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 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Reinauer in view of Wirz
Claims 1, 5-6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 5658192 A (“Reinauer”) in view of US 20050208886 A1 (“Wirz”).
Reinauer pertains to a hub flange for a tool body (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Wirz pertains to a hub flange for a tool body (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Reinauer discloses a hub flange for a tool body (Fig. 2, “hub flange” assembly as shown for tool body 112), comprising:
a fixed flange defining a tool axis, the fixed flange being configured to receive the tool body, wherein a first flange socket is formed on the fixed flange for connection to a first spindle shaft which is rotatable about the tool axis (Fig. 2, fixed flange 110 with tool axis (see Fig. 1, axis 14) is capable of receiving tool body 112, having first flange socket (near reference 168) for connection to a first spindle shaft that rotates about the tool axis);
and a counterflange which is detachably connected to the fixed flange (Fig. 2, counterflange 136 is detachably connected to fixed flange 110 via screw 150),
wherein the fixed flange and the counterflange are connected to each other via a conical connection, the conical connection being arranged coaxially with respect to the tool axis and being formed by an inner cone and an outer cone received in the inner cone (Fig. 2, fixed flange 110 and counterflange 136 are connected via a conical connection, with inner cone 116 and outer cone 118 received in the inner cone 116 and both are arranged coaxially to the tool axis);
wherein a first plane contact surface is formed adjacent to the inner cone and a second plane contact surface oriented opposite the first plane contact surface is formed adjacent to the outer cone, wherein the first and second plane contact surfaces extend orthogonally to the tool axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
[AltContent: textbox (First plane contact surface adjacent to inner cone 116 extends orthogonally to the tool axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second plane contact surface adjacent to outer cone 118 extends orthogonally to the tool axis)][AltContent: textbox (Tool axis)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
1111
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reinauer Fig. 2 (annotated)
Reinauer does not explicitly disclose wherein the fixed flange and the counterflange are pressed together at the first plane contact surface and the second plane contact surface so as to establish a friction fit. However, the Reinauer/Wirz combination makes obvious this claim.
Wirz discloses wherein the fixed flange and the counterflange are connected to each other via a conical connection, the conical connection being arranged coaxially with respect to the tool axis and being formed by an inner cone and an outer cone received in the inner cone, and wherein the fixed flange and the counterflange are pressed together at the first plane contact surface and the second plane contact surface so as to establish a friction fit (see annotated Fig. 1 below; ¶¶ 0020, 0024, elements 2 and 4 make contact at reference 6 when assembled to make a friction fit).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First plane contact surface adjacent to outer cone (at reference 5) of element 4 extends orthogonally to the tool axis 11)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second plane contact surface adjacent to outer cone (at reference 5) of element 2 extends orthogonally to the tool axis 11)]
PNG
media_image2.png
1353
1142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wirz Fig. 1 (annotated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wirz with Reinauer by modifying the end of the inner cone 116 to have a longer length (i.e., in the direction of the tool axis 11) and wider width (i.e., thicker in the radial direction relative to the tool axis), and to modify the length of screws 150 and 156 (and/or the axial length/extent of their threads) as needed, such that the “plane contact surface” at the end of the inner cone 116 would make contact with the corresponding “plane contact surface” of the outer cone (at reference 122) when the hub flange is fully assembled with a properly sized (proper width) grinding wheel 112. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this modification would allow those two circumferential surfaces of inner cone 116 and outer cone 118 to bear against each other, making a friction fit that would provide for better assembly strength (compared to without the modification) and a better seal to prevent fluid (e.g., cooling fluid) from entering in between the inner cone 116 and outer cone 118 and into the hollow center of the assembly (Wirz ¶ 0020, “the position of the grinding wheel flange 4 relative to the grinding spindle 2 is governed in the familiar manner by a centring taper 5 of the grinding wheel flange 4 and a grinding spindle flange face 6 against which the grinding wheel flange 4 is brought to bear by means of an axial clamping force.”). This type of conical assembly with bearing end surfaces is well-known in the art (see, e.g., US 6553876 B2 (“Hochuli”) Fig. 1 (labeled “PRIOR ART”), inner cone 8 and outer cone 6 each have plane contact surfaces that press together to make a friction fit (at reference 10)). Examiner notes that Reinauer contemplates modifying the geometry of inner cone 116 and outer cone 118 (and the screws 150, 156 by extension) in order to adapt the geometry to match the width of the grinding wheel 112 (Reinauer Figs. 1-2; 5:41-47). Thus, in the proposed modification, for example, in order to achieve a secure assembly for a grinding wheel 112 of a specific width B (see Reinauer Fig. 1), the geometry of the inner cone 116 and outer cone 118 are sized so that the end of the inner cone 116 (at the “first plane contact surface”) just comes into contact with the “second plane contact surface” of the outer cone 118 (e.g., where length LAX is the same as or close to width B (see Reinauer Fig. 1)), where final assembly using screws 150 would ensure a tight, frictional fit between the first and second “plane contact surfaces” and between the grinding wheel 112 and clamping surfaces 120 and 138 (due to a slight flexure of the flange area surrounding screws 150 caused by the tightening of screws 150).
Regarding claim 5, the Reinauer/Wirz combination makes obvious the hub flange of claim 1 as applied above. Reinauer further discloses wherein the first plane contact surface is arranged adjacent to the inner cone on a front side of the inner cone, and wherein the second plane contact surface surrounds the outer cone (Figs. 1-2, as modified in Reinauer/Wirz combination, this limitation is satisfied (the “front side” of the inner cone is what is referred to as the “end of the inner cone” as discussed in claim 1 above); see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 6, the Reinauer/Wirz combination makes obvious the hub flange of claim 1 as applied above. Reinauer further discloses comprising a plurality of axial screws axially pressing the fixed flange and the counterflange together at the conical connection (Fig. 2; 5:48-56, 6:19-6:40, plurality of axial screws 150 (see Fig. 1, screws 50) performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 12, the Reinauer/Wirz combination makes obvious the hub flange of claim 1 as applied above. Reinauer further discloses wherein the first flange socket is formed as an inner cone with a plane contact surface (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
[AltContent: textbox (“Plane contact surface” of socket inner cone)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inner cone of socket)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1111
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reinauer Fig. 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 13, the Reinauer/Wirz combination makes obvious the hub flange of claim 1 as applied above. Reinauer further discloses an axial through bore (Fig. 2, axial through bore at the tool axis (see annotated Fig. 2 above for claim 1).
Reinauer in view of Wirz and Maringer
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 5658192 A (“Reinauer”) in view of US 20050208886 A1 (“Wirz”) and US 20150239054 A1 (“Maringer”).
Reinauer pertains to a hub flange for a tool body (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Wirz pertains to a hub flange for a tool body (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Maringer pertains to a hub flange for a tool body (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2, the Reinauer/Wirz combination makes obvious the hub flange of claim 1 as applied above. Reinauer and Wirz do not explicitly disclose wherein a second flange socket is formed on the counterflange for connection to a second spindle shaft which is rotatable about the tool axis. However, the Reinauer/Wirz/Maringer combination makes obvious this claim.
Maringer discloses wherein a second flange socket is formed on the counterflange for connection to a second spindle shaft which is rotatable about the tool axis (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0027, second flange socket in counterflange 34 for connection to second spindle shaft 30 that rotates about the tool axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Maringer with the Reinauer/Wirz combination by modifying the counterflange 136 of Reinauer to accept a spindle shaft. Reinauer discloses an axial opening (Reinauer Fig. 2 at reference 134) on the counterflange 136, but is silent regarding whether it could be used to connect to a second spindle shaft. This modification (e.g., to the Reinauer axial opening at reference 134) would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because allowing for a second spindle on the opposite axial side of the hub flange from the first spindle provides for greater tool stability during use (i.e., a grinding operation is less likely to cause non-concentric rotation of the tool because the tool is supported in the axial direction on both ends) (see Maringer ¶ 0006, “The tool holder according to the invention can therefore ensure the highest concentricity properties of the hob, in stable manner”).
Reinauer in view of Wirz and Herrmann
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 5658192 A (“Reinauer”) in view of US 20050208886 A1 (“Wirz”) and US 3554080 A (“Herrmann”).
Reinauer pertains to a hub flange for a tool body (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). Wirz pertains to a hub flange for a tool body (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Herrmann pertains to a cylindrical grinding device (Abstr.; Fig.). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 3, the Reinauer/Wirz combination makes obvious the hub flange of claim 1 as applied above. Reinauer and Wirz do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner cone is formed on the fixed flange and the outer cone is formed on the counterflange. However, the Reinauer/Wirz/Herrmann combination makes obvious this claim.
Herrmann discloses wherein the inner cone is formed on the fixed flange and the outer cone is formed on the counterflange (Fig. 1, inner cone 3 formed on fixed flange 1 and outer cone 18 formed on counterflange 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Herrmann with the Reinauer/Wirz combination by reversing the configuration of the inner cone and outer cone, as taught by Herrmann. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the reversal of this configuration is only a matter of design choice, and the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to any particular arrangement of the conical surfaces relative to the fixed flange or the counterflange. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 451, 452, n.1 (CCPA 1955) (“to reverse the operation of the relatively moving parts...would not amount to invention, mere reversal of such movement being an obvious expedient”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending. Claims 7-11 and 14-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 12-13 are rejected.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims – The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights