DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites on the side of the use position. This term is indefinite for two reasons. First, there is no antecedent basis for the side. Second, the use position is a relative axial location as compared to a non-use position. The use position, however, is not a structure having a side. As best understood, the claim is reciting that side of the in-use cavity (that was defined in claim 5) is inclined. It is unclear of one specific side must be inclined.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3-10, & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1044772 to Homag in view of U.S. 3,477,340 to Faugli.
Claim 1 recites a multi-profile milling apparatus. Homag relates to such a milling apparatus. See Homag [0024].3 Homag teaches its milling apparatus has a first milling device (1) having a first milling tool (2). See Homag [0024] and Fig. 1. The first milling device [has] an operating position and [can be] coupled to a drive shaft. See Homag Fig. 1. Homag further teaches the device has a second milling device (3) having [a] second milling tool (4) with a [different] machining profile. See Homag [0024] and Fig. 1. Homag teaches that the second milling device is movable relative to the first milling device between a use and a non-use position by changing the length of piston (16). See Homag [0027]-[0028].
Claim 1 also recites a locking device [with a] centrifugal element [that is] configured to lock the…second milling device in…position during rotation. Homag does not teach using a centrifugal locking system, using a pressure change in working channel (7) to alter the diameter of the mandrel (6). See Homag [0030]. But it would have been obvious to modify Homag to use a centrifugal locking system in view of Faugli because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, Faugli teaches using a centrifugal locking element (7) to lock a removable milling head (1) in place. See Faugli col. 2, ll. 7-25 and Figs. 1-2. Faugli is analogous art because it is also from the milling field and it teaches that centrifugal locks were known in the field for holding milling heads in place. It therefore would have been obvious and predictable to modify Homag to use a centrifugal lock to hold the second milling head in place to prevent it from moving between positions during use.
Regarding claim 3, Homag teaches axially displac[ing] the second milling device by altering the length of piston (16) which in turn moves arm (19, 22) and moving the second miller (3) axially along shaft. See Homag [0027]-[0030]. Claim 4 recites that there are two centrifugal elements. This feature would have been a logical extension of the modification of Homag. In Faugli, the locking mechanism works by having a ball (7) that slots into a correspondingly shaped groove (8) to prevent movement. See Faugli col. 2, ll. 7-25. But the system of Homag axially moves the second miller, as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Thus, the lock needs a groove at both locations with two balls, both that prevent axial movement at each respective axial location. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have recognized a second ball with a second corresponding outer channel groove would have been required for the other position after the second milling device was axially moved. Such a modification would have been obvious as a matter of common sense and engineering logic. This further teaches the features of claims 5 and 6, which explicitly recites two cavit[ies] are adjacent axially to each other with corresponding balls. Regarding claim 7, Faugli teaches the ball (7) is transferring to a locking position in the groove (8) by the rotating movement of the milling device and the corresponding centrifugal force. Regarding claim 8, Faugli shows using a sphere. See Faugli Fig. 2. Claim 9 recites that the cavity on the inner circumference of the second milling device has an inclined surface on one or both of its sides. Faugli shows that the cavity (8) has a concave surface, which is therefore curved (i.e. inclined) on both sides. Claim 10 recites that the first centrifugal element can be moved to a locking position in which [it] acts on the inclined surface. This is the effect illustrated when the ball interacts with the concave surface in Faugli. Regarding claim 14, the milling tool of Homag would be inferred to be part of a machining device. Such a machine would further be inferred to have a driving apparatus (i.e. a motor providing rotation to the miller) a workpiece support (i.e. a vice or similar holder), and a conveying device for moving the miller to and from the workpiece. Regarding claim 15, Homag teaches a setting device that switches the second milling device between the use…and non-use position[s] in the form an “adjusting mechanism” having a pneumatic piston (16) and coupling fork (22). See Homag [0027]-[0028]. Finally, regarding claim 16 Homag teaches a sensing roller (10) that is a sensor device for detecting a setting position of the second milling device.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 2, 10-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, figure 1 of Homag shows that both the first (1) and second (3) milling devices are arranged coaxially. But claim 2 also recites the locking device is positioned between the milling devices. In Homag the two are directly adjacent and the centrifugal locking device of Faugli would need to be placed along the contact portion of miller (3) where it contacts the central shaft. All of these locations are contained within the axial space of the second milling device, not between the two. As such, one could not predictably modify Homag to position a centrifugal locking device between the two coaxial milling devices.
Regarding claim 10, neither Homag nor Faugli explicitly teach or suggest a stopper. Claims 11-12 depend from claim 10. Regarding claim 13, Faugli does not show the recess occupying at least half of the ball.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil 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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
3 All citations are to the attached English translation of EP 1044772 obtained from espacenet.com.