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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 8/18/2023 and 10/29/2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
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:
a head movement system (23) which makes it possible to move the machining head (10) on the base (5) in a feed direction (X10) in claim 14.
reversible fixing means in claim 21, wherein limitations (i), (ii), and (iii) impart function to the reversible fixing means. Examiner notes that the “reversible fixing means” recites “means”, i.e. not a generic placeholder but also being interpreted under 112(f).
an adjustment mechanism (32) making it possible to adjust a depth of cut in claim 23.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, please amend “at least one (13) drive wheel” to reflect “at least one drive wheel (13)”, i.e. the number in parentheses is located in the wrong place.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-23 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.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “a projected surface of the abrasive belt (11) which is in the belt path (12) overlaps a projected surface of the stator (17) of the belt-driving motor (16)” renders the claimed invention indefinite. It is not clear what physical structure is being referred to and limited by recitation of ‘a projected surface’ within the context of the claimed invention. For example, are the projected surfaces literal projecting surfaces, shadow type projections, outlines of elements, ‘imaginary’ planes, etc.?
Regarding claims 14 and 23, recitations of “making it possible” and “makes it possible” render the scope of the claimed invention indefinite. Please amend the claim to positively require the possibility, for example, reciting ‘configured to’.
Regarding claim 15, recitation of “in projection in a plane” renders the claimed invention indefinite. It is unclear what is further imparted by “in projection”. For example, Figure 3 illustrates that the perimeter of the belt (11) surrounds the stator (17) in a plane that is coplanar with axis Y16. It is unclear what is further imparted by projecting the plane. It is also additionally unclear what is further imparted by “strictly”. For the purposes of examination, the claimed invention is being interpreted such that the stator is within the perimeter of the belt (11).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “a coupling member (6, 7, 8)”. Claim 14, from which claim 20 depends, also recites “base (5) which is provided with coupling members (6, 7, 8)”. Within the context of the claimed invention, the antecedent basis correlation (or lack thereof) between the coupling member recited in claim 20 and the coupling members recited in claim 14 is unclear. Please amend claim 20 to either clearly antecedently rely on the recitations of claim 14, or differentiate the structure of claim 20. Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 20 recites ‘a coupling member’, wherein there are plural numbers within parentheses. Based on the language of the claim it is unclear if a singular coupling member comprises elements 6, 7, and 8, or if the plural coupling members, imparted by reciting “each”, are represented by numbers 6, 7, and 8.
Further regarding claim 20, it is unclear of the recitation of “of which a cross section is larger in its central portion than at the axial ends (5A, 5B)” intends to limit the frame or the beam (or even the base). Examiner is interpreting the claim to impart the base has a larger central portion, based on Figures 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 21, recitation of “a second part of revolution” is recited twice, i.e. please amend claim 21 to reflect proper antecedent basis. For example, it is unclear if the device must be configured to be fixed such that the device can access the second part of revolution in two different places, or if the claim intends to impart two separate second parts of revolution. While the language is intended use of the device and is not limited by the intended workpiece, the claim language requires amending in order to clarify Applicant’s intent.
Regarding claim 22, it is unclear if the recitation of “a single machining head (10)” is in addition to or the same machining head recited in claim 14, as claim 14 recites “a machining head (10)”.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (JP 63185564A) in view of Sailer (US 5,644,828) and Lippold (US 2,109,069).
Regarding claim 14, Nomura (JP 63185564A) discloses a corrective grinding device (1) intended to machine, by abrasion, a surface to be ground (2A) of a part of revolution (2) which has a main central axis (X2) and which is mounted with the ability to rotate on a frame (3) about the main central axis (see at least the device of Figure 1 including a polishing machine body 8 for performing grinding on work W, wherein work W is rotatable, see β in Figure 1, as well as lines 34-60 of the English translation), the device comprising:
a base (5) fixed on the frame (see at least body frame 7, gantry 3; see also lines 49-62);
a machining head (10) which comprises an abrasive belt (see polishing belt 17 and device of Figure 1, lines 55-63) which is guided along a belt path (12) defined by a plurality of wheels (see wheels 14, 15, 17, 18, and lines 52-56) carried by the machining head (10), the plurality of wheels including an applicator wheel (see belt head contact wheel 16) intended to press the abrasive belt (11) against the surface to be ground (2A) in a penetration direction (Y10) which is transverse to the main central axis (wherein contact wheel 16 is provided to press the polishing belt 17 against the surface of work W in the Y direction, wherein the Y direction is transverse to the X direction, wherein the X direction is parallel to the rotational axis of the work W; see also lines 67-79),
the machining head (10) also comprising a belt-driving motor (16) fixed to the machining head (10) and which is arranged to drive the abrasive belt (11) in motion along the belt path (see motor 10 provided for rotating the belt 17, see lines 52-62 and 67-72); and
a head movement system (23) which makes it possible to move the machining head (10) on the base (5) in a feed direction (X10) which is transverse to the penetration direction (Y10), so that the machining head (10) can, along the main central axis (X2), cover a useful feed stroke (see x direction movement, wherein the polishing machine body 8 is displaceable in the x and y directions, see at least motors 4 and 6, as well as element 1, and lines 32-54 and 67-70),
wherein, in orthogonal projection in a base plane (P10) defined by the feed direction (X10) and the penetration direction (Y10), a projected surface of the abrasive belt (11) which is in the belt path (12) overlaps a projected surface of the belt-driving motor (wherein motor 10 and the subcomponents of motor 10 are surrounded by the polishing belt 17, and in a base plane defines by the x and y axes shown in Figure 1, the surface of the belt 17 overlaps the surface of the motor 10 and subcomponents thereof).
However, Nomura is silent on coupling members for the gantry base to be fixed on a frame, and the components of the motor (10), i.e. Nomura does not explicitly teach that the base is provided with coupling members (6, 7, 8) making it possible to fix the base (5) on the frame, and a stator of the belt driving motor, and thus that the projected surface of the abrasive belt overlaps a projected surface of the stator (17) of the motor. Examiner points out that the frame element is a part of the intended workpiece, wherein the prior art as applied below teaches the functional language.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Sailer (US 5,644,828) teaches of a configuration of a device which has a base (8) provided with coupling members making it possible to fix the base on the frame (wherein strips 11, 12 are screwed into the walls 9, 10 of the machine, see Figure 3 as well as Col. 2, lines 55-63; see also Figure 11 showing a belt configuration; see also Col. 1, lines ).
Both Sailer and Nomura are directed towards devices which employ a moveable grinding mechanism, including embodiments configured to act on cylindrical workpieces; see Figures 3 and 11 of Sailer, as well as Figure 1 of Nomura. While Nomura shows the device is secured on a gantry system (2, 3), it is not clearly shown that the system is configured to and has coupling members to be fixed on the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the coupling structures as taught by Sailer into the invention of Nomura. One would be motivated to do so in order to permit in-situ mounting to a device, thus making repair or grinding of workpiece surfaces more cost effective than deconstructing and transporting a workpiece (Col. 1, lines 37-54).
Furthermore, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Lippold (US 2,109,069) teaches of a sanding and polishing device which employs an abrasive belt (10a, Figure 7), wherein motor (Figure 7) serves to drive pulleys (11a, 12, 13) and wherein the motor has a stator fixed to the machining head and is arranged to drive the belt (see cylinder 90 acting as the stator, and shaft 97 rotates; see page 3, lines 6-14 and 37-50; page 2, lines 55-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lippold, i.e. motor components, into the invention of Nomura. One would be motivated to do so because Lippold serves as an answer to the silence of Nomura, i.e. expanding upon the motor element of Nomura. Furthermore, the configuration taught by Lippold beneficially serves to relieve strain from the apparatus (see page 3, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 15, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the abrasive belt (11) is closed on itself so as to form a continuous loop which travels in a closed circuit along the belt path (12), around the stator (17) of the belt-driving motor (16), so that, in projection in a plane normal to the feed direction (X10), the stator (17) of the belt-driving motor (16) is strictly contained within a perimeter delimited by the abrasive belt (Nomura: wherein belt 17 is covered by cover 19 and extends along a path, see Figure 1 and lines 40-56; wherein the stator as combined above is within the confines of belt 17, i.e. the stator is strictly contained within the perimeter of the belt 17; see also Figure 7 of Lippold).
Regarding claim 16, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the belt-driving motor (16) comprises a rotor which is mounted with the ability to rotate relative to the stator (17) along a drive motor axis (Y16) so that interaction between the stator (17) and the rotor which is created within the belt-driving motor (16) during an activation of the belt-driving motor (16) generates a torque which causes the rotor to rotate on itself relative to the stator (17) around the drive motor axis (Nomura: see at least main shaft 12 which rotates, i.e. a rotor that rotates relative to the stator as incorporated above; see also lines 52-58; see also page 3, lines 6-14 of Lippold),
wherein the rotor is coupled to at least one (13) drive wheel of the belt path (12), so that the rotor can transmit rotation to the drive wheel in order to drive the abrasive belt (11) in its abrasion movement (Nomura: see at least driving wheel 18, sector gear 13, and lines 52-54), and
wherein the drive motor axis (Y16) is oriented transversely with respect to the main central axis (X2) at least in the base plane (P10) at an angle between 85 degrees and 95 degrees with respect to the main central axis (X2) (wherein the axis of shaft 12 is oriented transversely with respect to the axis of workpiece W, i.e. wherein the axis of shaft 12 extends along a direction, and wherein the x direction is transverse thereto; wherein Figure 1 of Nomura shows at least a 90 degree angle).
Regarding claim 17, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the head movement system (23) is provided with a feed motor (27), separate from the belt-driving motor (16), in order to be able to move the machining head (10) along the base (5), in the feed direction (Nomura: see at least the X direction movement and the Y direction movement, as well as servomotor 4; see also lines 45-60 and 67-71), and
wherein the projected surface of the feed motor (27) in the base plane (P10) overlaps the projected surface of the abrasive belt (wherein the projected surface of servomotor 4 in the XY plane shown in Figure 1 overlaps the projected surface of the belt 17, see at least Figure 1, wherein the belt 17 is above and overlaps the servomotor 4 below).
Regarding claim 18, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the head movement system (23) comprises a template rail (41) which extends in length along the feed direction (X10) in order to guide the machining head (Nomura: see at least the base 2, wherein the gantry 3 moves on the base element 2), and of which the deflection, radially to the main central axis (X2), can be adjusted by deforming the template rail (41) by means of one or more set screws so as to be able to make the feed path of the machining head conform to a desired curved profile of the surface to be ground (Nomura: see at least the displacement in the Y direction, i.e. radially to the axis of the workpiece W, and see also lines 52-79 teaching of the screw element for displacement).
Regarding claim 19, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the applicator wheel (see belt head contact wheel 16 of Nomura) is mounted with the ability to rotate on the machining head (10) on an axis (X13) which is parallel to the main central axis (Nomura: wherein lines 36-39 teach that the belt head is driven by automatic control, and wherein as can be seen in Figure 1, the axis of wheel 16 is parallel to the X axis; see also lines 52-64 and 67-79).
Regarding claim 20, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the base (5) is formed by a beam (40) of which axial ends (5A, 5B) are each provided with a coupling member (6, 7, 8) allowing the beam (40) to be fixed to the frame (3), and of which a cross section is larger in its central portion than at the axial ends (5A, 5B), in order to improve rigidity of the beam (40) in the central portion (please see the combination statement as applied to claim 14, above; see also Figure 5 of Sailer regarding the difference in size of the axial ends 11, 12 in comparison to the thickness of the cross rail 8, i.e. the cross rail 8 is thicker/wider than the ends; see also Figure 1 of Nomura).
Regarding claim 21, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the coupling members (6, 7, 8) are provided with reversible fixing means (please see the combination statement as applied to claim 14 above, i.e. Sailer) so that the corrective grinding device (1) can be successively: (i) attached and fixed on the frame (3), so as to carry out a corrective grinding of a first part of revolution (2) mounted on the frame, (ii) then detached from the frame (3) after corrective grinding of the first part of revolution (2), and (iii) transported then fixed either to another location of the same frame (3), which location is associated with a second part of revolution (102, 202, 302) or to a different frame bearing a second part of revolution (102, 202, 302), in order to correctively grind the second part of revolution (wherein the combination of Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention, including the functional language; wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device, but notes herein that the intended workpiece is not considered a part of the invention; wherein Col. 1, lines 37-65 of Sailer teach that the coupling configuration permits removable attachment to apparatuses, and thus a user may select which and where the apparatus is attached; see also the Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the corrective grinding device comprises a single machining head (10) of which the useful feed stroke (L10) is sufficient to allow the machining head (10) to cover, in one and a same continuous pass, an entire axial length of the surface to be ground (2A) along the main central axis (Nomura: see at least Figure 1 regarding the device 8, as well as workpiece W; see also that the device is capable of displacement along the X direction, i.e. along a central axis of workpiece W, see lines 45-70; see also Figures 3, 4, and 11 of Sailer, as well as Col. 3, line 32-Col. 4, line 4).
Regarding claim 23, Nomura in view of Sailer and Lippold teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Nomura further teaches wherein the corrective grinding device comprises an adjustment mechanism (32) making it possible to adjust a depth of cut by which the abrasive belt (11) must penetrate into the part of revolution (2) to be ground, in the penetration direction (Nomura: see at least the adjustability of the device in the Y direction, see Figure 1, as well as lines 45-54, 67-79).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rasmussen (US 4,603,510), see Figure 8.
Mori (US 5,722,876), see stator and rotor in Figures 4 and 5.
Williams (US 1,831,085) see Figures 1 and 2.
Buhayar (US 3,889,424), see Abstract and Figure 1.
Zajac (US 4,488,382), see Figure 2.
Maier (US 5,177,903), see Figure 2.
Wormley (US 5,193,314), see Figures 6 and 8.
Maier (US 5,394,653), see Figure 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights