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 § 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 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a spindle of a machine tool comprising a spindle.” This is confusingly worded and unclear. The claim introduces two spindles, but the phrasing makes it unclear if these are the same spindle or not. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be interpreted as defining a machine tool having a single spindle. Note that the machine tool and its structure are not actively claimed as a part of the claimed belt machining device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stahl (US 3890115, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Stahl discloses a belt machining device, which moves a machining belt relative to a workpiece to machine the workpiece, the belt machining device comprising: a first roller (4), which is a machining roller, a second roller (5), a machining belt (8) which is supported by the first roller and the second roller (as shown in fig 1), a rotational power generation unit (2) which rotates the first roller or the second roller (col 2, lines 14-18), an annular elastic body (44) which is attached to an outer circumference of the first roller (outer circumference of unlabeled hub shown in figs 1 and 2), and an annular expansion prevention member (42) which is attached to the elastic body and which has an elastic modulus greater than the elastic body (as described col 3, lines 25-47).
Regarding claim 2, Stahl further discloses a portion of the machining belt which engages with the first roller contacts a surface of the workpiece to machine the surface of the workpiece (function described col 2, lines 26-28).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kosonen (US 2014/0220871).
Regarding claims 3-4, Stahl teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Stahl does not teach the rotational power generation unit comprises a fluid pneumatic motor (the rotational power generation unit of Stahl is an electric motor rather than pneumatic). Kosonen teaches a belt machining apparatus including a rotational power generation unit (112) comprising a fluid motor, wherein the fluid motor is a pneumatic motor, and specifically states that pneumatic motors are interchangeable with electric motors ([0022]). It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pneumatic fluid motor of Kosonen in place of the electric motor in the belt machining device of Stahl, as these are known obvious alternatives which achieve the predictable result of providing rotational motion for a belt machining device as taught by Kosonen ([0022]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tozawa (US 2003/0126727).
Regarding claim 5, Stahl teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Stahl does not teach a holder which can be attached to a tip of a spindle of a machine tool (note that the structure of the machine tool is not necessary to meet the claim and only the claimed holder part is actively claimed as a part of the belt machining device). Tozawa teaches a belt machining device including a holder part (57) which can be attached to a tip of a spindle of a machine tool comprising a spindle (43; shown in fig 6), a table (45) which is arranged to face the spindle and to which a workpiece (31) is attached (fig 5), and a feed device (55) which moves the spindle and the table relative to each other ([0036]; note that the structure of the machine tool is not necessary to meet the claim and only the claimed holder part is actively claimed as a part of the belt machining device). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a holder to the belt machining device of Stahl, the holder capable of being attached to the claimed machine tool, as this allows the belt machining device to be automatically controlled by the machining device to effect machining on the workpiece as taught by Tozawa ([0011], [0035]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3263517 is provided to show another example of a belt machining device with annular elastic members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723