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 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”), or 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, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“storage means” of claim 8. The specification states that “[t]he storage means 22 comprise, for example, a non-volatile memory, for example a flash-type electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM).” [Application Publication; paragraph 0074].
“a means for determining the type of the grinding wheel and of the rolling bearing ring” of claim 8. The specification states “[t]he determination means comprise, for example, a human-machine interface, such as a selection screen 25” [Application Publication; paragraph 0071].
“a selection means configured to select a set of control coefficients…stored in the storage means” of claim 8. Applicant shows the selection means as numeral ‘23’ (Fig. 3) which appears to be a part of the control device 21. Therefore, this is considered to be a control device, or equivalents thereof, that perform the claimed function “to select a set of control coefficients of the magnetic bearings associated with the determined types of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring from among the plurality of sets of control coefficients stored in the storage means” as claimed.
“a means for controlling the radial and axial magnetic bearings, said means being configured to…determined type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring” of claim 8. Applicant describes “a programmable controller 50, which comprises, for example, a programmable logic controller” [Application Publication; paragraph 0068]. Therefore, this is considered to be a controller, or equivalents thereof, set up to perform the claimed function.
“a counter” of claim 9. Applicant describes counter 26 which is shown to be part of the controller 50 of the control device 21. Therefore, this is considered a counter module.
“a servocontrol means configured to determine control values…of control coefficients” of claims 10 and 12.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 5, 8, 14, and 15, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-13 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 claims 1 and 8, the claimed “a step of selecting a set of control coefficients of the magnetic bearings associated with the types of rolling bearing ring determined from among a plurality of sets of control coefficients of the magnetic bearings, each set of control coefficients of the magnetic bearings being associated with a different type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring, and comprising a first list of control coefficients and a second list of control coefficients” (claim 1) is indefinite, particularly what is “comprising” a first list” and “second list” as there are multiple terms here. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “a step of selecting a set of control coefficients of the magnetic bearings associated with the types of rolling bearing ring determined from among a plurality of sets of control coefficients of the magnetic bearings, each set of control coefficients of the magnetic bearings being associated with a different type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring, and [each set of control coefficients] comprising a first list of control coefficients and a second list of control coefficients.” Similarly with claim 8, with “, and [each set of control coefficients] comprising a first list of control coefficients and a second list of control coefficients.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the claimed “with a different type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring” is indefinite. It’s unclear if this is referring back to a previously mentioned roller bearing ring, like “a rolling bearing ring” or whether this is introducing a new, “different,” roller bearing ring. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “with a different type of grinding wheel and a different type of rolling bearing ring.”
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the claimed “the set of coefficients of the determined type of the grinding wheel and of the rolling bearing ring” lacks antecedent basis for “the determined type.” For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “the set of coefficients of the different type of the grinding wheel and of the rolling bearing ring.”
Regarding claim 5, the claimed “on the basis of servocontrol means that are parametrized on the basis of the first and second lists” is indefinite. Applicant has not introduced the servocontrol means prior to this, meaning that this should be “on the basis of [a] servocontrol means that are parametrized on the basis of the first and second lists.” It’s also unclear whether “that are parametrized” is referring to the servocontrol means, or, in this case, the driving values. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “on the basis of [a] servocontrol means[, wherein the driving values]
Lastly, the claimed “comprising determining values for the radial bearings and for the axial bearing on the basis of servocontrol means” adds ambiguity about whether the values for determined “on the basis of servocontrol means” applies to both radial bearings and axial bearing values, or just axial bearing. Applicant should better clarify in the claims to avoid ambiguity, such as “comprising determining values for the radial bearings and for the axial bearing [both] on the basis of servocontrol means” or “comprising determining values [on the basis of servocontrol means] for the radial bearings and for the axial bearing
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the claimed “a control device according to claim” is indefinite. While it’s generally understood that this is referring to “A device for controlling,” this leads to ambiguity about whether these two are one and the same. There are several devices for controlling to one degree or another and, therefore, it’s not definite that this refers to only the “device for controlling a spindle…” or simply “the device.” It’s recommended that Applicant use consistent language, either by referring to it exactly as it previously appeared, or changing how the term previously appeared so that they match.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 2-7, would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose, or render obvious, “the magnetic bearings being controlled on the basis of the coefficients of the first list of control coefficients associated with the set of coefficients of the determined type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring” as claimed.
The prior art teaches dressing, but on the basis of restoring the shape and/or surface roughness, and not on “the basis of the coefficients of the first list of control coefficients associated with the set of coefficients of the determined type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring” after “a means for determining the type of the grinding wheel and of the rolling bearing ring” as claimed.
Claim 8, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 9-15, would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose, or render obvious, “a means for controlling the radial and axial magnetic bearings, said means being configured to control, during a dressing step, the radial and axial magnetic bearings on the basis of the coefficients of the first list of control coefficients associated with the set of coefficients of the determined type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring” as claimed.
The prior art teaches dressing, but on the basis of restoring the shape and/or surface roughness, and not on “the basis of the coefficients of the first list of control coefficients associated with the set of coefficients of the determined type of grinding wheel and of rolling bearing ring” after “a means for determining the type of the grinding wheel and of the rolling bearing ring” as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6,585,462, US-2015/0308495, JPH0724602, JPH01252343A, JP2010115756A, JP2009285776A, JP2009190093A, JP2007260809A, JP2007260790A, EP0387989A2 are pertinent to claims 1 and 8.
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