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 .
Status of Claims / Response to Amendment
This action is in reply to the response filed 12/18/2025. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-4 are currently pending and have been examined. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office action 9/18/2025 is continued to be used throughout the current office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US PGPUB No. 2018/0193978), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Watanabe discloses a grinding apparatus comprising:
a rotation apparatus having a motor that rotates a grinding member [Watanabe, fig 1, 21 which holds 23 is rotated by motor 25 and page 2, pp 0031];
a moving apparatus that brings the grinding member into contact with a workpiece by moving the grinding member and the workpiece relative to each other [Watanabe, page 2, pp’s 0029 and 0031, 10 and 11 support 21 to be movingly adjusted, where 10 and 11 are functionally equivalent because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification];
an AE sensor that detects an acoustic emission generated when the grinding member and the workpiece are brought into contact with each other [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0053]; and
a controller [Watanabe, fig 1, 30] that controls a cut-in speed of the grinding member into the workpiece by controlling the moving apparatus [Watanabe, page 4, pp’s 0051-0052],
wherein the controller controls the cut-in speed using an output of the AE sensor and an output of the motor [Watanabe, page 3, pp 0036 and page 5, pp’s 0053-0055, 30 monitors the acoustic signal and also uses a motor current to control the feed rate of the grinding device to determine contact and to change the speed of the rotation of the grinding device 23]; and
wherein the controller performs a first process of detecting the contact between the grinding member and the workpiece based on the output of the AE sensor [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0053 the AE sensor detects when contact of 23 is with the workpiece], the controller performs a second process of detecting the contact between the grinding member and the workpiece based on the output of the motor [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0053, current from the motor is used to also detect contact], the controller sets the cut-in speed to a first speed until the contact is detected through the first process [Watanabe, page 3, pp 0036, V1], the controller sets the cut-in speed to a second speed until the contact is detected through the second process after the contact is detected through the first process [Watanabe, page 3, pp 0036, V2], the second speed being lower than the first speed [Watanabe, page 3, pp 0036, V2 is lower than V1], and the controller sets the cut-in speed to a third speed after the contact is detected through the second process, the third speed being lower than the second speed [Watanabe, page 2, pp 0036 V3].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Watanabe further discloses the grinding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the grinding apparatus includes a current sensor that detects a current of the motor [Watanabe, page 2, pp 0033, 32], and the controller performs the second process based on the current of the motor detected by the current sensor [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0053].
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US PGPUB No. 2018/0193978) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chew et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0013085), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe and Chew, respectively.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Watanabe further disclose the grinding apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the controller includes a band-pass filter that only allows for passage of a signal in a specific frequency region with regard to the output of the AE sensor, and the controller performs the first process based on the output of the AE sensor having passed through the band-pass filter.
Chew teaches a grinding apparatus [Chew, fig 2, 100] comprising:
a rotation apparatus having a motor [Chew, fig 2, 141] that rotates a grinding member [Chew, fig 2, 141 rotates 120 and 110 which grinds workpiece 10];
a moving apparatus that brings the grinding member into contact with a workpiece by moving the grinding member and the workpiece relative to each other [Chew, fig 2, 140 which holds the workpiece 10 and moves 10 relative to 110];
an AE sensor that detects an acoustic emission generated when the grinding member and the workpiece are brought into contact with each other [Chew, fig 2, and page 3, pp 0032, 160]; and
a controller [Chew, fig 2, 190] that controls a cut-in speed of the grinding member into the workpiece by controlling the moving apparatus [Chew, page 3, pp 0031, 190 is connected to 121 and 154 to control the rotation of 120 and 140],
wherein the controller controls the cut-in speed using an output of the AE sensor and an output of the motor [Chew, page 4, pp’s 0048-0050, the AE sensor and the motor can detect the change in friction and thus change the relative speed between the workpiece the 110]; and
wherein the controller includes a band-pass filter that only allows for passage of a signal in a specific frequency region with regard to the output of the AE sensor [Chew, page 3, pp 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control circuitry of Watanabe to include and add in a band-pass filter because this allows the signal to be amplified which enables the signal to more fully be controllable and to thus enable endpoint detection of the grinding process [Chew, page 3, pp’s 0039 and 0041, summarized]. Therefore Watanabe as modified thus having the filter, the controller, as modified, would then perform the first process based on the output of the AE sensor having passed through the band-pass filter [Chew, page 3, pp 0039, the filter is set before going to the controller and Watanabe, page 5, pp 0053, the controller determines when contact is made].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 5, the Applicant has argued that Watanabe is understood that the speed transition may occur when “slip” is determined by either of the current sensor or the AE sensor and that the Watanabe does not teach the sequential process in which the AE sensor detection first triggers a change in speed, followed by a subsequent, distinct detection by the motor output to trigger a further change in speed. The Office respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. First because in pp’s [0053-0054] Watanabe teaches “specifically, in a contact detection signal of the contact detection sensor (AE, steps S11 and S12 in fig. 2B) has exceeded a threshold set in advance, the second detection unit 32 detects the current signal of the wheel spindle drive motor, and obtains the grinding resistance moment Mn corresponding to the detected drive current signal (step S13 in fig. 2B). Second because figure 2B shows the steps in sequential order, suggesting that the sensors may be used together and when combined with pp [0054] shows that both sensors are contemplated being used together, and not as merely alternatives to each other as the Applicant has suggested.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN108161722) teaches a grinding machine comprising an acoustic emission sensor and a motor current sensor used together. Watanabe et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2014217914) teaches a grinding machine comprising an acoustic emission sensor and a motor current sensor used together.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights