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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “blade recess 20 in the base body 6” is recited on page 9, lines 30-31 and page 10, lines 30-31 which is incorrect since the blade recess 20 is shown in blade housing 3 and not in base body 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 12, the phrase “when fastening the adjustment piece” might should be changed to - - when turning the adjustment piece - - to match the prior recitation of “performed by turning the adjustment piece”. Is the adjustment piece being attached/fastened and turned to adjust and attach at the same time? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6th - 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.
Claims 1, 12, 22 limitation “adjusting means for adjusting a position of a tool” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation 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.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 11 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves 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.
The phrases “means of a rotatable rocker” & “means of an internal clamping piece”/”means of a clamping piece”, has been interpreted to correspond to – rotatable rocker (4) & clamping piece (8).
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the adjustment piece". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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) 7-12, 14, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Heule et al. (US 20100166515 A1) in view of Heule (US 5803679 A) and further in view of Heule (US 5209617 A).
Regarding claims 7 and 23-24, Heule et al. discloses a deburring tool (fig. 1) for deburring bores with a paired arrangement of cutting blades (29, 30) and a rotationally driven tool holder (2), wherein in a blade recess (31) of a blade housing (knife housing 2), the cutting blades (29, 30) are driven opposite one another with radially outwardly pointing conical cutting edges (40, fig. 4), so as to be radially displaceable relative to one another by means of a rotatable rocker (15) arranged in a base body (1) of the tool holder (24), and the rocker (15) is mounted in the tool holder (neck 22 is mounted in tool holder) rotatably about an axial longitudinal axis and is resiliently biased in the axial direction (via spring 12) that acts as a torsion spring (abstract, [0013, 0020, 0068-0069], wherein in order to set the chamfer size of a bore edge, while the rocker remains in a fixed stop position relative to the base body (locking screws 28), and while the blade housing (2) receives and holds the rocker (15) axially and radially, the radial rotational position of the blade housing relative to the rocker and the base body (1) can be rotated and fastened steplessly (index bolt 6 sets tension [0041-0069], figs. 1-11) and a clamping piece (clamping chuck 5) is detachably connected to the base body (1)/adjustment piece (index holes 33) by a locking screw (32).
Heule et al. fails to explicitly disclose the rocker is resiliently biased in the axial direction by a torsion spring and if argued that the locking screws do not set the chamfer size of a bore edge, while the rocker remains in a fixed stop position relative to the base body, and while the blade housing receives and holds the rocker axially and radially, the radial rotational position of the blade housing relative to the rocker and the base body can be rotated and fastened steplessly.
Heule’679 teaches having a rocker (4 or 6) resiliently biased in the axial direction by a compression spring (5) or a torsion spring (23) or spiral spring (24, figs. 1 and 5) and to set the chamfer size of a bore edge (direction of arrows 20, 20'), while the rocker (4/6) remains in a fixed stop position relative to the base body (remains fixed), and while a blade housing (1/recess 9 of housing 1) receives and holds the rocker (4/6 held in housing 1) axially and radially, the radial rotational position of the blade housing relative to the rocker and the base body can be rotated and fastened steplessly (threaded screw 3 allows housing 1 to housing to be loosend/tightened, col. 4, lines 6-14, fig. 1).
Heule’617 teaches having a rocker (4) resiliently biased in the axial direction by a torsion spring (5, col. 4, lines 55-67, fig. 1) and to set the chamfer size of a bore edge, while the rocker remains in a fixed stop position relative to the base body (fixed via set screw 8), and while a blade housing (3) receives and holds the rocker (4) axially and radially, the radial rotational position of the blade housing relative to the rocker and the base body can be rotated and fastened steplessly and teaches having the blade with a camming recess (10, fig. 4) to auto adjust during deburring (col. 3, lines 17-67, col. 4, lines 1-47 figs. 1-6) and a clamping piece (2) is detachably connected to a base body (1), by a locking screws (8).
Given the teachings of Heule et al. to have a detachable coupling between a clamping piece and hub formed as a plug-in rotary coupling and a limiting pin/screw index bolt that sets tension with markings, it 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 to modify clamping with additional locking screws, the spring to be a torsion spring and have the chamfer size of a bore edge, while the rocker remains in a fixed stop position relative to the base body, and while the blade housing receives and holds the rocker axially and radially, the radial rotational position of the blade housing relative to the rocker and the base body can be rotated and fastened steplessly for indexing the deburring tool a selected number of degrees to have precise adjustment of speed/torque, for more precise operation of the tool and more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece), add additional locking screws to connect the clamping piece, and/or for adjusting the length/depth cutting/deburring purposes as taught by Heule’679 and Heule’9617.
Regarding claims 8-9, Heule et al. discloses the rotatable rocker is a rotationally spring-loaded rocker and wherein a stop pin (adjusting screw/bolt 20, [0047], fig. 7-11) of the rocker (15) and a stop pin (stop screw 32) in the base body (1) hold the rotationally spring-loaded rocker (15) in a fixed stop position in the blade housing (2) in one direction of rotation and the torsional force of the torsion spring (12) biases the rocker-side stop pin (adjusting screw/bolt 20) against the stop pin (32) on the base body side in the one-sided stop position of the rocker (15, [0047-0069], figs. 1-11).
Regarding claims 10-11, Heule et al. discloses a cylindrical adjustment piece (tensioning element 4/clamping chuck 5) connected to the base body (1) is detachably coupled at the end face to a cylindrical clamping piece (guide hub 18) and radially inwardly directed locking screws (eccentric tappet 25) are arranged in the base body (1) and adjustably connect the adjustment piece (4) to the base body (1) by means of the clamping piece (28), both detachably and in a fixed state, in order to transmit the cutting forces to the shaft ([0047-0069], figs. 1-11).
Regarding claim 12, Heule et al. discloses having an adjustment piece (5), the continuous adjustment of the chamfer size of the bore edge is performed by turning the adjustment piece (5) relative to the base body (1), and when fastening the adjustment piece by means of the internal clamping piece (6), the setting made for the chamfer size is fixed ([0043-0044, 0063-0069], figs. 1-11).
Regarding claim 14, Heule et al. discloses a detachable coupling between a clamping piece (4/9) and hub 18 (5) is formed as a plug-in rotary coupling (11/16/17) and a limiting screw (index bolt 6 sets tension) and markings (index holes 33) are provided on the base body (1) opposite to markings (line/slots) on the adjustment piece (4, fig. 9) to provide scalable and reproducible adjustment of the biasing force of the torsion spring (see figs. 9-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-16, 22, 25, and 27-28 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a deburring tool for deburring bores comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, a pair of cutting knives/blades, a rotatably driven tool holder, a knife housing with the blades radially outward through blade slots, allowing the blades to be radially displaceable relative to one another by a rotatable rocker arranged in a base of the tool holder wherein the rocker is mounted in the tool holder so that it can rotate about an axial longitudinal axis and is resiliently prestressed in the axial direction via a torsion spring and the blade housing is mounted on the rocker and the base in an axially displaceable and fixable manner to change the cutting blades with the knife housing being axially displaceable and lockable on the axially immovable rocker. Though Heule et al. (US 20100166515 A1) teaches a clamping member that allows the blades to be adjusted and changed, it would not be obvious to modify the clamping member with having base of the tool holder and the blade housing mounted on the rocker and the base in an axially displaceable and fixable manner to change the cutting blades with the knife housing being axially displaceable and lockable on the axially immovable rocker and one of ordinary skill would recognize that a having a safer blade changing mechanism provides an improved blade changing device with easier assembly. Having the efficiency and speed of the knife housing being axially displaceable and lockable on the axially immovable rocker provides an easier and safer changing of knives on a deburring tool.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-16, 22-25, and 27-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: see form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (EST).
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights