wheel and a gap, 18; [0042, 0049])
however, does not explicitly disclose the distance is determined by a feed rate in the longitudinal axial direction and other grinding parameters comprising rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece, such that the second grinding wheel grinds the helical fault lines that the first grinding wheel has produced during grinding.
Yamanaka, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrading, teaches of using variable including the grinding wheel width, the relative speed of the grinding wheel and the workpiece, and a feed speed of a table with the workpiece to determine a ratio “gamma” (page 4 lines 14-21, table 11 and workpiece 2 shown in the single figure), to achieve a ratio of 0 or 1 depending on the desired finish (page 5 lines 1-2). Yamanaka teaches that relating these variables ensures optimum grinding (page 2 line 11-page 3 line 9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Junker such that the distance is determined by a feed rate in the longitudinal axial direction and other grinding parameters comprising rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece, applying the teaching of Yamanaka, for the purpose of optimum griding, integrating the relation of the feed rate, and rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece together with the grinding wheel width of Junker. The examiner notes that the instant disclosure does not disclose details of how the grinding wheel width, speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece, and feed rate are related to determine the distance between the first and second grinding wheel.
Regarding the limitation such that the second grinding wheel grinds the helical fault lines that the first grinding wheel has produced during grinding, Weiss, as related to abrading, provides evidence that machining using rotating tools produces a helical trace (fig. 9, [0070], which describes that helical clatter marks depend on the width of the grinding wheel, as well as figs. 11a-11c, [0088], a twist formed by spiral lines that appear to be parallel; [0089-0092] describes the spacing of the twist as dependent on the speed of the grinding wheel and speed of the workpiece, as well as the diameters of the grinding wheels and workpiece, and the feed of the workpiece; also noted is the spiral marks shown in fig. 13, [0104] which are dependent on the feed rate [axial shift]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would thus have understood that the first grinding wheel of Junker would have produced a helical trace, and because of the nature of Junker with multiple sequential grinding wheels, the second grinding wheel would pass over and grind the helical trace produced by the first grinding wheel.
With respect to claim 2, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the first and the second grinding wheel are mounted on a same axis of rotation and are driven at a same rotational speed during grinding (Junker, [0042], the grinding wheels are jointly rotated upon a common spindle [indicating the same rotational speed] and are mounted on axis 6 as in [0050])
With respect to claim 4, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the grinding wheels on one hand and the workpiece on another hand are rotated in opposite directions (Junker, workpiece 1 rotated in opposite direction from grinding wheel 5, see fig. 2a; with rotation arrows; [0046] also describe the opposite rotation in fig. 2) or in a same direction, but at different rotational speeds (Junker also teaches that the speed of the grinding wheel and regulating wheels are independent of each other, indicating a different speed, [0012], and the workpiece is driven rotationally together with the regulating wheels in [0055], indicating that the workpiece rotates at a different speed than the grinding wheel)
With respect to claim 10, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches the grinding wheels are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a direction opposite to the one direction (Junker, workpiece 1 rotated in opposite direction from grinding wheel 5, see fig. 2a; with rotation arrows; [0046] also describe the opposite rotation in fig. 2); or the grinding wheels are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a same direction top the one direction but at a different rotational speed (Junker also teaches that the speed of the grinding wheel and regulating wheels are independent of each other, indicating a different speed, [0012], and the workpiece is driven rotationally together with the regulating wheels in [0055], indicating that the workpiece rotates at a different speed than the grinding wheel)
With respect to claim 10, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches the grinding wheels are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a direction opposite to the one direction (Junker, workpiece 1 rotated in opposite direction from grinding wheel 5, see fig. 2a; with rotation arrows; [0046] also describe the opposite rotation in fig. 2); or the grinding wheels are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a same direction top the one direction but at a different rotational speed (Junker also teaches that the speed of the grinding wheel and regulating wheels are independent of each other, indicating a different speed, [0012], and the workpiece is driven rotationally together with the regulating wheels in [0055], indicating that the workpiece rotates at a different speed than the grinding wheel).
With respect to claim 11, Junker discloses: A method for cylindrical grinding of cylindrical workpieces on a grinding machine ([0001]), the method comprising the steps of:
aligning axes of rotation of a first grinding wheel and a workpiece parallel to one another (first grinding wheel is one of the plurality of wheels 5, figs. 2a, 3, and 4; fig. 2a and 3 shows the workpiece 1 with an axis 2 parallel to that of the grinding wheel 5; [0046-0047]; [0050] also describe the parallel straight rotational axes 2 of the workpiece and 6 of the grinding wheel);
moving the first grinding wheel relative to the workpiece during grinding in a longitudinal axial direction of the workpiece (the workpiece is fed in an axial direction as indicated by arrow 22, fig. 3; [0044], thus from a fixed vantage point of the workpiece, the grinding wheel is relatively moved);
providing a second grinding wheel (a second grinding wheel of plurality of griding wheels 5, figs. 3 and 4; [0047,0048]) that follows the first grinding wheel at an always constant distance (the distance is determined by intermediate space 24, [0042], which is in turn determined by the width of the grinding wheel and a gap, 18; [0042, 0049])
wherein the distance between the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel is determined based on a width of the first grinding wheel (determined by the width of the grinding wheel and a gap, 18; [0042, 0049]),
however, does not explicitly disclose the second grinding wheel follows the first grinding wheel at an always constant distance such that the second grinding wheel grinds the helical fault lines that the first grinding wheel has produced during grinding and distance between the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel is determined based on a feed rate of the first grinding wheel in the longitudinal axial direction and grinding parameters comprising rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece.
Yamanaka, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrading, teaches of using variable including the grinding wheel width, the relative speed of the grinding wheel and the workpiece, and a feed speed of a table with the workpiece to determine a ratio “gamma” (page 4 lines 14-21, table 11 and workpiece 2 shown in the single figure), to achieve a ration of 0 or 1 depending on the desired finish (page 5 lines 1-2). Yamanaka teaches that relating these variables ensures optimum grinding (page 2 line 11-page 3 line 9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Junker such that the distance is determined by a feed rate in the longitudinal axial direction and other grinding parameters comprising rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece, applying the teaching of Yamanaka, for the purpose of optimum griding, integrating the relation of the feed rate, and rotational speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece together with the grinding wheel width of Junker. The examiner notes that the instant disclosure does not disclose details of how the grinding wheel width, speeds of the first grinding wheel and of the workpiece, and feed rate are related to
Regarding the limitation such that the second grinding wheel grinds the helical fault lines that the first grinding wheel has produced during grinding, Weiss, as related to abrading, provides evidence that machining using rotating tools produces a helical trace (fig. 9, [0070], which describes that helical clatter marks depend on the width of the grinding wheel, as well as figs. 11a-11c, [0088], a twist formed by spiral lines that appear to be parallel; [0089-0092] describes the spacing of the twist as dependent on the speed of the grinding wheel and speed of the workpiece, as well as the diameters of the grinding wheels and workpiece, and the feed of the workpiece; also noted is the spiral marks shown in fig. 13, [0104] which are dependent on the feed rate [axial shift]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would thus have understood that the first grinding wheel of Junker would have produced a helical trace, and because of the nature of Junker with multiple sequential grinding wheels, the second grinding wheel would pass over and grind the helical trace produced by the first grinding wheel.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would thus have understood that the first grinding wheel of Junker would have produced a helical trace, and because of the nature of Junker with multiple sequential grinding wheels, the second grinding wheel would pass over and grind the helical trace produced by the first grinding wheel.
With respect to claim 12, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches wherein the first and the second grinding wheel are mounted on a same axis of rotation and are driven at a same rotational speed during grinding (Junker, [0042], the grinding wheels are jointly rotated upon a common spindle [indicating the same rotational speed] and are mounted on axis 6 as in [0050]).
With respect to claim 14, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a direction opposite to the one direction (Junker, workpiece 1 rotated in opposite direction from grinding wheel 5, see fig. 2a; with rotation arrows; [0046] also describe the opposite rotation in fig. 2); or the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a same direction top the one direction but at a different rotational speed (Junker also teaches that the speed of the grinding wheel and regulating wheels are independent of each other, indicating a different speed, [0012], and the workpiece is driven rotationally together with the regulating wheels in [0055], indicating that the workpiece rotates at a different speed than the grinding wheel)
With respect to claim 15, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a direction opposite to the one direction (Junker, workpiece 1 rotated in opposite direction from grinding wheel 5, see fig. 2a; with rotation arrows; [0046] also describe the opposite rotation in fig. 2); or the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a same direction top the one direction but at a different rotational speed (Junker also teaches that the speed of the grinding wheel and regulating wheels are independent of each other, indicating a different speed, [0012], and the workpiece is driven rotationally together with the regulating wheels in [0055], indicating that the workpiece rotates at a different speed)
Claim(s) 3, 8, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junker (US 20130165022 A1) in view of Yamanaka (JP H04193473 A), and Weiss (US 20050208878 A1), and further in view of Masuyama (US 20110028074 A1; prev. cited.)
With respect to claim 3, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding.
Masuyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of grinding where both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding ([0021], relating to grinding wheels 7 and 8, fig. 1). Masuyama teaches this arrangement ensures both wheels press-contact ([0023]) which removes surface defects ([0025], waviness defects).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Junker, such that both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding, as taught by Masuyama for the purpose of ensuring press contact, and removing surface defects.
With respect to claim 8, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding.
Masuyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of grinding where both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding ([0021], relating to grinding wheels 7 and 8, fig. 1). Masuyama teaches this arrangement ensures both wheels press-contact ([0023]) which removes surface defects ([0025], waviness defects).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Junker, such that both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding, as taught by Masuyama for the purpose of ensuring press contact, and removing surface defects.
With respect to claim 9, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches the grinding wheels are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a direction opposite to the one direction (Junker, workpiece 1 rotated in opposite direction from grinding wheel 5, see fig. 2a; with rotation arrows; [0046] also describe the opposite rotation in fig. 2); or the grinding wheels are rotated in one direction and the workpiece is rotated in a same direction top the one direction but at a different rotational speed (Junker also teaches that the speed of the grinding wheel and regulating wheels are independent of each other, indicating a different speed, [0012], and the workpiece is driven rotationally together with the regulating wheels in [0055], indicating that the workpiece rotates at a different speed than the grinding wheel)
With respect to claim 13, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding.
Masuyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of grinding where both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding ([0021], relating to grinding wheels 7 and 8, fig. 1). Masuyama teaches this arrangement ensures both wheels press-contact ([0023]) which removes surface defects ([0025], waviness defects).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Junker, such that both grinding wheels are applied to a same contact pressure during grinding, as taught by Masuyama for the purpose of ensuring press contact, and removing surface defects.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junker (US 20130165022 A1) in view of Inokuchi (JP H06198565 A, prev. cited), and as evidenced by Weiss (US 20050208878 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Junker discloses:
A grinding device comprising: a first grinding wheel configured to be driven to rotate about an axis of rotation which runs parallel to a longitudinal axis of a workpiece to be machined (first grinding wheel is one of the plurality of wheels 5, figs. 2a, 3, and 4; fig. 2a and 3 shows the workpiece 1 with an axis 2 parallel to that of the grinding wheel 5; [0046-0047]; [0050] also describe the parallel straight rotational axes 2 of the workpiece and 6 of the grinding wheel)
a feed device which causes a relative movement between the workpiece and the first grinding wheel in the longitudinal axial direction of the workpiece ([0051] describe an axial feed device located upstream, to feed the workpiece in direction 22, fig. 3, [0044], as best understood by the examiner)
a second grinding wheel (a second grinding wheel of plurality of griding wheels 5, figs. 3 and 4; [0047,0048]; the plurality of grinding wheels rotate together as in [0042]) arranged rotatably at a distance from the first grinding wheel (the distance is determined by intermediate space 24, [0042], which is in turn determined by the width of the grinding wheel and a gap, 18; [0042, 0049], the gap as in [0049], can range the range between 0.5 and 2 mm.);
however, does not explicitly disclose
and a control device configured to adjust a distance between the first and the second grinding wheel in such a way that the second grinding wheel sweeps over a helical fault line that the first grinding wheel previously produced.
