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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17), drawn to a machine for forming an axle shaft, in the reply filed on May 22, 2026, is acknowledged.
Noting that all claims (18-20) drawn to the non-elected invention have now been canceled (in the response filed May 22, 2026), no claims are being withdrawn at this time.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "54" and "50" have both been used to designate a “pinch unit”, and it appears that “50” has additionally been used to designate a “groove”. In particular, in Figure 2, it appears that in the station labeled as “14E, 14F”, elements “54” and “50” should be reversed to be consistent with, for example, the usage of 50 in stations 14C and 14G of Figure 2, the usage of 54 in Figure 3, and the usage of 54 in Figure 4, as well as to be consistent with at least paragraphs 0020-0022, 0026, and 0029-0030 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Comment on Claim Term “in a horizontal orientation”
It is noted that claim 1 sets forth “a conveyor for transferring an axle shaft preform in a horizontal orientation between the plurality of stations”. It is firstly noted that the claim is an apparatus claim rather than a method claim, such that all that is necessary to meet such a limitation is for a given conveyor to be merely capable of performing the claimed function or intended use of “transferring an axle shaft preform in a horizontal orientation” in some manner that can be considered to be “between” the plurality of stations. Furthermore, regarding the term “in a horizontal orientation”, it is noted that a workpiece, such as an axle shaft preform, is a three-dimensional object and thus has an infinite number of horizontal axes that pass therethrough, regardless of the orientation of the workpiece. That being said, it is noted that the term “in a horizontal orientation” is not claimed in any way so as to limit such to any particular orientation (re the claimed intended function or use), and as broadly claimed, any orientation of a three-dimensional object can be considered a “horizontal orientation” given that any three-dimensional object has an infinite number of horizontal axes that pass therethrough.
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:
“centering station” in claim 7; and
“pinch unit”/”pinch units” in claims 9-10.
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.
That said, it is noted that the limitation “centering station” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 8, noting that claim 8 recites sufficient structure (e.g., “a first dimpler located in proximity to a first end of the axle shaft preform and a second dimpler located in proximity to a second end of the axle shaft preform…”) to perform the claimed function(s). It is also noted that the term “centering station” in claim 11 does not invoke 35 USC 112(f), because claim 11 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (i.e., “a dimpler configured to form a dimple on a first end face and a second end face of the axle shaft preform”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1¸ lines 8-10, the claim sets forth “wherein the hobbing unit comprises a cutting tool and a linkage configured to articulate the cutting tool vertically to engage the cutting tool with the axle shaft preform and horizontally to define a length and a depth of a removed material”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is meant by “configured to articulate the cutting tool vertically to engage the cutting tool with the axle shaft preform and horizontally to define a length and a depth of a removed material”, i.e., it is unclear as claimed whether “configured to articulate the cutting tool vertically…” is intended to mean that the articulation results in vertical movement, or whether such is instead intended to mean that the pivot axis re the articulation is vertical. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and horizontally to define a length and a depth of a removed material” is intended to go, e.g., “configured to articulate the cutting tool” (and if so, similar clarity issues arise as to the intended meaning of the term “configured to articulate the cutting tool…horizontally” as were raised re the limitation “configured to articulate the cutting tool vertically”), vs. meaning to horizontally define a length and depth of a removed material. These same clarity issues exist in claim 16, which sets forth “wherein the at least one hobbing station further comprises a linkage configured to articulate the cutting tool vertically to engage the cutting tool with the axle shaft preform and horizontally to define a length and a depth of a removed material”.
In claim 1, last two lines, and in claim 17, the limitation “each articulation of the cutting tool” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. For example, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such is intended to merely refer to both vertical and horizontal articulation of the cutting tool (in the event that the limitation in lines 8-10 of claim 1 (and the similar limitations in claim 16) intends to set forth both such horizontal cutting tool articulation and vertical cutting tool articulation), or whether such is intending to reference not-expressly-recited steps (in an apparatus claim) of performing plural articulations (such as plural vertical articulations, for example). The same clarity issue arises in claim 2 re the limitation “wherein the rotator is further configured to rotate the axle shaft preform during each articulation of the cutting tool”.
The term “in proximity to” (plural occurrences) in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in proximity to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how close the various hobbing units have to be capable of being to the claimed ends of the axle shaft preform in order to be considered to be “in proximity to” such, vs. how far away would be excluded by the term “in proximity to”.
In claim 6, the claim sets forth “wherein the plurality of stations further comprises a deburring station for removing burs in proximity to the removed material of the axle shaft preform”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being/occurring “in proximity to the removed material of the axle shaft preform”, e.g., the burs, the removing of burs, or the deburring station. Furthermore, regardless of which of the aforementioned meanings are intended, the term “in proximity to” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in proximity to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how close is considered to be “in proximity to”, vs. how far away is excluded by the term “in proximity to”.
In claim 7, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “in the horizontal orientation”, e.g., the locating of the axle shaft preform, the axle shaft preform itself, the centering station, etc.
In claim 7, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being or occurring “on the conveyor”, e.g., the locating of the axle shaft preform, the horizontal orientation of the axle shaft preform, the axle shaft preform itself, etc.
The term “in proximity to” (plural occurrences) in claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in proximity to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how close two elements must be in order for one to be considered to be “in proximity to” the other, and it is unclear as set forth in the claim how far apart two elements must be in order to be excluded by the term.
In claim 8, the claim sets forth “wherein the centering station includes a first dimpler located in proximity to a first end of the axle shaft preform and a second dimpler located in proximity to a second end of the axle shaft preform”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a second dimpler located in proximity to a second end of the axle shaft preform” is intended to go, i.e., “the centering station includes…” (as in “the centering station includes…a second dimpler located in proximity to a second end of the axle shaft preform”), vs. “located in proximity” (as in “wherein the centering station includes a first dimpler located in proximity to a first end of the axle shaft preform and” (located in proximity to) “a second dimpler located in proximity to a second end of the axle shaft preform”).
In claim 8, in the limitation “configured to form dimples on a first end face and a second end face of the axle shaft preform”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “of the axle shaft preform” is intended to only go with “a second end face”, or whether “of the axle shaft preform” is also intended to go with “a first end face”.
Claim limitation “pinch unit” or “pinch units” (claims 9-10) 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 specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of selectively holding the axle shaft preform via insertion into the dimples (45) (see paragraphs 0030, 0021), and teaches that the pinch unit(s) can be “conically shaped” (paragraph 0042), though merely stating the function and the fact that the element(s) can be conically shaped is not a disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed function of selectively holding via insertion into dimples. The use of the term “conically-shaped” is not adequate structure for performing the claimed function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect selective holding via a conical shape. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. 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.
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.
In claim 9, the limitation “the pinch units at each of the plurality of stations” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, noting that no pinch units “at each of the plurality of stations” were previously recited, nor is such inherent.
In claim 11, lines 6-7, in the limitation “configured to form a dimple on a first end face and a second end face of the axle shaft preform”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “of the axle shaft preform” is intended to only go with “a second end face”, or whether “of the axle shaft preform” is also intended to go with “a first end face”.
In claim 11, in the limitation “a grooving station with a groover tool configured to reduce an outer diameter adjacent to the first end face and the second end face”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as located or occurring “adjacent to the first end face and the second end face”, i.e., the outer diameter, the reducing of the outer diameter, the groover tool, etc.
It is noted that claim 13 sets forth “wherein the robotic arm is further configured to load a plurality of provided axle shaft preforms with a different provided axle shaft preform being simultaneously in each station”. It is also noted that claim 13 depends from claim 12, which recites “wherein a robotic arm is configured to load the axle shaft preform into the centering station”. That said, in claim 13, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether or not the claim intends to require that the robotic arm is configured to load a plurality of provided axle shaft preforms specifically into the centering station (with plural axle shaft preforms being located/existing simultaneously in each station, whether or not the recited “different provided axle shaft preforms” are a subset of the claimed “plurality of provided axle shaft preforms”). It is also unclear as claimed whether or not “a different provided axle shaft preform” is intended to be required to be a subset of the recited “plurality of provided axle shaft preforms”. It is further unclear as claimed whether the language of claim 13 is intended to require the robotic arm to be capable of loading plural provided axle shaft preforms to each of the stations. Overall, it is unclear as claimed in claim 13 what function(s) the robotic arm is intended to be required to be capable of performing.
In claim 15, the claim sets forth “wherein the at least one hobbing station further comprises a first hobbing station in proximity to a first side of the axle shaft preform and a second hobbing station in proximity to a second side of the axle shaft preform”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “and a second hobbing station in proximity to a second side of the axle shaft preform” is intended to go with “the at least one hobbing station further comprises…” (as in “wherein the at least one hobbing station further comprises a first hobbing station in proximity to a first side of the axle shaft preform and” the at least one hobbing station further comprises “a second hobbing station in proximity to a second side of the axle shaft preform”), or whether “and a second hobbing station in proximity to a second side of the axle shaft preform” is instead intended to go with “in proximity to…” (as in “wherein the at least one hobbing station further comprises a first hobbing station in proximity to a first side of the axle shaft preform and” in proximity to “a second hobbing station in proximity to a second side of the axle shaft preform”).
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.
Claims 9-10 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.
Regarding claims 9-10 and the recited “pinch unit” or “pinch units”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of selectively holding the axle shaft preform via insertion into the dimples. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 11-17 and 1-7, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3928246 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘246”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0221080 to Neumaier et al. (hereinafter, “Neumaier”).
It is noted that a machine translation of DE ‘246 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re DE ‘246.
Regarding claim 11, DE ‘246 teaches a machine for (i.e., capable of, as broadly claimed; note that the present claims are apparatus claims rather than method claims, such that all that is necessary in order to meet the various functional or intended use limitations, including what the workpiece is on which the machine is capable/intended for machining, is for the prior art to be merely capable of performing the claimed function or intended use) forming an axle shaft (it is noted that the machine tool taught by DE ‘246 is blind as to the workpiece on which it operates, but rather, is inherently capable, by virtue of the machining portion(s) of the tool(s) thereof, of machining whatever workpiece with which the tool(s) thereof are brought into operative machining contact, and it is further noted that workpiece 2/3 expressly taught by DE ‘246 is an elongated rod/shaft, and thus, for at least all of the foregoing reasoning, the machine tool taught by DE ‘246 is considered to be capable of being used “for” forming/machining an “axle” shaft; see Figures 1-6 and at least paragraphs 0002, 0022, for example), comprising:
a plurality of stations (such as 12, 13, 44, 61, 62, and 63, or alternatively, such as 12a, 13a, 44, 61, 62, and 63; see Figures 1-6, as well as at least paragraphs 0022, 0024-0025, 0033, 0035, 0038, 0040, 0044-0047, for example); and
a conveyor (55 feeds/conveys the workpiece in direction 21 to transfer device 56, from which the workpiece(s) is/are moved to a transverse conveyor 57, and 57 conveys the workpiece(s) in a direction transverse to direction 21, perpendicular to the plane of Figure 4; see Figures 4-6 and paragraphs 0043-0044, for example) for (i.e., capable of, noting the shaft-configuration of the rod section workpiece 3 taught by DE ‘246) transferring an axle shaft preform linearly (such as along straight line 21, via 55, and such as in a direction perpendicular to 21, via 57; see paragraphs 0043-0045 and Figures 4-6, for example) “between” (such as at a location that is “between”, i.e., between in the left/right direction re Figure 6, or such as at a location that is “between”, i.e., between in the left/right direction re Figure 6, stations 62 and 44; alternatively, “between” in the sense of “from” and “to”, noting that 55 moves 3 from 12/13 to 56/57, and 56/57 moves 3 to 44, to 61, to 62, and/or to 63; see Figures 1 and 4-6; see also paragraphs 0043-0045, for example) the (aforedescribed) plurality of stations,
wherein the plurality of stations comprises:
a centering station (44; see Figures 3, 4, 6, and at least paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0045, for example) with a dimpler (50/51) configured to form a dimple on a first end face and a second end face of the axle shaft preform (see Figures 3, 4, 6, and paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0045, and particularly note that paragraph 0040 expressly teaches that at the centering station/unit 44, one or both ends of the respective rod section 3 can be subjected to the processing operation, and paragraph 0042 expressly teaches that in the centering unit, a centering hole is created via machining tool 51; additionally/alternatively, it is again noted that the present claims are not method claims, and that two opposite end faces of an axle shaft preform are inherently capable of having dimples formed thereon by one machining tool 51 of the centering unit 44 simply by having an operator shut off the conveyor 57, manually pick up the shaft such as 3 after a first end face was dimpled by 51, manually reorient the shaft so that the opposite end face of the shaft is configured to be reachable for machining via the tool 51 of the centering station, and then actuating the tool 51 to machine that second end face, as broadly claimed; see also paragraphs 0009, 0011-0012, and the translation of claim 18, which teach that plural centering bores/holes are produced),
a shaping station with a reducer tool configured to reduce an outer diameter on sections of the axle shaft preform (see paragraph 0046, on page 22, which teaches that the machining may also include “turning down the outer circumference at the respective rod end”, and thus, the station at which such turning occurs is a “shaping” station, and the tool that carries out such turning is a “reducer tool”; alternatively, note that stations/reducer tools 14/14a both “reduce an outer diameter” of the shaft workpiece 3, as shown in Figures 1-2, and as disclosed in at least paragraphs 0022-0026, 0035-0036), and
a grooving station with a groover tool (15 or 15a) configured to reduce an outer diameter adjacent to the first end face and the second end face (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0025, 0033-0037, 0039, for example).
However, while DE ‘246 does teach other machining stations 61, 62, 63, and does teach that those other work stations can be “for drilling, milling or the like”, or for turning down the outer circumference at the respective rod end, producing an external and/or internal thread, “or similar operations” (see paragraphs 0045-0047, for example), DE ‘246 does not expressly teach a hobbing tool, and does not expressly teach that the plurality of stations comprises (as set forth in claim 11) “at least one hobbing station comprising a cutting tool configured to form splines on the axle shaft preform”.
That said, attention is directed to Neumaier.
Neumaier teaches a machine tool 200 having a milling head 210 in which a hob milling device 300 is selectively detachably received. See Figures 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0058-0060, 0066-0067. Additionally, the machine tool 200 has a tool magazine that includes a plurality of milling and drilling tools, as well as a plurality of hob milling devices 300 (including hob milling tool 310; see Figure 2 and paragraph 0057) and hob grinding devices, that can be selectively provided to the milling head 210 (so as to be exchanged with the tool that is received by the milling head 210). See, for example, paragraphs 0012-0019, 0067-0068, 0070-0072, and 0074, for example. The machine is configured to provide the tool with five degrees of freedom of movement, including three translatory degrees of freedom, and two angular/rotational degrees of freedom, or to provide the tool with six or more degrees of freedom (three translatory and three or more angular/rotational; see paragraph 0058). See at least paragraphs 0021-0023, 0036, 0059, 0062, 0073-0076. Resultantly, the tool head 210, and thus the hob milling device 300 and hob milling tool 310 attached thereto, can be moved in any desired orientation and path movement relative to the clamped workpiece (paragraph 0062), including in oblique positions relative to the workpiece, to allow increased flexibility as to the workpieces that can be produced (see paragraphs 0021-0023, for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each of the tool spindle heads of each of the work units/stations (61, 62, 63) taught by DE ‘246 (which can be used for drilling, milling, or the like, for example, as taught by paragraph 0045 of DE ‘246, or for turning down the outer circumference at the respective rod end, producing an external and/or internal thread, or similar operations, as taught by paragraph 0047 of DE ‘246) with a respective tool storage magazine and tool changing arrangement, as taught by Neumaier, which tool storage magazine(s) are stocked with (in addition to the milling, drilling, etc., tools taught by both DE ‘246 and Neumaier) the additional replaceable hob type grinding and hob type milling tools taught by Neumaier, for the purpose of expanding the functionality of DE ‘246’s milling/drilling stations (61-63), i.e., by allowing them to additionally perform hob milling and hob grinding, and for the purpose of facilitating the exchange between the milling and drilling tooling, for example, taught by DE ‘246, as taught by Neumaier (paragraphs 0012-0022, 0066-0068, 0070-0074, for example, of Neumaier). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each of the additional tool spindle heads (61-63) of DE ‘246 with at least five or six degrees of freedom, including three translational and two or three angular or rotational degrees of freedom, as taught by Neumaier (as described above), and to have provided the workpieces at each of the stations taught by DE ‘246 with a rotational degree of freedom, as taught by Neumaier, for the purpose of increasing the capabilities of DE ‘246’s tool stations 61-63 by allowing relative movement of the tools/workpieces in any desired manner to any desired orientation and along any desired path, in order to allow increased flexibility as to the workpieces that can be produced (see paragraphs 0021-0023 of Neumaier, for example).
Resultantly, regarding claim 11, DE ‘246 in view of Neumaier (i.e., “DE ‘246/Neumaier”) teaches at least one hobbing station (any one of the stations 61-63 of DE ‘246, to which one of the hobbing tools taught by Neumaier has been provided via the corresponding tool magazine/tool changer arrangement of Neumaier, is thus a “hobbing station” as broadly claimed) comprising a cutting tool (the cutting/hobbing tool of Neumaier that is provided to one of the stations 61-63 of DE ‘246) configured to form (i.e., capable of forming) splines on the axle shaft preform (given that the tool in question is a hobbing tool capable of creating teeth such as gear teeth on a workpiece, it is considered to be inherent that the aforementioned cutting tool is thus capable of forming “splines” on an axle shaft preform).
Regarding claim 12, while DE ‘246 (of DE ‘246/Neumaier) teaches that a magazine (54; see Figure 5) is provided at one end of the device for receiving a number of bars of the bar material (2), which magazine forms a V-shaped receptacle that can be raised so that each bar rolls into a feeder (55) aligned with the axis (23, shown in Fig. 1), and that from this feeder (55), the rod (2) is advanced into the work stations (12, 13) or the clamping devices (17, 18) (see paragraph 0043 and Figures 4-6 and 1, for example), and that after cutting, the cut-to-length rod pieces (3) are conveyed in the same transport direction (arrow 21) into a transfer device (56), are lowered into the transverse conveyor (57), and the transverse conveyor (57) carries the pieces (3) to the various stations, including the centering station (44) (see paragraph 0043-0045, Figures 4-6), DE ‘246 is silent as to what structure is utilized to advance the rod (2) from the feeder (55) into the work stations (12, 13) or clamping devices (17, 18), and is silent as to what structure is utilized to advance the cut-to-length rod (3) from station (13) in direction (21) into the transfer device (56), and thus, does not expressly teach “a robotic arm is configured to load the axle shaft preform into the centering station”.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of automated (i.e., “robotic”, as broadly claimed) arms to move elements from one location to another is extremely well-known and widely used in manufacturing for the purpose of increasing automation and reducing the number of tasks that must be done manually, and for the purpose of providing a known precision arrangement for repeatably moving an element from and to desired locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted, specifically, at least one automated, i.e., “robotic”, arm, as is known, for the generic arrangement by which the movement disclosed by DE ‘246 of the rod (2) from the feeder (55) to the stations (12, 13) or to the clamping devices (17, 18) is carried out, and for the generic arrangement by which the movement disclosed by DE ‘246 of the cut-to-length rod (3) from the station (13) to the transfer device (56) (in direction 21) is carried out, as is well-known, and to achieve the well-known benefit of increasing automation and reducing the number of tasks that must be done manually, and for the well-known purpose of providing a known precision arrangement for repeatably moving an element from and to desired locations. Note that using such robotic arm(s) to carry out the function(s) of moving 2 into 12, 13, and moving 3 into 56, serve to at least load the workpiece into the centering station (44) (i.e., by way of 12, 13, 56, 57).
Regarding claim 13, note that resultantly, as broadly claimed (and as best understood in view of the above issues with respect to 35 USC 112), such robotic arm(s) is/are considered to be configured to load (i.e., capable of loading) a plurality of provided axle shaft preforms with a different provided axle shaft preform being simultaneously in each station. For example, note that loading plural rods 2 into 12/13 of DE ‘246, and/or plural rods 3 into 56 of DE ‘246, one at a time, one after the other, and having each of those rods fed via 56 to conveyor 57, and having conveyor 57 feed those rods to the stations 44, 61, 62, 63 of DE ‘246, one after the other, results in the capability of there being a different rod/shaft preform simultaneously at each of the stations 12, 13, 44, 61, 62, 63. See Figures 1-2 and 4-6 of DE ‘246.
Regarding claim 14, DE ‘246/Neumaier, it is noted that modifying DE ‘246 in view of Neumaier as described above results in each of the (disclosed multi-functional drilling or milling, etc.) stations (such as 61, 62, 63) of DE ‘246 including a respective tool magazine and tool changer arrangement, with the tool magazines each being stocked with (in addition to the milling, drilling, etc., tools taught by both DE ‘246 and Neumaier) the additional replaceable hob type grinding and hob type milling tools taught by Neumaier. That being said, DE ‘246/Neumaier teaches that the plurality of stations further comprises a deburring station (i.e., a station that is capable of performing “deburring”; such as station 61) for removing burs “in proximity to” a removed material of the axle shaft preform (see Figure 6 of DE ‘246, noting the “proximity” of 61 to the right end of 3 at which machining is carried out by 44 and by 61), the deburring station including a grinding tool (the grinding tool of Neumaier that is provided to 61 of DE ‘246 via a respective tool storage magazine and tool changer arrangement, described above) connected to a “track linkage” (59 of DE ‘246, and the arrangement for moving 58 and 61 along 59; see Figures 6, 4, and at least paragraph 0044 and the translation of claim 16, all of DE ‘246) that moves the grinding tool (of Neumaier, provided to the tool spindle head of 61 of DE ‘246 via the tool storage magazine/tool changer arrangement of Neumaier provided to 61 of DE ‘246) horizontally (in direction 23 per paragraph 0044; also note that Figure 6 is a top view; see paragraphs 0021, 0044, and Figures 6, 4, and 1 of DE ‘246, for example) with respect to the axle shaft preform. Note that the term “deburring station for removing burs” is a functional or intended use limitation re the station, and that by virtue of the grinding portion of the grinding tool, the station 61 of DE ‘246 (provided with such a grinding tool of Neumaier, as previously described) is considered to be inherently capable of performing the claimed function of “deburring”/”removing burs”, noting that the grinding portion of the grinding tool is blind as to what it grinds/abrades, but rather, is capable of grinding or abrading any burs with which it comes into operative machining/grinding contact.
Regarding claim 15 (which depends from claim 11), the at least one hobbing station (any one of 61-63 of DE ‘246, provided with one of the hobbing tools of Neumaier by the corresponding tool magazine and tool changer arrangement of Neumaier, as described above) further comprises a first hobbing station “in proximity to” a first side of the axle shaft preform and a second hobbing station in proximity to a second side of the axle shaft preform. See Figure 6 of DE ‘246, for example, noting that station 61 is on the right side of workpiece 3 re Figure 6, whereas stations 62 and 63 are on the left side of workpiece 3, such that 61 can be considered one of the first or second hobbing stations, and either of 62 or 63 can be considered the other of the second or first hobbing stations, respectively. Alternatively, it is noted that any one of the stations 61-63 of DE ‘246 (provided with one of the hobbing tools of Neumaier by the corresponding tool magazine and tool changer arrangement of Neumaier, as described above) can be considered the claimed first hobbing station, and any other of the stations 61-63 of DE ‘246 (provided with one of the hobbing tools of Neumaier by the corresponding tool magazine and tool changer arrangement of Neumaier, as described above) can be considered the claimed second hobbing station, noting that each of the stations 61-63 of DE ‘246 are, as broadly claimed, “in proximity” to both left and right (e.g., first and second) “sides” of the workpiece 3, as can be seen in at least Figure 6 of DE ‘246, and thus, each station 61-63 of DE ‘246 is in proximity to both a first side of the workpiece and to a second side of the axle shaft workpiece, as broadly claimed.
Regarding claim 16 (which depends from claim 11), the at least one hobbing station (any one of 61-63 of DE ‘246, provided with one of the hobbing tools of Neumaier by the corresponding tool magazine and tool changer arrangement of Neumaier, as described above) further comprises a linkage configured to articulate the cutting tool vertically to engage the axle shaft preform and horizontally to define a length and depth of a removed material. As described above re claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each of the additional tool spindle heads (61-63) of DE ‘246 with the at least five or six degrees of freedom, including three translational and two or three angular or rotational degrees of freedom, as taught by Neumaier (as described above), and to have provided the workpieces at each of the stations taught by DE ‘246 with a rotational degree of freedom, as taught by Neumaier, for the purpose of increasing the capabilities of DE ‘246’s tool stations 61-63 by allowing relative movement of the tools/workpieces in any desired manner to any desired orientation and along any desired path, in order to allow increased flexibility as to the workpieces that can be produced (see paragraphs 0021-0023 of Neumaier, for example). Resultantly, particularly with the arrangement with six degrees of freedom, including three angular or rotational degrees of freedom, at least two of those are achieved via movements of the tool/tool head. See at least Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0019, 0021-0023, and 0059, of Neumaier et al. Thus, any of the stations 61-63 of DE ‘246 so modified by Neumaier can be considered the claimed at least one hobbing station that further comprises a linkage (i.e., the arrangement(s) of Neumaier for achieving the angular/rotational degrees of freedom of the tool/tool head) to articulate the cutting tool in the claimed manner(s).
