DETAILED ACTION
Method of Forming Truer
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
The amendments filed 01-16-2026 have been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01-16-2026 with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.102 and 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a different combination of prior art references, not applied in the
prior rejection of record to teach the limitations.
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 1-11 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 1, claim 1 recites “a process A for adjusting a diameter and a rough shape of the truer by a master grinding wheel for forming the truer; and a process B for forming an edge of the truer into a target shape, wherein the process A and the process B are performed by a plurality of master grooves having different shapes from each other, the plurality of master grooves being provided with the master grinding wheel or the process A and the process B are performed by a plurality of portions having different shapes from each other in at least one of the plurality of master grooves provided with the master grinding wheel.” It is unclear if each process A and B use multiple master grooves or using one of multiple master grooves for each process. Examiner interpreting limitation as using one of each of the multiple master grooves.
Claims 2-11 are rejected from depending rejected claim 1.
Additionally, the limitations within claims 2 and 10 are also unclear on if each process A and B use multiple master grooves or using one of the multiple master grooves for each process. Examiner interpreting limitations as using one of the multiple master grooves for each process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katayama (US20050112999A1).
Regarding claim 13, Katayama teaches wherein at least one master groove (52a, figure 8) of the master grinding wheel comprising: a first portion for adjusting a diameter and a rough shape of the truer; and a second portion for forming an edge of the truer into a target shape, the second portion being different from the first portion. (see para 0074, figure 8)
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama (US20050112999A1) in view Suzuki (US20240217066A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katayama teaches
a process A for adjusting a diameter and a rough shape (para 0074, figures 7- 8 “cut first”) of the truer (41, figure 8) by a master grinding wheel for forming the truer; and
a process B for forming an edge of the truer into a target shape (para 0074, figure 7-8, “, the truer 41 is raised by ½ of the correction amount of the X3 and cut (2), and finally, the truer 41 is lowered from the first height by ½ of the correction amount of X3 and cut (3), as shown in FIG. 8. “)
However, Katayama fails to teach the process A and the process B are performed by a plurality of master grooves having different shapes from each other, the plurality of master grooves being provided with the master grinding wheel or the process A and the process B are performed by a plurality of portions having different shapes from each other in at least one of the plurality of master grooves provided with the master grinding wheel.
Katayama does disclose that process A and process B are performed by within different spots of the master groove (see figure 8)
Suzuki teaches grinding wheel that has a plurality of master grooves provided master grinding wheel where grooves are used to work on same workpiece but made to have different shapes depending on the finishing process (see para 0032, figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Katayama to have process A and the process B are performed by a plurality of master grooves having different shapes from each other, the plurality of master grooves being provided with the master grinding wheel based on the teachings of Suzuki. This modification would help improve grinding process and reduce manufacturing cost. (see para 00072 of Suzuki)
Regarding claim 2, modified Katayama teaches the process A and the process B are performed by a first groove and a second groove which are the plurality of master grooves having different shapes from each other(see Suzuki para 0032), the first groove and the second groove being provided with the master grinding wheel (see Katayama figure 8; para 0074).
Regarding claim 3, modified Katayama teaches an edge processing (see Katayama 2, figure 8 para 0074) is performed by using an end portion of the second (see Katayama para 0074) groove after the truer is processed by the first (see Katayama para 0074) groove.
Regarding claim 4, modified Katayama teaches a radius of an arc-shaped portion of an end portion of the second groove (see Katayama para 0074e) and a radius of an arc-shaped portion of an end portion of the first groove (see Katayama para 0074), but fails to teach the radius of second groove is larger than the radius of first groove.
However, modified Katayama does disclose that the first groove (see Suzuki para 0032) and second groove (see Suzuki para 0032) can have different shapes.
Knowing this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify the structure of the second groove of Katayama to have any desired shape, including having a radius of an arc-shaped portion of an end portion of the second groove be larger than a radius of an arc-shaped portion of an end portion of the first groove in an attempt to optimize the second groove shape in an attempt to try and improve accuracy. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, modified Katayama teaches wherein a chamfering processing of the truer is performed by at least one of the plurality of master grooves by moving the truer in a direction of separating from at least one of the plurality of master grooves (see para 0074 Katayama).
Regarding claim 6, modified Katayama teaches to teach wherein a corner R processing of the truer is performed by using the end portion of the second groove for adjusting a shape, a radius and a roundness of the corner of the truer while reducing a moving distance of the truer (figures 7-8; para 0074 Katayama).
Regarding claim 7, modified Katayama teaches corner R processing of a lower surface of the truer is performed after the corner R processing of an upper surface of the truer is performed. (figures 7-8; para 0074 Katayama)
Regarding claim 8, modified Katayama teaches an amplitude, the machining speed, a spark-out time and the number of times of reciprocating motion are specified as a traverse motion independently for the corner R processing of the upper surface and the corner R processing of the lower surface. (see para 0057-0083 of Katayama)
Regarding claim 9, modified Katayama teaches wherein an amplitude, the machining speed, a spark-out time and the number of times of reciprocating motion are specified as a traverse motion independently for the corner R processing of the upper surface and the corner R processing of the lower surface. (see para 0057-0083 of Katayama )
Regarding claim 10, modified Katayama teaches the process A and the process B are performed by using the plurality of portions having different shapes (Suzuki para 0032) from each other in at least one of the plurality of master grooves provided with the master grinding wheel, and the process B is performed by using an end portion of at least one of the plurality of master grooves (see Katayma figures 7- 8)
Regarding claim 10, modified Katayama teaches the process A is performed by using a bottom portion of at least one of the plurality of master grooves (1, figure 8 para 0074, using both portions of top and bottom portions to perform process A).
Regarding claim 12, Katayama teaches a groove for adjusting a diameter and a rough shape of the truer (para 0074, figures 7- 8 “cut first”); and for forming an edge of the truer into a target shape (para 0074, figure 7-8, “, the truer 41 is raised by ½ of the correction amount of the X3 and cut (2), and finally, the truer 41 is lowered from the first height by ½ of the correction amount of X3 and cut (3), as shown in FIG. 8. “)
Katayama fails to teach a first groove and second groove the second groove being different from the first groove.
Suzuki teaches grinding wheel that has a plurality of master grooves provided master grinding wheel where grooves are used to work on same workpiece but made to have different shapes depending on the finishing process (see para 0032, figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Katayama to have process A and the process B are performed a first groove and second groove the second groove being different from the first groove based on the teachings of Suzuki. This modification would help improve grinding process and reduce manufacturing cost. (see para 00072 of Suzuki)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Monica 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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights