DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US-6,234,869).
Regarding claim 11 (New), Kobayashi (US-6,234,869) discloses a method for grinding a workpiece with a toothing or a profile,
wherein in the grinding machine in a first working step the toothing or the profile is pre-machined with a rough-grinding tool and subsequently in a second working step the toothing or the profile is finish-machined with a finishing grinding tool (Kobayshi discloses multiple steps, including a “rough grinding step” and “fine grinding step”, being the first working step and the second working step, respectively) [Kobayashi; col. 3, line 56 – col. 4, line 5],
wherein simultaneously with the first working step, the toothing or the profile is measured by means of at least one sensor, wherein a geometric variable (size) determining the toothing or the profile or a variable connected to the geometry is measured (“During the machining, the electric signals representing the measurement values of the workpiece 14 are outputted from the gage head 16, and a rectifier circuit 30 rectifies the outputted electric signals.”) [Kobayashi; col. 4, lines 8-11], and
wherein the deviation of the measured geometric variable or the variable connected to the geometry from a setpoint value is determined in the machine control,
wherein a dressable grinding wheel (grinding wheel 10) or a dressable grinding worm is used at least as rough-grinding tool,
wherein the machine control initiates a dressing operation for the rough-grinding tool if the deviation between the measured geometric variable and its setpoint value is above a predetermined limit (outside the allowable range) (“Thus, the sharpness of the grinding wheel can be judged easily and the dressing time of the grinding wheel can be determined without a great deal of skill.”) [Kobayashi; col. 1, lines 57-59] (“To address these problems, the time required for a predetermined change in size is monitored in this embodiment, so that whether the dressing for the grinding wheel 10 is required can be determined automatically.”) [Kobayashi; col. 6, lines 61-64] (“the machine control gage system of this embodiment displays the ideal (normal) record as well as the record of the measurement data on the currently-machined workpiece, and thus, the sharpness of the grinding wheel 10 can easily be checked in detail”) [Kobayashi; col. 7, lines 7-11] (“According to the present invention, the machine control gage system further comprises a first abnormality detector that monitors the changes in the size of the workpiece in accordance with the electric signals outputted from the measuring device, and outputs a first abnormality detection signal when a time elapsed for a predetermined change in the size of the workpiece is out of a predetermined allowable range.”) [Kobayashi; col. 1, lines 60-67].
Kobayashi fails to disclose “in a single workpiece clamping,” but it would’ve been obvious to clamp the single workpiece 14 of Kobayashi to maintain it in an exact position relative to the grinding wheel 10 during machining, for both exact machining and exact measurements [Kobayashi; col. 3, lines 4-13].
Regarding claim 12 (New), Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the machine control emits a signal (abnormality detection signal) if the deviation between the measured geometric variable and its setpoint value is above a predetermined limit (“According to the present invention, the machine control gage system further comprises a first abnormality detector that monitors the changes in the size of the workpiece in accordance with the electric signals outputted from the measuring device, and outputs a first abnormality detection signal when a time elapsed for a predetermined change in the size of the workpiece is out of a predetermined allowable range.”) [Kobayashi; col. 1, lines 60-67].
Regarding claim 13 (New), Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the same tool is used as the rough- grinding tool and as the finishing-grinding tool, wherein different sections of the tool are provided for roughing and for finishing.
However, Kobayashi only mentions “a machine tool,” as in a single machine tool, that performs the grinding (“a measuring device that detects changes in the size of a workpiece ground by a machine tool” and “outputs a signal to control the machine tool when the workpiece reaches a predetermined size”) [Kobayashi; col. 1, lines 39-50], which would be considered to include all of the “steps” of the grinding (“The grinding machine controller 12 changes the machining speed from a high speed to a low speed according to the signals from the control part 18; e.g., from the rough grinding to the fine grinding and from the fine grinding to the spark-out grinding.”) [Kobayashi; col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 3]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious, based on the disclose or Kobayashi, to use the same tool for the rough-grinding tool and as the finishing-grinding tool as claimed.
As for “different sections of the tool are provided for roughing and for finishing, the “tool” 10 is circular and, therefore, it uses different sections for roughing and it also uses different sections for finishing, the sections of the tool 10 rotating in succession. As such, this would be considered to be “wherein different sections (i.e. arc lengths) of the tool are provided for roughing and for finishing, as claimed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US-6,234,869) in view of Wuerfel (US-2016/0214193).
Regarding claim 15 (New), Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the measured geometric variable is the profile angular error (fHa) of the toothing.
However, Wuerfel (US-2016/0214193) teaches wherein the measured geometric variable is the profile angular error (fHa) of the toothing (“In these two methods, only the profile angle errors f.sub.Hα in an upper and a lower transverse section plane are looked at and the twist is determined from this or the twist is set in this manner such that it corresponds to the desired predefined value. However, this observation, which is only restricted to two transverse section planes, results in shape deviations on the flank which are not detected in a typical twist measurement, but become visible in topological measurements. The method according to Sulzer additionally has the disadvantage that it causes profile crowning. The latter can admittedly be compensated by a corresponding allowance in the dresser, but this allowance then only matches for a specific tooth trace crowning.”) [Wuerfel; paragraph 0100]. Since Kobayashi discloses a method to “improve machining accuracy and the automation productivity” [Kobayashi; col. 1, lines 14-15], it therefore would’ve been obvious to apply the method of improving machining accuracy and automation productivity of Kobayashi to machining gears, such as taught by Wuerfel, wherein specific profile angle errors on the workpiece, similar to the errors in the workpiece of Kobayashi, are compensated for with dressing.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US-6,234,869) in view of Le Neel (US-2018/0252517).
Regarding claim 16 (New), Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein an optical sensor, an inductive sensor or a capacitive sensor is used as the sensor.
However, Le Neel (US-2018/0252517) teaches using an optical sensor (12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 14) as the sensor for measuring a workpiece (toothed wheel 20). Since Kobayashi discloses measuring changes in the workpiece (“During the machining, the electric signals representing the measurement values of the workpiece 14 are outputted from the gage head 16, and a rectifier circuit 30 rectifies the outputted electric signals.”) [Kobayashi; col. 4, lines 8-11], it therefore would’ve been obvious to us an improved system that provides relatively more precise, reproducible, and high-speed checks of the dimensional characteristics of the workpiece of Kobayashi (“It is therefore desirable to propose an automatic inspection machine capable of carrying out precise, reproducible and high-speed checks on all the dimensional characteristics of mechanical components with toothing.”) [Le Neel; paragraph 0010].
Regarding claim 17 (New), Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the measurement of the toothing or the profile is carried out with at least two sensors which are arranged offset in the direction of the rotation axis of the workpiece.
However, Le Neel (US-2018/0252517) teaches wherein the measurement of the toothing or the profile is carried out with at least two sensors (12A, 12B, 13A, 13B) which are arranged offset in the direction of the rotation axis (Z) of the workpiece (20) (Fig. 1). Since Kobayashi discloses measuring changes in the workpiece (“During the machining, the electric signals representing the measurement values of the workpiece 14 are outputted from the gage head 16, and a rectifier circuit 30 rectifies the outputted electric signals.”) [Kobayashi; col. 4, lines 8-11], it therefore would’ve been obvious to us an improved system that provides relatively more precise, reproducible, and high-speed checks of the dimensional characteristics of the workpiece of Kobayashi (“It is therefore desirable to propose an automatic inspection machine capable of carrying out precise, reproducible and high-speed checks on all the dimensional characteristics of mechanical components with toothing.”) [Le Neel; paragraph 0010].
Regarding claim 18 (New), Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the measurement of the toothing or the profile is carried out with at least two sensors which are arranged offset in the circumferential direction of the workpiece.
However, Le Neel (US-2018/0252517) teaches wherein the measurement of the toothing or the profile is carried out with two sensors (12A, 12B, 13A, 13B) which are arranged offset in the direction of the circumferential of the workpiece (20) (Fig. 1). Since Kobayashi discloses measuring changes in the workpiece (“During the machining, the electric signals representing the measurement values of the workpiece 14 are outputted from the gage head 16, and a rectifier circuit 30 rectifies the outputted electric signals.”) [Kobayashi; col. 4, lines 8-11], it therefore would’ve been obvious to us an imporved system that provides relatively more precise, reproducible, and high-speed checks of the dimensional characteristics of the workpiece of Kobayashi (“It is therefore desirable to propose an automatic inspection machine capable of carrying out precise, reproducible and high-speed checks on all the dimensional characteristics of mechanical components with toothing.”) [Le Neel; paragraph 0010].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14 (New), Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the measured geometric variable is the tooth width or the spherical measure of the toothing.
However, Mundt (US-2017/0008110) teaches that “For example, these objects are solved by a method for dressing a multithread grinding worm having a plurality of flights, comprising machining a flight of the grinding worm with a dressing tool, wherein during machining at least one of the plurality of flights of the grinding worm is set back in terms of tooth width and/or tooth height with respect to the original flank, so that the number of flights of the grinding worm is reduced.” [Mundt; paragraph 0010]. However, this does not anticipate or make obvious “wherein the machine control initiates a dressing operation for the rough-grinding tool if the deviation between the measured geometric variable (i.e. tooth width or spherical measure of the toothing) and its setpoint value is above a predetermined limit” as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20180128596 and US-10466037 are pertinent to claim 16. US-2,998,000 [Johansson; col. 3, lines 44-47], US-20090156097 and US-6234869 are pertinent to claim 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights