DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 24 recites “the tool axis and comprising, on an outer side, a cutting layer comprising cutting grains bound within a bond and an abrasive working surface that engages on the inner surface of the bore, wherein the honing strip is configured as claimed in claim 13”. Examiner finds that “an outer side”, “a cutting layer”, “cutting grains”, “a bond”, and “an abrasive working surface” are all limitations which are claimed in claim 13 and that reciting all of these limitations in addition to “the honing strip is configured as claimed in claim 13” makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear to examiner if “an outer side”, “a cutting layer”, “cutting grains”, “a bond”, and “an abrasive working surface” are all the same elements as recited in claim 13 or if they are different elements. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “and comprising, on an outer side, a cutting layer comprising cutting grains bound within a bond and an abrasive working surface that engages on the inner surface of the bore, wherein the honing strip is configured as claimed in claim 13” to be --the tool axis, wherein the honing strip is configured as claimed in claim 13--.
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.
Claims 13-18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederhold et al. (US20110223843), hereinafter Wiederhold, in view of McDowell et al. (US9138868), hereinafter McDowell.
Regarding claim 13, Wiederhold discloses a honing strip (Fig. 1 element 150) for use in a honing tool (Fig. 1 element 100) for machining an inner surface of a bore (0036, where "bore" corresponds to bore and "interior" corresponds to inner surface), comprising:
a cutting layer carrier (Fig. 2 element 151) that carries, on an outer side (Fig. 2, where the topmost surface of element 151 which supports element 152 corresponds to an outer side), a cutting layer (Fig. 2 element 152) comprising cutting grains (0038, where "cutting material grains" corresponds to cutting grains) bound within a bond (0038, where the structure which causes the cutting material grains to be "bonded" corresponds to a bond) and an abrasive working surface that engages on the inner surface of the bore (see annotated Fig. 3 below, 0036 and 0044, where the surface which allows for "applied pressure between cutting layer and internal bore surface" corresponds to an abrasive working surface that engages on the inner surface of the bore),
wherein the honing strip defines a longitudinal direction (L) (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where "L" corresponds to a longitudinal direction) to be oriented parallel to a bore axis (0035, where the "tool axis" corresponds to a bore axis as the "tool axis" would be colinear with a bore axis when the honing tool machines the inner surface of the bore) and the working surface extends in a width direction (B), perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where "B" corresponds to a width direction), between a first side surface and a second side surface of the cutting layer (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and
the working surface has a generally convex macroscopic form (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
Wiederhold fails to disclose the working surface is generally convex and has at least two macroscopically planar facets of different orientation which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface.
McDowell is also concerned with a honing strip and teaches the working surface is generally convex and has at least two macroscopically planar facets of different orientation which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface (see annotated Fig. 20 below, 7:25-45, where elements 28 corresponds to macroscopically planar facets and where any one of the cutting layer (26) shapes/number of facets described in 7:25-45 which have at least two facets can be used and annotated Fig. 20 below is only one example of the cutting layer shapes/number of facets which meets the claim limitation). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Wiederhold discloses the invention except that the working surface is generally convex with no macroscopically planar facets instead of the working surface being generally convex with at least two macroscopically planar facets of different orientation which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface. McDowell shows that a working surface being generally convex with at least two macroscopically planar facets of different orientation which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both working surfaces are used to abrade the inner surface of a bore). Therefore, because these two working surface types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a working surface being generally convex with at least two macroscopically planar facets of different orientation which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface for a working surface which is generally convex with no macroscopically planar facets.
PNG
media_image1.png
609
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses adjacent facets form, at the enclosed edge, an interior angle of less than 1800 (McDowell, see annotated Fig. 20 above).
Regarding claim 15, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the working surface comprises exactly three facets (McDowell, 7:25-45, where "the abrasive pad may define a variety of other shapes, such as a parallelogram" is being used as one of the examples of the cutting layer (26) shapes/number of facets described in 7:25-45 which have at least two facets discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 16, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the facets have substantially identical widths (McDowell, Fig. 20, where the facets (28) are substantially identical in width).
Regarding claim 17, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses the facets are dimensioned such that the edges at the side surfaces and the at least one edge between facets lie on a common cylinder surface (Z) having a radius of curvature corresponding substantially to a nominal radius of the bore (Mcdowell, see annotated Fig. 20 above and Wiederhold, 0003, where the common cylinder surface has a radius of curvature which substantially corresponds to a nominal radius of the bore as paragraph 0003 of Wiederhold discloses that there is "constant surface contact between one or more cutting material bodies of the honing tool and the internal bore surface to be machined" which means that the outermost points of the working surface are in constant contact with the inner surface of the bore, which requires the radius of curvature of the common cylinder surface to be substantially the same as a nominal radius of the bore).
Regarding claim 18, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses on the working surface, the bond is reset in relation to exposed parts of the cutting grains such that there is a grain protrusion (Mcdowell, 4:7-17, where "This breakdown helps…expose new sharp diamond particles to aid in the abrading process" corresponds to the bond being reset to expose parts of the cutting grains such that there is a grain protrusion).
Regarding claim 20, Wiederhold discloses a method of producing a honing strip (Fig. 1 element 150) for use in a honing tool (Fig. 1 element 100) for machining an inner surface of a bore (0036, where "bore" corresponds to bore and "interior" corresponds to inner surface), comprising:
providing a honing strip blank (Fig. 2 element 151) comprising a cutting layer carrier (Fig. 2 element 151, where the cutting layer carrier is a subset of the honing strip blank which encompasses the entirety of the honing strip blank) that carries, on an outer side (Fig. 2, where the topmost surface of element 151 which supports element 152 corresponds to an outer side), a cutting layer (Fig. 2 element 152) comprising cutting grains (0038, where "cutting material grains" corresponds to cutting grains) bound within a bond (0038, where the structure which causes the cutting material grains to be "bonded" corresponds to a bond);
generating an abrasive working surface on the cutting layer, said working surface adapted to engage on the inner surface of the bore (see annotated Fig. 3 above, 0036 and 0044, where the surface which allows for "applied pressure between cutting layer and internal bore surface" corresponds to an abrasive working surface that engages on the inner surface of the bore), wherein the working surface defines a longitudinal direction (L) (see annotated Fig. 3 above, where "L" corresponds to a longitudinal direction) to be oriented parallel to a bore axis (0035, where the "tool axis" corresponds to a bore axis as the "tool axis" would be colinear with a bore axis when the honing tool machines the inner surface of the bore) and extends in a width direction (B), perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (see annotated Fig. 3 above, where "B" corresponds to a width direction), between a first side surface and a second side surface of the cutting layer (see annotated Fig. 3 above), and
the working surface is generated such that it obtains a generally convex form (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Wiederhold fails to disclose that the working surface is generally convex and has at least two facets which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface.
McDowell is also concerned with a honing strip and teaches the working surface is generally convex and has at least two facets which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface (see annotated Fig. 20 above, 7:25-45, where elements 28 corresponds to facets and where any one of the cutting layer (26) shapes/number of facets described in 7:25-45 which have at least two facets can be used and annotated Fig. 20 below is only one example of the cutting layer shapes/number of facets which meets the claim limitation). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Wiederhold discloses the invention except that the working surface is generally convex with no facets instead of the working surface being generally convex with at least two facets which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface. McDowell shows that a working surface being generally convex with at least two facets which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both working surfaces are used to abrade the inner surface of a bore). Therefore, because these two working surface types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a working surface being generally convex with at least two facets which transition, along edges running in the longitudinal direction, to an adjacent facet or a side surface for a working surface which is generally convex with no facets.
Regarding claim 24, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses a honing tool (Wiederhold, Fig. 1 element 100) for machining the inner surface of a bore (Wiederhold, 0036, where "bore" corresponds to bore and "interior" corresponds to inner surface), comprising: a tool body (Wiederhold, Fig. 1 element 110) that defines a tool axis (Wiederhold, Fig. 3 element 112) about which the honing tool rotates during the honing machining (Wiederhold, 0035 and 0042); at least one honing strip (Wiederhold, Fig. 1 element 150) arranged on the tool body (Fig. 1), said honing strip adapted to be fed radially with respect to the tool axis (Wiederhold, 0015 and 0026), wherein the honing strip is configured as claimed in claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederhold et al. (US20110223843), hereinafter Wiederhold, in view of McDowell et al. (US9138868), hereinafter McDowell, and in further view of Kranichsfeld (WO2019201717A1), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 19, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to disclose the cutting layer contains diamond cutting grains in a metallic bond.
Kranichsfeld is also concerned with a honing tool and teaches the cutting layer contains diamond cutting grains in a metallic bond (0057). It 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 to modify the honing strip of Wiederhold to make the cutting layer contain diamond cutting grains in a metallic bond, as taught by Kranichsfeld, because Kranichsfeld teaches that a cutting layer containing diamond cutting grains in a metallic bond has "very low wear, so that recompensation of the feed is not required or only required at relatively long time intervals. This allows, on the one hand, the geometric precision in the production of non-circular bore shapes to be increased, and on the other hand, the non-productive times for tool changes to be kept short overall, thus enabling a highly productive finishing process" (0057).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederhold et al. (US20110223843), hereinafter Wiederhold, in view of McDowell et al. (US9138868), hereinafter McDowell, and in further view of Yamamoto (JP2006231460A), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 21, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, but fails to disclose proceeding from a raw state of the cutting layer, some or all of the facets are generated by removal of material (0006 and 0024, where "ground surface 4c of the grindstone 4 is trued in an arc shape having a predetermined diameter (slightly smaller than the finished diameter of the processed hole)" corresponds to the shape of the cutting layer being created by removal of material).
Yamamoto is also concerned with a method of producing a honing strip and teaches proceeding from a raw state of the cutting layer, some or all of the facets are generated by removal of material. Pursuant of MPEP2143.02, it 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 to modify the method of producing a honing strip of Wiederhold, as modified, to generate some or all of the facets by removal of material, as taught by Yamamoto, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one method of producing facets on a cutting layer for another that is known in the art and would produce the predictable results of producing facets on a cutting layer.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederhold et al. (US20110223843), hereinafter Wiederhold, in view of McDowell et al. (US9138868), hereinafter McDowell, in further view of Yamamoto (JP2006231460A), attached as a PDF, and in further view of Iwai et al. (US20040176019), hereinafter Iwai.
Regarding claim 22, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 21, as described above, and further discloses the facets on the cutting layer of the honing strip blank are generated by surface grinding (Yamamoto, 0024), and a surface grinding tool (Yamamoto Fig. 1 element 32, 0024) is used (Yamamoto, 0024).
Wiederhold, as modified, fails to disclose that the surface grinding tool has diamond cutting grains.
Iwai is also concerned with a method of producing a honing strip and teaches the surface grinding tool has diamond cutting grains (0004 and 0055, where “dressing gear” corresponds to a surface grinding tool). Pursuant of MPEP2143.02, it 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 to modify the method of producing a honing strip of Wiederhold, as modified, to use a surface grinding tool with diamond cutting grains, as taught by Iwai, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one surface grinding tool for another that is known in the art for generating facets on a cutting layer and would produce the predictable results of generating facets on a cutting layer.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederhold et al. (US20110223843), hereinafter Wiederhold, in view of McDowell et al. (US9138868), hereinafter McDowell, in further view of Iwai et al. (US20040176019), hereinafter Iwai, and in further view of Roessler (CH233912A), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 23, Wiederhold, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, but fails to disclose by a resetting of the bond on the facets of the working surface, and, during generation of the facets, in a first step, substantially planar facets without grain protrusion are generated, and then, in a second step, the bond on the facets is reset in a resetting operation, and, during the resetting operation, a surface grinding tool comprising a cutting layer whose cutting grains are harder than the bond of the cutting layer of the honing strip but are unable to cut the cutting grains of the cutting layer of the honing strip is used.
Iwai is also concerned with a method of producing a honing strip and teaches by a resetting of the bond on the facets of the working surface (0004 and 0014, where the surface finish of the working surface after "dress the gear-tooth honing stone" corresponds to a resetting of the bond on the facets of the working surface), and, during generation of the facets, in a first step, substantially planar facets without grain protrusion are generated (0004, where the "honing operation" being performed after the "dressing operation" and the dressing operation being performed after the honing strip already has the facets (i.e. "a teeth profile") means that the planar facets without grain protrusion are generated before the resetting operation), and then, in a second step, the bond on the facets is reset in a resetting operation, and, during the resetting operation, a surface grinding tool is used (0014, where "dressing tool" corresponds to a surface grinding tool). It 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 to modify the method of Wiederhold, as modified, to create the substantially planar facets and then reset the bond on the facets using a surface grinding tool, as taught by Iwai, because Iwai teaches that resetting (i.e. dressing) the bond on the facets is performed “so that the shape of the gear teeth finished by the honing stone is maintained” (0014) and therefore resetting after the substantially planar facets are formed (0004) would be performed to ensure that the desired finish of the first bore hole (i.e. set of gear teeth) which is honed by the working surface is reached.
Wiederhold, as modified, fails to disclose that the surface grinding tool comprises a cutting layer whose cutting grains are harder than the bond of the cutting layer of the honing strip but are unable to cut the cutting grains of the cutting layer of the honing strip.
Roessler is also concerned with using a grinding tool (see the highlighted portions in attached PDF, where "dressing tools" corresponds to a surface grinding tool) to reset (i.e. dress) a honing strip (i.e. a grinding wheel) and teaches that the surface grinding tool comprises a cutting layer whose cutting grains are harder than the bond of the cutting layer of the honing strip but are unable to cut the cutting grains of the cutting layer of the honing strip (see highlighted portions in attached PDF, where the outer layer of the surface grinding tool which comprises silicon carbide corresponds to a cutting layer whose cutting grains are harder than the bond of the cutting layer of the honing strip but are unable to cut the cutting grains of the cutting layer of the honing strip, where examiner notes that according to Applicant's specification (see 0059 of Applicant's specification) the cutting grains being silicon carbide meets this claim limitation). Pursuant of MPEP2143.02, it 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 to modify the method of Wiederhold, as modified, to make the surface grinding tool comprise a cutting layer whose cutting grains are harder than the bond of the cutting layer of the honing strip but are unable to cut the cutting grains of the cutting layer of the honing strip, as taught by Roessler, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one surface grinding tool for another that is known in the art for resetting (i.e. dressing) an abrasive surface and would produce the predictable results of resetting an abrasive surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723