As for a control device configured to adjust a distance between the first and the second grinding wheel, Inokuchi in the same field of endeavor, teaches of an arrangement (control device, as best understood), that adjusts a distance between the first and the second grinding wheel (adjustment device 3, shown in figs. 1 and 2, described in [0019], which permits adjustment of the distance between grinding wheels 1 and 2; this arrangement is further described in [0020]). Inokuchi teaches this arrangement can adjust grinding wheel steplessly, even when rotating, saving the user time ([0012-0013]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shikama, with the control device of Inokuchi, for the purpose of adjusting the distance between grinding wheels and saving the user time.
Regarding the limitation such that the second grinding wheel grinds the helical fault lines that the first grinding wheel has previously produced during grinding, Weiss, as related to abrading, provides evidence that machining using rotating tools produces a helical trace (fig. 9, [0070], which describes that helical clatter marks depend on the width of the grinding wheel, as well as figs. 11a-11c, [0088], a twist formed by spiral lines that appear to be parallel; [0089-0092] describes the spacing of the twist as dependent on the speed of the grinding wheel and speed of the workpiece, as well as the diameters of the grinding wheels and workpiece, and the feed of the workpiece; also noted is the spiral marks shown in fig. 13, [0104] which are dependent on the feed rate [axial shift]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would thus have understood that the first grinding wheel of Junker would have produced a helical trace, and because of the nature of Junker with multiple sequential grinding wheels, the second grinding wheel would pass over and grind the helical trace produced by the first grinding wheel.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would thus have understood that the first grinding wheel of Junker would have produced a helical trace, and because of the nature of Junker with multiple sequential grinding wheels, the second grinding wheel would pass over and grind the helical trace produced by the first grinding wheel.
With respect to claim 6, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein both grinding wheels are arranged on a same axis and have a common variable or controllable drive (Junker, [0042], the grinding wheels are jointly rotated upon a common spindle [indicating a common drive] and are mounted on axis 6 as in [0050]; the drive is variable speed as in [0012] as it can be set).
With respect to claim 7, Junker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the distance between the first grinding wheel and the second grinding wheel can be adjusted (Inokuchi, adjustment device 3 [as control device, best understood], shown in figs. 1 and 2, described in [0019], which permits adjustment of the distance between grinding wheels 1 and 2; this arrangement is further described in [0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a)/(b) rejection directed towards the 112(f) limitations (response pages 8-9) the examiner respectfully submits that MPEP 2181 provides that “ The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation.” In this case it is not necessarily implicit or inherent what structure performs the claimed function with respect to a “feed device” or “control device”. Citing Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech MPEP 282 provides that “‘consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. […] "The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure."”. The applicant argued that the claimed structures could be any structure that performs the claimed function, which is not persuasive as the specification must disclose the structure. Applicant may avoid the 112(f) interpretation by amending the claim to remove the nonce term “device”, instead reciting “feed” and “control”.
Regarding the 103 rejection, the examiner agrees with the applicant’s characterization of Shikama, and a new ground of rejection over Junker is presented above. In Junker, there is relative axial motion between the workpiece and the grinding wheel, which in light of the teachings of Weiss, it would have been known that such arrangement with axial drive and rotation would generate helical/spiral marks. To address Masuyama, which is applied in dependent claim, for a different teaching than what applicant argues, the examiner submits that it is in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention and Junker, and it’s teaching is applicable to abrading (the instant application does not disclose what particular material is being ground). No specific arguments were presented for other references applied in the current rejection.
Conclusion
This action is non-final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723