Regarding claim 17, the (aforedescribed re claim 16) at least one hobbing station further comprises a rotator configured to rotate the axle shaft preform between each articulation of the cutting tool. As described above re claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have (also) provided the workpieces at each of the stations taught by DE ‘246 with a rotational degree of freedom, as taught by Neumaier (see paragraphs 0020-0022, 0057-0059, 0061, for example, of Neumaier), for the purpose of increasing the capabilities of DE ‘246’s tool stations 61-63 by allowing relative movement of the tools/workpieces in any desired manner to any desired orientation and along any desired path, in order to allow increased flexibility as to the workpieces that can be produced (see paragraphs 0021-0023 of Neumaier, for example). Thus, any of the stations 61-63 of DE ‘246 so modified by Neumaier can be considered the claimed at least one hobbing station that further comprises a rotator (i.e., the arrangement(s) of Neumaier for achieving the rotation of the workpiece) that is configured to rotate (i.e., “capable of rotating”) the axle shaft (workpiece) (at a time, for example, that is or includes the time) “between” each articulation of the cutting tool (simply by so actuating the rotation of the workpiece at such a time relative to the various articulations of the cutting tool; see Neumaier, paragraphs 0035-0037, 0056-0061, 0017-0023, for example).
Regarding claim 1, re DE ‘246/Neumaier, see the above discussions regarding claims 11, 15, 16, and 17, and additionally noting that in DE ‘246, the conveyor (such as 57, or 55+56+57) transfers a shaft workpiece 2 and/or 3 “in a horizontal orientation” (such as, for example, an orientation in which the longitudinal axis of the workpiece is horizontal; see Figures 1-2 and 4-6 of DE ‘246, for example) “between” the plurality of stations. Furthermore, the aforedescribed rotator, described re claim 17, is considered to form/form part of a “holding unit”.
Regarding claim 2, re DE ‘246/Neumaier, attention is directed to the above discussion re claims 16-17, noting that the rotator is considered to be “configured to rotate” (i.e., capable of rotating) the workpiece “during each articulation of the cutting tool to at least partially define a width of the removed material”, simply by so actuating the rotation of the workpiece at such a time relative to the various articulations of the workpiece at such a time relative to the various articulations of the cutting tool. See Neumaier, paragraphs 0035-0037, 0056-0061, 0017-0023, for example. Note also that the present claims are not method claims, such that all that is necessary to meet the claimed functional or intended use language in the claims is for the prior art apparatus to be merely capable of performing the claimed function(s) or intended use(s).
Regarding claim 3, attention is directed to the above discussion of DE ‘246/Neumaier re claim 11 (which claim 11 included a limitation regarding the ability of the cutting tool to “form splines on the axle shaft preform).
Regarding claim 4, attention is directed to the above discussion of DE ‘246/Neumaier re claims 15 and 17, noting that the rotator (re Neumaier) of another one of the stations 61-63 (of DE ‘246) is likewise a “holder”.
Regarding claim 5, note that the conveyor (or conveyor portion) 57 of DE ‘246 is “configured for” transferring (i.e., capable of transferring) the axle shaft preform linearly (i.e., in the vertical direction re the plane of Figure 6, which is the direction perpendicular to the plane of Figure 4, which is the horizontal left/right direction re the plane of Figure 5, all of DE ‘246) from the (aforedescribed) first hobbing station to the second hobbing station (see the above discussion of DE ‘246/Neumaier re claim 15 re the first and second hobbing stations). See also at least paragraphs 0012-0013, 0032, 0043-0047, for example.
Regarding claim 6, see the above discussion of DE ‘246/Neumaier regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 7, see the above discussion of DE ‘246/Neumaier regarding claim 11, and particularly, see the above discussion of the a centering station (44; see Figures 3, 4, 6, and at least paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0045, for example, of DE ‘246) (which centering station 44 has a dimpler 50/51), which centering station (44) is “for” locating the shaft workpiece (3) “in the horizontal orientation on the conveyor” (such as 57). See Figures 3, 4, 6, and at least paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0045, for example, of DE ‘246. See also paragraphs 0011-0013, for example, of DE ‘246.
Claim 8, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 3928246 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘246”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0221080 to Neumaier et al. (hereinafter, “Neumaier”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,479,735 to Miles, Jr., et al. (hereinafter, “Miles”).
Regarding claim 8, as noted above regarding claim 7, DE ‘246 of DE ‘246/Neumaier teaches a centering station (44) for locating the shaft workpiece (such as 3) “in the horizontal direction on the conveyor” (such as 57). See Figures 3, 4, 6, and at least paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0045, for example, of DE ‘246. See also paragraphs 0011-0013, for example, of DE ‘246.
However, while DE ‘246 (of DE ‘246/Neumaier) does teach a centering station (44; see Figures 3, 4, 6, and at least paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0045, for example) with a dimpler (50/51) configured to form a dimple on a first end face and a second end face of the axle shaft preform (see Figures 3, 4, 6, and paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0045, and particularly note that paragraph 0040 expressly teaches that at the centering station/unit 44, one or both ends of the respective rod section 3 can be subjected to the processing operation, and paragraph 0042 expressly teaches that in the centering unit, a centering hole is created via machining tool 51; additionally/alternatively, it is again noted that the present claims are not method claims, and that two opposite end faces of an axle shaft preform are inherently capable of having dimples formed thereon by one machining tool 51 of the centering unit 44 simply by having an operator shut off the conveyor 57, manually pick up the shaft such as 3 after a first end face was dimpled by 51, manually reorient the shaft so that the opposite end face of the shaft is configured to be reachable for machining via the tool 51 of the centering station, and then actuating the tool 51 to machine that second end face, as broadly claimed; see also paragraphs 0009, 0011-0012, and the translation of claim 18, which teach that plural centering bores/holes are produced), DE ‘246 does not expressly teach that there is a “second dimpler located in proximity to a second end of the” workpiece, as set forth in claim 8.
However, attention is directed to Miles.
Miles teaches an apparatus (Figures 1-2, for example) that includes a center drilling station 21 (Figure 2; col. 1, lines 10-30, col. 2, lines 35-54, and col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 30, for example), which center drilling station has two power head assemblies 25 (Figures 1-2). Each of the power head assemblies 25 includes a respective quill 30, a respective tool holder 45, and a respective center drill 47. See Figures 1-2, 7, and 11, as well as col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 30, for example. Note that each power head assembly 25, quill 30, tool holder 45, and center drill 47 forms/constitutes a respective “dimpler” for forming “dimples” in a respective end face of an elongated workpiece W. See Figures 1-2, 7, 11, and col. 1, lines 10-54, and col. 2, line 55 through col. 3, line 30, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the centering station taught by DE ‘246 (of DE ‘246/Neumaier), which is taught by DE ‘246 as being capable of creating a centering hole in both ends of the elongated workpiece (as discussed above), specifically have two opposed dimplers (instead of the one that is shown by DE ‘246), one at each of two longitudinal ends of the elongated workpiece, as taught by Miles, for the purpose of (i) providing an arrangement capable of performing the creation of a centering hole in each of both of the opposed end faces (at the longitudinal ends) of the elongated workpiece, as is taught by DE ‘246, and (ii) providing such an arrangement that has a minimum cycle time to complete the machining of the two centering holes/dimples (as compared to such machining having to occur at, for example, two different times or two different stations), as taught by Miles. See Miles, col. 1, lines 30-59 and col. 6, lines 53-70, for example.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 9-10, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected 9-10 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, WO 81/03444 teaches an arrangement with plural stations for machining an axle shaft. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0209179 to Williams et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,634,250 to Mihailovic, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,205,806 to Ishida teach a variety of hobbing tools/attachments for making a machining station a hobbing “station”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights