DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
It is noted that the substitute specification filed May 18, 2026 could not be entered as it is non-compliant with 37 CFR 1.121. In particular, the substitute specification is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (a)(3)(ii), which requires that an amendment to the specification by substitute specification be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c). That said, 37 CFR 1.125(b) indicates that a substitute specification must be “accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter”. It is noted that the substitute specification filed May 18, 2026 was not filed with such a statement (i.e., was not filed with a statement indicating that the substitute specification includes no new matter).
That said, should Applicant still wish to make whatever changes (to the specification) as were submitted in the substitute specification filed 5/18/2026, Applicant will need to file amendments to the current specification (i.e., not the one filed 5/18/2026, which could not be entered) that are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 6/7/2023 listed (as citation no. 16) EP 4337001 A1, which the IDS says was published 1995-05-04, that the name of the patentee or applicant is Ebert Helmut Dipling, and the far right column of the aforementioned IDS indicates that this document is discussed in the specification beginning on page 11. That being said, it appears that Applicant inadvertently called/cited this reference as an “EP” document number, when Applicant actually intended to cite a German (DE) patent document with that number, date, patentee/applicant, and that was mentioned on page 11 of the specification. It is further noted that Applicant provided a copy of DE 4337001 A1, and did not provide a copy of EP 4337001 A1. That said, Examiner lined through “EP” on the 6/7/2023 IDS and changed it to “DE”, in view of the aforementioned indicators that such was Applicant’s intention. That said, in the event that Applicant actually intends to cite EP 4337001 A1, Applicant will have to cite that on a separate IDS and provide a copy of the EP 4337001 A1 reference (and will have to otherwise comply with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98).
The information disclosure statement filed 9/28/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In particular, accordingly the citations of co-pending applications 18/266976 and 18/268195 have been lined through and those references have not considered. Attention is, however, directed to the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action, noting that the published versions of these applications have been cited.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, (claims 1-23 and 26-41) drawn to a “tool head”, and of species (ii), a second species depicted in Figures 5-8 (claims 1-4, 6, 14-23, 26, and 30) in the reply filed on May 18, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 7-13, 24-25, 27-29, and 31-43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 18, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 18, line 1, it appears that “spindle noses 324, 325” should be changed to –spindle noses 325, 335—in order to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 18, line 12, it appears that “the spindle shafts 332, 332” should be changed to –the spindle shafts 322, 332—to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 19, line 28, it appears that “first spindle shaft 321” should be changed to –first spindle shaft 322—in order to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 20, line 10, it appears that “control device 370” should be –control device 730—to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 22, lines 3-4, it appears that “workpiece spindle axis B” should be changed to –tool spindle axis B—to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 22, lines 15-16, it appears that “first spindle housing 621” should be changed to –first spindle housing 321—in order to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 22, line 22, it appears that “control device 370” should be –control device 730—to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 22, line 30, it does not appear that “second spindle unit 320” is consistent with the rest of the specification and drawings;
on page 24, line 28, it appears that “second spindle housing 320” should be –second spindle housing 331-- to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 24, each of lines 29 and 30, it appears that “first spindle housing 310” should be –first spindle housing 321-- to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings;
on page 24, line 31, it appears that “spindle housings 310, 320” should be –spindle housings 321, 331-- to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with the drawings; and
on page 26, line 33, page 27, line 1, and page 27, line 3, it appears that “Fig. 9” should be changed to –Fig. 13-- to be consistent with the drawings (also noting that this paragraph is describing the clamping nut 372 depicted in Figures 13-14, as described on page 26, lines 25-26).
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
there is no antecedent basis in the specification for the following claim terms:
“housing”, as set forth in claim 17, re the limitation “wherein said clamping element comprises: a housing which is rigidly connectable to the pull rod” (and it is noted that in the event that this limitation is intended to reference the base element 373, Applicant may wish to consider changing “housing” in claim 17 to –base element—to be consistent with the specification; see pages 26-27 under the heading “Clamping nut”).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
both the “positive” and “non-positive” connections to the tool, re both the first and second spindle noses, as set forth in claim 18.
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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:
“clamping device” in at least claims 1-2, 4, 6
“clamping element” in claim 16;
“axial push element” in claim 17;
“actuating member” in claim 17;
“axial push member” in claim 17;
“first balancing device” in claims 20-21; and
“second balancing device” in at least claims 20-21.
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.
It is noted that the term “clamping device” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 3, because the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
It is noted that the term “clamping element” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 17, because the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
It is noted that the term “control device” in claim 1 is not being considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f), given that the nonce term “device” is preceded by the structural term “control” (noting that “a control” is a tangible structure).
It is noted that claim 20 sets forth “a first balancing device associated with the first spindle unit; and a second balancing device associated with the second spindle unit”, and that claim 22 further sets forth “at least one of the first and the second balancing device is configured as a ring balancing system”. It is noted that in the event that only one of the two recited balancing devices is a “ring balancing system” re claim 22, the “balancing device” limitation re the other of the two recited balancing devices still invokes 35 USC 112(f).
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 1-4, 6, 14-23, 26, and 30 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 2-3, the claim sets forth “a first spindle unit with at least one first spindle bearing and a first spindle shaft which is mounted in the first spindle bearing so as to be rotatable about a tool spindle axis”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “with” in the aforequoted limitation is intended to mean “comprising”/”having”/”including”, vs. whether “with” in the aforequoted limitation is instead intended to mean “along with” (as in a first spindle unit is provided along with at least a first spindle bearing…). Note that for the former, the at least one first spindle bearing is part of the claimed first spindle unit, whereas for the latter, the at least one first spindle bearing is additional to the claimed first spindle unit. Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed with what “and a first spindle shaft which is mounted in the first spindle bearing so as to be rotatable about a tool spindle axis” is intended to go, i.e., it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to go with “a first spindle unit with”, vs. whether such is instead intended to go with “tool head for a machine tool, comprising”. Note that for the former interpretation, due to the same lack of clarity re the term “with” described previously, it is/would be likewise unclear as to whether the recited “first spindle shaft” is intended to be part of the claimed first spindle unit, vs. whether the recited “first spindle shaft” is instead intended to be additional to the claimed first spindle unit (and be provided “along with” such first spindle unit).
In claim 1, lines 5-6, the claim sets forth “a second spindle unit with at least one second spindle bearing and a second spindle shaft which is mounted in the second spindle bearing so as to be rotatable about the tool spindle axis”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “with” in the aforequoted limitation is intended to mean “comprising”/”having”/”including”, vs. whether “with” in the aforequoted limitation is instead intended to mean “along with” (as in a second spindle unit is provided along with at least a second spindle bearing…). Note that for the former, the at least one second spindle bearing is part of the claimed second spindle unit, whereas for the latter, the at least one second spindle bearing is additional to the claimed second spindle unit. Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed with what “and a second spindle shaft which is mounted in the second spindle bearing so as to be rotatable about the tool spindle axis” is intended to go, i.e., it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to go with “a second spindle unit with”, vs. whether such is instead intended to go with “tool head for a machine tool, comprising”. Note that for the former interpretation, due to the same lack of clarity re the term “with” described previously, it is/would be likewise unclear as to whether the recited “second spindle shaft” is intended to be part of the claimed second spindle unit, vs. whether the recited “second spindle shaft” is instead intended to be additional to the claimed second spindle unit (and be provided “along with” such second spindle unit).
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the first spindle bearing” in at least claim 1, line 3; (a further occurrence in) claim 1, lines 3-4; claim 1, line 12; claim 6, penultimate line (noting that claim 1 previously recited “at least one first spindle bearing”, thus rendering it unclear which specific first spindle bearing of the range “at least one…” is intended to be referenced via the reference to “the first spindle bearing”);
“the second spindle bearing” in at least claim 1, line 6; claim 1, line 7; claim 1, line 12; claim 6, last two lines (noting that claim 1 previously recited “at least one second spindle bearing”, thus rendering it unclear which specific second spindle bearing of the range “at least one…” is intended to be referenced via the reference to “the second spindle bearing”);
“the sensor” in at least claim 2, lines 2-3 and 4 (noting that claim 2 previously recited “at least one sensor”, thus rendering it unclear which specific sensor of the range “at least one…” is intended to be referenced via the reference to “the sensor”);
“the axial bore” in at least claim 15, line 3 (noting that claim 15 previously recited “at least one axial bore”, thus rendering it unclear which specific axial bore of the range “at least one…” is intended to be referenced via the reference to “the axial bore”);
“the pull rod” in at least claim 15, lines 4 and 6; claim 16, line 2; and claim 17, line 3 (noting that claim 15 previously recited “at least one pull rod”, thus rendering it unclear which specific pull rod of the range “at least one…” is intended to be referenced via the reference to “the pull rod”);
“the direction of the second spindle shaft” in claim 17, lines 4-5;
“the actuating member” in at least claim 17, line 6 (noting that claim 17 previously recited “at least one actuating member”, thus rendering it unclear which specific actuating member of the range “at least one…” is intended to be referenced via the reference to “the actuating member”);
“the axial push member” in claim 17, last line (noting that while the claim previously recited an “axial push element”, the claim did not previously recite an axial push “member”); and
“said spindle shaft” in claim 21 (noting that plural spindle shafts were previously recited, rendering it unclear which specific spindle shaft is intended to be referenced).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 3-4, the claim sets forth “the first spindle bearing being configured to absorb both radial and axial forces”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what configuration(s) or structure(s) of first spindle bearing will meet this limitation, and what configuration(s) or structure(s) of first spindle bearing will be excluded by this limitation. Given that we do not live in a frictionless world, it appears that at least some of any force provided to the first spindle bearing will be “absorbed” by the bearing.
In claim 1, line 7, the claim sets forth “the second spindle bearing being configured to absorb both radial and axial forces”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what configuration(s) or structure(s) of second spindle bearing will meet this limitation, and what configuration(s) or structure(s) of second spindle bearing will be excluded by this limitation. Given that we do not live in a frictionless world, it appears that at least some of any force provided to the second spindle bearing will be “absorbed” by the bearing.
In claim 1, last three lines, the claim recites “wherein a control device is associated with the tool head, the control device being configured to activate the clamping device during a machining operation and to deactivate it during machining pauses”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is actually intended to be required to be capable of occurring “during a machining operation” and “during machining pauses”, i.e., the actual act of “activating” (i.e., the clamping device goes from a non-clamping state to a clamping state once a machining operation has already begun) and “deactivating”, respectively, vs. the act of clamping (i.e., whether or not the clamping device is actuated prior to machining vs during machining, at a time during machining, the clamping device is in a state where clamping by the clamping device is occurring) or unclamping, respectively.
In claim 15, the claim recites “the pull rod being connectable at one end to the first spindle shaft so as to be tensioned”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what the “one end” is intended to belong, i.e., at one end of the pull rod, vs. at one end of the first spindle shaft.
In claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the pull rod is connectable at a second end to the second spindle shaft”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what the “second end” is intended to belong, i.e., a second end of the pull rod, vs. a second end of the second spindle shaft.
In claim 16, the claim sets forth “wherein the tool head comprises a clamping element connectable to the pull rod at its second end and configured to axially push the second spindle shaft towards the first spindle shaft”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “its” is intended to refer in the limitation “its second end”, i.e., the pull rod, the clamping element, or the tool head.
In claim 17, the claim sets forth “an axial push element axially displaceable relative to the housing in the direction of the second spindle shaft to push the second spindle shaft axially towards the first spindle shaft”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “in the direction of the second spindle shaft” is intended to mean (i) a direction (of displacement that is) towards the second spindle shaft, vs. (ii) a direction in which the second spindle shaft (broadly) extends.
In claim 17, the claim sets forth “the actuating member being movable relative to the housing to generate an axial compression force on the axial push member relative to the housing”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what effect the second “relative to the housing” limitation is intended to have on the scope of the claim. It is unclear how or in what regard the axial compression force (or potentially, the generating of such axial compression force) on the axial push member is to be considered to be “relative to the housing” as claimed.
In claim 18, the claim sets forth “wherein a first spindle nose is formed at a tool-side end of the first spindle shaft in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection to the tool can be produced at the first spindle nose by means of an axial compression force, and wherein a second spindle nose is formed at a tool-side end of the second spindle shaft in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection to the tool can be produced at the second spindle nose by an axial compression force”. However, it is unclear as claimed what constitutes a “positive” connection, and what constitutes a “non-positive connection”, and it is further unclear as claimed what configuration(s) of first and second spindle nose constitute configurations that are “in such a way” that “at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection to the tool can be produced…by means of an axial compression force”. That being said, it is unclear as claimed what configurations of first and second spindle noses meet the claim limitations, and what configurations of first and second spindle noses are excluded by the claim limitations. It is additionally unclear as claimed to what the recited “axial compression forces” are applied, “by means of an axial compression force” applied to what?
In claim 19, the claim sets forth “wherein at least one of the first spindle unit and the second spindle unit comprises a drive motor configured to drive its respective spindle shaft to rotate about the tool spindle axis”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what “its” is intended to refer, i.e., the drive motor(s), or to the first/second spindle unit(s). Additionally, it is unclear as claimed how many drive motors (and what configuration such has/have) are intended to be set forth. For example, in the event that both the first and second spindle units “comprise a drive motor” (which is an alternative encompassed by the “at least one” language), it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to require that both the first and second spindle units utilize the same drive motor (i.e., one drive motor), or whether such is intended to indicate that each of the first and second spindle units comprise a respective drive motor (i.e., for a total of two drive motors).
In claim 21, in the limitation “its associated spindle unit” (plural occurrences in the claim), it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “its” is intended to refer. That said, it is noted that “the spindle shaft” and “said spindle shaft” in claim 21 lack sufficient clear antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear which specific spindle shaft (of the plural previously-recited spindle shafts) is intended to be referenced.
In claim 21, the claim recites “wherein at least one of the first balancing device and the second balancing device radially surrounds the spindle shaft of its associated spindle unit and is arranged axially between a tool-side spindle bearing of its associated spindle unit and a tool-side end of said spindle shaft”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether “a tool-side spindle bearing” is intended to be a subset of, or is instead intended to be additional to, either of the “at least one first spindle bearing” and/or the “at least one second spindle bearing” that were previously recited in claim 1.
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 1-4, 6, 14-23, 26, and 30 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.
In claim 1, lines 3-4, the claim sets forth “the first spindle bearing being configured to absorb both radial and axial forces”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what configuration(s) or structure(s) of first spindle bearing will meet this limitation, and what configuration(s) or structure(s) of first spindle bearing will be excluded by this limitation. Given that we do not live in a frictionless world, it appears that at least some of any force provided to the first spindle bearing will be “absorbed” by the bearing. Likewise, in claim 1, line 7, the claim sets forth “the second spindle bearing being configured to absorb both radial and axial forces”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what configuration(s) or structure(s) of second spindle bearing will meet this limitation, and what configuration(s) or structure(s) of second spindle bearing will be excluded by this limitation. Given that we do not live in a frictionless world, it appears that at least some of any force provided to the second spindle bearing will be “absorbed” by the bearing.
The only explanation (i.e., beyond merely reciting the same language set forth in claim 1 re the “absorbing”/absorption of forces by a bearing), is found on pages 16-17 of the specification as filed:
The first spindle shaft 322 is supported at three bearing locations in spindle bearings 323. The bearing locations are located at different axial positions along the first spindle shaft 322. Two of these bearing locations are located between the drive motor 324 and the tool-side end of the first spindle unit 320. The corresponding spindle bearings form a locating-non-locating bearing or a support bearing, i.e. at at least one of these bearing locations the spindle bearings can absorb both radial and axial forces. A further bearing location is located on the side of the drive motor 324 facing away from the tool. The spindle bearing arranged at this bearing location is configured as a non-locating bearing, i.e. it absorbs radial forces but allows axial movements. All three spindle bearings 323 are arranged in a stationary manner in the spindle housing 380. In particular, they are not axially displaceable relative to the spindle housing 380.
In the present example, the second spindle unit 330 is a non-driven counter spindle. The second spindle unit 330 has a second spindle shaft 332, which is supported in the spindle housing 380 at two bearing locations along the spindle shaft in spindle bearings 333. These spindle bearings in turn form a locating-non-locating bearing or a support bearing, i.e. at at least one of these bearing locations the spindle bearings 333 can absorb both radial and axial forces.
However, it is noted that the statements re at least one of bearings 323 and at least one of bearings 333 being able (i.e., “can”) to “absorb” both “radial and axial forces” do not serve to provide clarification about the intended meaning of this statement, nor do such statements provide any clear teaching or description about what structure(s) or configuration(s) of such bearings serves to provide such bearings with the capability of “absorbing” both “radial and axial forces”. It appears that the claim limitations regarding the absorption of forces, as well as the aforementioned disclosure re the absorption of forces, is merely a conclusory statement, and there is no description as to how such absorption of forces is actually achieved. That said, the specification as filed does not teach, in any manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, “the first spindle bearing being configured to absorb both radial and axial forces”, and “the second spindle bearing being configured to absorb both radial and axial forces”, particularly given that we do not live in a frictionless world (and that thus, it appears that at least some of any force provided to the claimed spindle bearings will be “absorbed” by that bearing).
In claim 18, the claim sets forth “wherein a first spindle nose is formed at a tool-side end of the first spindle shaft in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection to the tool can be produced at the first spindle nose by means of an axial compression force, and wherein a second spindle nose is formed at a tool-side end of the second spindle shaft in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection to the tool can be produced at the second spindle nose by an axial compression force”. However, it is unclear as claimed what constitutes a “positive” connection, and what constitutes a “non-positive connection”, and it is further unclear as claimed what configuration(s) of first and second spindle nose constitute configurations that are “in such a way” that “at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection to the tool can be produced…by means of an axial compression force”. That being said, it is unclear as claimed what configurations of first and second spindle noses meet the claim limitations, and what configurations of first and second spindle noses are excluded by the claim limitations. That being said, the specification does not appear to teach in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof the subject matter of claim 18.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 14, 18-19, 23, and 30, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0157774 to Gross et al. (hereinafter, “Gross”).
Note that Gross teaches
a tool head (paragraph 0022, Figures 1-2) for a machine tool (see, for example, paragraph 0003-0004), comprising:
a first spindle unit with at least one first spindle bearing (such as 34; see Figure 2 and at least paragraph 0049) and a first spindle shaft (13; see Figure 2 and paragraph 0049) which is mounted in the first spindle bearing (34) (see Figure 2) so as to be rotatable about a tool spindle axis (67; see Figure 2 and paragraph 0037, 0042, for example), the first spindle bearing (13) being “configured to” (as broadly claimed) absorb both radial and axial forces (as broadly claimed, at least to some extent, due to physics, i.e., the bearing 34 is inherently capable of absorbing both axial, re axis 67, and radial forces applied thereto; see Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0049, and note that any force applied to, for example, 13 in an axial or radial direction will be at least partially “absorbed” by the bearing 34); and
a second spindle unit with at least one second spindle bearing (35) and a second spindle shaft (14) which is mounted in the second spindle bearing (35) so as to be rotatable about the tool spindle axis (67) (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0049, for example), the second spindle bearing (35) being configured to absorb both radial and axial forces (as broadly claimed, at least to some extent, due to physics, i.e., the bearing 35 is inherently capable of absorbing both axial, re axis 67, and radial forces applied thereto; see Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0049, and note that any force applied to, for example, 14 in an axial or radial direction will be at least partially “absorbed” by the bearing 35),
wherein the first spindle unit (having at least 13 and 34) and the second spindle unit (having at least 14 and 35) are arranged coaxially (noting that axis 67, for example, extends through both of the aforedescribed spindle units) with respect to each other in such a way that a tool (4) is receivable axially between the first spindle shaft (13) and the second spindle shaft (14) (see Figure 2, for example, as well as at least paragraph 0023, for example),
wherein the tool head comprises a controlled clamping device (including at least locking rod 41 and locking spring 42; or locking rod 41, locking spring 42, and locking element 28, which locking element 28 includes a groove 29 for receiving 41; see Figures 2-4 and at least paragraphs 0024, 0027, and 0030-0034, for example; regarding the 35 USC 112(f)-invoking limitation “clamping device”, it is noted that such is “another type of clamping device” as set forth on page 3, lines 20-25, and particularly lines 23-24, of the present specification, and is a “mechanical” clamping device as described on page 3, lines 20-25 of the present specification, particularly page 3, lines 23-24 of the present specification) for controllably connecting the first spindle bearing (34) and the second spindle bearing (35) to one another (see Figures 2-4 and at least paragraphs 0030-0034), and
wherein a “control device” (as broadly claimed) (such as, for example, the device that includes, for example, at least hand wheel 37, handle 36, gears 39, 40, and threaded spindle/shaft 18, for example; see Figures 2-4 and at least paragraphs 0024, 0028-0029, for example, as well as paragraphs 0030-0034) is “associated with” (see Figures 2-4) the (aforedescribed) tool head, the (aforedescribed) control device being configured to activate the clamping device (41+42, or 41+42+28) (see at least Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0030-0034, noting that rotation of the handle 36 and hand wheel 37 causes rotation of 18, which “activates” the clamping device 41 or 41+28 by moving 28 far enough along axis 27 to allow 41 to be biased via spring 42 into groove 29 to thus clamp the tool 4 between carriages 2 and 3, and “lock” the position of 3 relative to 2; see also paragraphs 0003-0004, 0023-0029, and 0049-0050, for example) during a machining operation and to deactivate “it” during machining pauses. While it is noted that all that is necessary to meet the functional limitation “configured to activate the clamping device during a machining operation and to deactivate it during machining pauses”, it is noted that Gross expressly teaches that a workpiece can only be machined when 41 is in the position shown in solid lines in Figure 4, i.e., the locking position. See, for example, paragraph 0033. Ergo, when 41 has been moved (from the clamping position shown in solid lines in Fig. 4) to the adjustment position 44 shown in dashed lines in Fig. 4, such that 41 is removed from the groove 29, such is carried out/occurring when machining is not occurring, i.e., a machining “pause”. See paragraph 0033 in particular, and also paragraphs 0030-0034 and Figures 2-4.
Regarding claim 3, the (aforedescribed) clamping device (41+42, or 41+42+28) comprises an “expansion clamping element” (41; see Figure 4, noting that as broadly claimed, when 41 has been moved to the position shown in solid lines from the position shown in dashed lines, 41 has “expanded” further out of/with respect to the larger bore that is to the right of bore 53 and further into bore 53, “expanded” further to the left beyond surface 54 of housing 21, for example; see also paragraphs 0027 and 0031-0034, for example).
Regarding claim 4, the clamping device (41+42, or 41+42+28) is configured to dampen vibrations “between” the (aforedescribed) first (13+34) and second (14+35) spindle units when the clamping device (41+42, or 41+42+28; see Figure 3) is in an activated state (in which 41 is in the position shown in solid lines in Figure 4) (noting that tightly/firmly clamping the tool 4 between 14 and 13, as is the case when 41 is in the clamping/activated state shown in solid lines in Figure 4 is considered to dampen at least some vibrations simply by virtue of the tight/rigid clamping that is occurring; see also the various teachings about the tool clamping arrangement taught by Gross regarding enhanced rigidity; see, for example, paragraphs 0003-0004, 0007, 0049; see also paragraphs 0050 and 0031-0034).
Regarding claim 6, the first spindle unit (13+34) comprises a first spindle housing (labeled in Figure 2 as element 2) in which the at least one first spindle bearing (34) is held (see Figure 2, and see also at least paragraphs 0022 and 0049, for example), wherein the second spindle unit (14+35) comprises a second spindle housing (3 and/or 74; see Figure 2 and also paragraphs 0022 and 0049) in which the at least one second spindle bearing (35) is held (Figure 2, paragraph 0049, for example), and wherein the clamping device (41+42, or 41+42+28) is configured to controllably couple the first spindle housing (2) and the second spindle housing (2 and/or 3) to each other to connect the first spindle bearing (34) and the second spindle bearing (34) to each other. See Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0030-0034.
Regarding claim 14, the tool (4) is “axially” (such as along axis 67) clampable “between” (such as “between” in the direction of axis 67) the first spindle shaft (13) and the second spindle shaft (14) such that an axial (re axis 67) compression force acts on the tool (4) between the first spindle shaft (13) and the second spindle shaft (14). See Figure 2, Figure 1, and at least paragraphs 0004, 0009, 0013, 0030, 0034, 0050, and claims 1 and 5 of Gross, for example.
Regarding claim 18, a first spindle nose (such as 11, or such as the spline connection between 13 and 11; see paragraph 0023 and Figure 2) is formed at a “tool-side end” (such as the left end of 13 re Figure 2) of the first spindle shaft (13) in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection (noting that regardless of the particular configuration, it would appear that the claim limitation “at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection” would encompass all possibilities) to the tool (4) can be produced at the (aforedescribed) first spindle nose by means of an axial compression force (generated by moving 3 towards 2 via 36, 37, 39, 40, 18, etc., as described above and as described in at least paragraphs 0030-0034; see also paragraphs 0004, 0009, 0013, 0050, and claims 1 and 5 of Gross, for example; see also Figures 1-4), and wherein a second spindle nose (such as 12, or such as the spline connection between 14 and 12; see paragraph 0023 and Figure 2) is formed at a tool-side end (such as the right end of 14 re Figure 2) of the second spindle shaft (14) in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection (noting that regardless of the particular configuration, it would appear that the claim limitation “at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection” would encompass all possibilities) to the tool (4) can be produced at the (aforedescribed) second spindle nose by an axial compression force (generated by moving 3 towards 2 via 36, 37, 39, 40, 18, etc., as described above and as described in at least paragraphs 0030-0034; see also paragraphs 0004, 0009, 0013, 0050, and claims 1 and 5 of Gross, for example; see also Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, at least one of the first spindle unit and the second spindle unit comprises a drive motor (33, provided at the aforedescribed first spindle unit) configured to drive its respective spindle shaft (13) to rotate about the tool spindle axis (66) (see Figure 2 and at least paragraphs 0023, 0004, 0036, for example).
Regarding claim 23, Gross further teaches a tool (4) which is “axially” (such as re axis 67) received between (such as between in the direction of axis 67) the first spindle shaft (13) and the second spindle shaft (14). See Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0004, 0030, and 0048-0049, for example.
Regarding claim 30, the tool (4) is axially (re axis 67, for example) clamped such that an axial compression force acts on the tool (4) between the first spindle shaft (13) and the second spindle shaft (14). See, for example, Figure 2, as well as Figures 3-4 and paragraphs 0030-0034; see also paragraphs 0004, 0009, 0013, 0050, and claims 1 and 5 of Gross, for example.
Claim 1, 3-4, 6, 14-19, 23, and 30, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,192,172 to Lunazzi (hereinafter, “Lunazzi”).
Lunazzi teaches a tool head (for hob tool 4) for a machine tool (see at least col. 1, lines 5-22 and col. 2, lines 29-44, as well as Figure 1, for example), comprising:
a first spindle unit with at least one first spindle bearing (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as B1; see Fig. 1) and a first spindle shaft (23) which is mounted in the first spindle bearing (B1) so as to be rotatable about a tool spindle axis (vertical re Figure 1) (see at least col. 1, lines 5-12 and col. 3, lines 9-25, for example), the first spindle bearing (B1) being “configured to” (as broadly claimed) absorb both radial and axial forces (as broadly claimed, at least to some extent, due to physics, i.e., the bearing B1 is inherently capable of absorbing both axial, re the vertical center axis of rotation of 23 re Fig. 1, and radial forces applied thereto; see Figure 1, col. 1, lines 5-12, and col. 3, lines 9-25, and note that any force applied to, for example, 23 in an axial or radial direction will be at least partially “absorbed” by the bearing B1); and
a second spindle unit with at least one second spindle bearing (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as B2; see Fig. 1) and a second spindle shaft (22) which is mounted in the second spindle bearing (B2) so as to be rotatable about the tool spindle axis (vertical re Figure 1) (see at least col. 1, lines 5-12 and col. 3, lines 9-25, for example), the second spindle bearing (B2) being “configured to” (as broadly claimed) absorb both radial and axial forces (as broadly claimed, at least to some extent, due to physics, i.e., the bearing B2 is inherently capable of absorbing both axial, re the vertical center axis of rotation of 22 re Fig. 1, and radial forces applied thereto; see Figure 1, col. 1, lines 5-12, and col. 3, lines 9-25, and note that any force applied to, for example, 22 in an axial or radial direction will be at least partially “absorbed” by the bearing B2),
wherein the (aforedescribed) first spindle unit and the (aforedescribed) second spindle unit are arranged coaxially with respect to each other (see Figure 1, noting that a vertical center axis of rotation of 22, 23 passes through both spindle units; alternatively/additionally, note that there are an infinite number of vertical axes that can be drawn in Figure 1 that intersect both 22 and 23) in such a way that a tool (4) is receivable “axially” between (i.e., between with respect to the vertical direction re Figure 1) the first spindle shaft (23) and the second spindle shaft (22),
wherein the tool head comprises a controlled clamping device (such as, for example, collet 19; see Figure 1 and also col. 3, lines 1-25; regarding the 35 USC 112(f)-invoking limitation “clamping device”, it is noted that such is “another type of clamping device” as set forth on page 3, lines 20-25, and particularly lines 23-24, of the present specification, and is a “mechanical” clamping device as described on page 3, lines 20-25 of the present specification, particularly page 3, lines 23-24 of the present specification) for “controllably connecting” (via intervening structure) the first spindle bearing (B1) and the second spindle bearing (B2) to one another (see Figure 1 and col. 3, lines 1-25, for example as well as col. 3, lines 42-65), and
wherein a control device (such as reciprocating rod 20; see Figure 1 and col. 3, lines 1-8, for example) is “associated with” the tool head (see Fig. 1), the control device (20) being “configured to” (i.e., capable of) activate the clamping device (19) during a machining operation and to deactivate it during machining pauses. See col. 2, lines 61-68, col. 3, lines 1-65 and col. 4, lines 1-9, noting that 19 clamps the button head 14 of rod 9 during the clamping of the tool 4, which must be done so that machining by the tool 4 can be carried out or else the tool would fall off of the tool head, and noting that 19 unclamps the button head 14 of rod 9 when it is desired to replace the tool 4 (i.e., at a time that is during a machining “pause”). Thus, the control device (20) is capable of performing the claimed function/intended use of being configured to activate the clamping device during a machining operation and to deactivate “it” during machining pauses.
[AltContent: textbox (H2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (H1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (B1)][AltContent: textbox (B2)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
794
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, the clamping device (19) comprises an “expansion clamping element” {see col. 3, lines 1-8, for example, as well as Figure 1, noting Lunazzi teaches that the collet 19 spreads (and thus “expands”) and closes by interaction with the surface of the bore 15 when the rod 20 is moved back and forth}.
Regarding claim 4, the clamping device (19) is configured to dampen vibrations between the (aforedescribed) first and second spindle units when the clamping device (19) is in an activated state. See Figure 1 and at least col. 3, lines 1-8 and col. 4, lines 1-9, noting that the clamping device 19 is considered inherently dampen at least some vibrations between the aforedescribed spindle units at a time period when 19 is in an “activated” state and when the moving head 3 and fixed head 2 are drawn closer together and the hob 4 is clamped more firmly between 2 and 3, as disclosed in col. 4, lines 1-9, noting the teachings of additional rigidity described in col. 4, lines 1-9 (see also col. 3, lines 42-65).
Regarding claim 6, the (aforedescribed) first spindle unit (that includes 23 and B1) comprises a first spindle housing (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 above as H1) in which the at least one first spindle bearing (B1) is held (see Figure 1), wherein the (aforedescribed) second spindle unit (that includes 22 and B2) comprises a second spindle housing (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 above as H2) in which the at least one second spindle bearing (B2) is held (see Figure 1), and wherein the clamping device (19) is configured to (at least ultimately, via intervening structure) controllably couple the first spindle housing (H1) and the second spindle housing (H2) to each other to connect the first spindle bearing (B1) and the second spindle bearing (B2) to each other. See Figure 1, for example, as well as at least col. 3, lines 1-25 and 42-65, for example. See also col. 4, lines 1-9.
Regarding claim 14, the tool (4) is “axially” clampable between (such as between in the vertical direction re Figure 1) the first spindle shaft (23) and the second spindle shaft (22) such that an axial compression force acts on the tool (4) between the first spindle shaft and the second spindle shaft. See Figure 1 and at least col. 4, lines 1-9.
Regarding claim 15, the second spindle shaft (22) has at least one axial bore (i.e., the bore in 22 in which 21 is located, for example; see Fig. 1), wherein the tool head comprises at least one pull rod (21) extending through the axial bore of the second spindle shaft (22) (see Fig. 1), the pull rod (21) being connectable (via intervening structure such as 9/14) at one end (lower end of 21 re Fig. 1) to the first spindle shaft (23) so as to be tensioned (via tensioning “means” 11, to use the verbiage of Lunazzi; see Figure 1 and col. 2, lines 45-60, and col. 3, lines 1-65, for example), and wherein the pull rod (21) is “connectable” (as broadly claimed, note that the upper end of 21 is connected to/in contact with 22) at a second (upper re Fig. 1) end to the second spindle shaft (22) such that an axial compression force “can be” generated on the tool (4) between the first spindle shaft (23) and the second spindle shaft (22). See Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 45-60, col. 3, lines 1-65, and col. 4, lines 1-9, for example.
Regarding claim 16, the tool head comprises a clamping element (24/25/the source of fluid power; col. 3, lines 26-37 and Fig. 1) connectable to the pull rod (21) at its second (upper re Fig. 1) end and configured to axially push the second spindle shaft (22) towards the first spindle shaft (23) (see col. 4, lines 1-9; see also col. 3, lines 26-41, for example; see also Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, said clamping element (24/25/the source of fluid power disclosed in col. 3, lines 26-37) comprises: a housing (the bore 25 “houses” 24, for example, and is thus a “housing”) which is “rigidly connectable” to the pull rod (21) (such as at the time when 24 abuts the bottom face of 25 as shown in Fig. 1); an axial push element (24) axially displaceable relative to the housing (25) in “the direction of the second spindle shaft” (22) (such as in a vertical direction in which the second spindle shaft 22 extends/has a dimension; see Fig. 1) to push the second spindle shaft (22) axially towards the first spindle shaft (23) (see col. 4, lines 1-9; see also col. 3, lines 26-42); and at least one actuating member (the fluid provided by the supply source described in col. 3, lines 26-37), the actuating member being “movable” relative to the housing (25) to generate an axial compression force on the axial push member (24) relative to the housing (25) (see col. 3, lines 26-42, for example).
Regarding claim 18, a first spindle nose (8/18 or the portion of 23 in engagement with 8/18) is formed at a tool-side (upper re Figure 1) end of the first spindle shaft (23) in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection (it is noted that the language “at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection appears to cover all possibilities) to the tool (4) “can be” produced at the first spindle nose (8/18) by means of an axial compression force, and wherein a second spindle nose (7/17) is formed at a tool-side (lower re Figure 1) end of the second spindle shaft (22) in such a way that at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection (it is noted that the language “at least one of a non-positive and a positive connection appears to cover all possibilities) to the tool (4) “can be” produced at the second spindle nose (7/17) by an axial compression force. See Figures 1-2, col. 2, lines 45-60, col. 3, lines 42-65, and col. 4, lines 1-9.
Regarding claim 19, Lunazzi teaches that at least one of the first spindle unit and the second spindle unit (and particularly, the second spindle unit) comprises a drive motor (the drive “means”, to use the verbiage of Lunazzi, that is disclosed as being mechanically connected to 22 to set 22 and thus hob 4 in rotation during operation of the machine is, as broadly claimed, a “drive motor”) configured to drive its respective spindle shaft (22) to rotate about the tool spindle axis. See col. 3, lines 36-42.
Regarding claim 23, Lunazzi teaches a tool (4) which is axially received between (between in the vertical direction re Figure 1) the first spindle shaft (23) and the second spindle shaft (22) (see Figure 1 and col. 2, lines 29-44 and col. 3, lines 9-41, for example).
Regarding claim 30, the tool (4) is axially clamped such that an axial compression force acts on the tool (4) (at a location that is) between the first spindle shaft (23) and the second spindle shaft (22) (see Figure 1 and at least col. 4, lines 1-9, for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 20-22, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0157774 to Gross et al. (hereinafter, “Gross”), as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of the cited (on the Notice of References Cited accompanying this Office Action) Non-Patent-Literature in the form of a brochure by Hofmann Intelligent Balancing Solutions titled “Active Balancing Electromagnetic Ring Balancer AB 9000”, hereinafter, “Hofmann”.
Gross teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon, including the two spindle units (34+13 and 35+14).
However, Gross does not expressly teach the balancing devices set forth in claims 20-22.
However, attention is directed to, for example, Hofmann.
Regarding claims 20-22, Hofmann teaches an electromagnetic ring balancer AB 9000 (and it is noted that the present specification expressly provides the Hofmann AB 900 electromagnetic ring balancing system as an example of a ring balancing device/system re the present 35 USC 112(f)-invoking limitations “balancing device”; see page 23, line 14 through page 24, line 24, and particularly, page 24, lines 1-5, all of the present specification). See page 1 of Hofmann. Furthermore, Hofmann teaches that the electromagnetic ring balancer AB 9000 includes a balancing ring (labeled in the figure at the upper right of page 2 of Hofmann) that is provided to a machine tool spindle shaft at a location that is axially (such as in the left/right horizontal direction re the figure at the upper right of page 2, an annotated reproduction of which has been reproduced hereinbelow, along the rotation axis A1 of the spindle shaft, labeled below) between a “tool-side” spindle bearing (such as bearing B1, labeled below) of the associated spindle unit (spindle shaft and spindle bearing(s)) and a “tool-side” end (left end re the annotated figure below from page 2 of Hofmann) of the spindle shaft (which is labeled below) (see the annotated figure from page 2 of Hoffmann below, noting that the balancing ring is located axially between the bearing B1 and the left end of the spindle shaft, which left end of the spindle shaft is the end of the spindle shaft that is closest to the tool, which tool is shown in the annotated figure as “grinding wheel”). Furthermore regarding claim 21, the balancing ring (labeled below) radially surrounds the spindle shaft (as can be seen in both the side view at the left portion of the annotated figure from page 2 of Hofmann below and the end or cross section view shown at the right portion of the annotated figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (A1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Balancing Ring)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Bearing B2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Bearing B1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Spindle shaft)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
362
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 a respective electromagnetic ring balancer AB 9000, as taught by Hofmann, to each of the two tool spindles (13, 14) taught by Gross (i.e., one such balancer/balancing ring of Hofmann and any of Hofmann’s appurtenances thereof necessary for the operation thereof per tool spindle 13, 14 of Gross), which balancing ring(s) each radially surround their respective spindle shaft (as taught by Hofmann), and which balancing ring(s) are each arranged axially between a tool side spindle bearing (34 re spindle 13 of Gross, and 35 re spindle 14 of Gross) of its associated spindle unit and a “tool-side end” (left end of 13 re Gross, closest to tool 4, right end of 14 of Gross, closest to 4) of “the” spindle shaft (13, 14 of Gross), as taught by Hofmann, for the purpose of providing an arrangement for mitigating rotary shaft unbalance during machine operation (see page 1 of Hofmann), which thus increases the quality of the machined product (page 1 of Hofmann, and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art), for the purpose of reducing wear of the drive system (Hofmann, page 2, second paragraph), and that can automatically balance tool spindles such as grinding and milling spindles (page 3 of Hofmann).
Claims 20-22, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 5,192,172 to Lunazzi (hereinafter, “Lunazzi”) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of the cited (on the Notice of References Cited accompanying this Office Action) Non-Patent-Literature in the form of a brochure by Hofmann Intelligent Balancing Solutions titled “Active Balancing Electromagnetic Ring Balancer AB 9000”, hereinafter, “Hofmann”.
Lunazzi teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon, including the two spindle units (that include at least 23+B1 and at least 22+B2).
However, Lunazzi does not expressly teach the balancing devices set forth in claims 20-22.
However, attention is directed to, for example, Hofmann.
Regarding claims 20-22, Hofmann teaches an electromagnetic ring balancer AB 9000 (and it is noted that the present specification expressly provides the Hofmann AB 900 electromagnetic ring balancing system as an example of a ring balancing device/system re the present 35 USC 112(f)-invoking limitations “balancing device”; see page 23, line 14 through page 24, line 24, and particularly, page 24, lines 1-5, all of the present specification). See page 1 of Hofmann. Furthermore, Hofmann teaches that the electromagnetic ring balancer AB 9000 includes a balancing ring (labeled in the figure at the upper right of page 2 of Hofmann) that is provided to a machine tool spindle shaft at a location that is axially (such as in the left/right horizontal direction re the figure at the upper right of page 2, an annotated reproduction of which has been reproduced hereinbelow, along the rotation axis A1 of the spindle shaft, labeled below) between a “tool-side” spindle bearing (such as bearing B1, labeled below) of the associated spindle unit (spindle shaft and spindle bearing(s)) and a “tool-side” end (left end re the annotated figure below from page 2 of Hofmann) of the spindle shaft (which is labeled below) (see the annotated figure from page 2 of Hoffmann below, noting that the balancing ring is located axially between the bearing B1 and the left end of the spindle shaft, which left end of the spindle shaft is the end of the spindle shaft that is closest to the tool, which tool is shown in the annotated figure as “grinding wheel”). Furthermore regarding claim 21, the balancing ring (labeled below) radially surrounds the spindle shaft (as can be seen in both the side view at the left portion of the annotated figure from page 2 of Hofmann below and the end or cross section view shown at the right portion of the annotated figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (A1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Balancing Ring)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Bearing B2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Bearing B1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Spindle shaft)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
362
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 a respective electromagnetic ring balancer AB 9000, as taught by Hofmann, to each of the two tool spindles (22, 23) taught by Lunazzi (i.e., one such balancer/balancing ring of Hofmann and any of Hofmann’s appurtenances thereof necessary for the operation thereof per tool spindle 22, 23 of Lunazzi), which balancing ring(s) each radially surround their respective spindle shaft (as taught by Hofmann), and which balancing ring(s) are each arranged axially between a tool side spindle bearing (B1 re spindle 23 of Lunazzi, and bearing B2 re spindle 22 of Lunazzi) of its associated spindle unit and a “tool-side end” (upper end of 23 re Lunazzi, closest to tool 4, lower end of 22 of Lunazzi, closest to tool 4) of “the” spindle shaft (22, 23 of Lunazzi), as taught by Hofmann, for the purpose of providing an arrangement for mitigating rotary shaft unbalance during machine operation (see page 1 of Hofmann), which thus increases the quality of the machined product (page 1 of Hofmann, and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art), for the purpose of reducing wear of the drive system (Hofmann, page 2, second paragraph), and that can automatically balance tool spindles such as grinding and milling spindles (page 3 of Hofmann).
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 2 and 26, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claims 2 and 26 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. As noted above (under the heading “Information Disclosure Statement”, the published versions of the lined-through cited applications 18/266976 and 18/268195 are being cited, which teach bilateral tool head arrangements.
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
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights