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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the recesses have an angle of between 5 and 15 degrees measured circumferentially” (from claim 34) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 26, 30, 34, 41 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “one or more elastomeric couplings”. It is unclear if this is referring to the couplings already introduced or new ones.
Claim 30 recites the limitation " the outer surfaces of the damping mass ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the recesses have an angle of between 5 and 15 degrees measured circumferentially”. This limitation is not clear. Note that the specification states in paragraph connecting pages 3-4 that “Each groove or recess may extend between 5 and 15 degrees around the circumference of the damper”. This implies that the recesses extend between this range around the damper but does not imply that the grooves have an angle in this range since any angle would not be part of the recess. Thus, this claim language is unclear.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "a tool holder”. It is unclear if this is referring to machine tool holder already introduced and also if this element is positively part of the cutting tool or being functionally claimed (since machine tool holder is functionally introduced in claim 39).
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the machine”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23-24, 26-31, 38-39, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by de Souza Filho (PGPub 2012/0099940).
Re Claim 23, de Souza Filho discloses a damping apparatus 30 for a machine tool, comprising:an annular body 32 with an inwardly facing surface, the inwardly facing surface [arranged for coupling to an outer surface of a machine tool stem or an outer surface of a machine tool holder], wherein the annular body comprises an internal cavity 42, the cavity comprising a damping mass 40 (Fig. 1-2). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 24, de Souza Filho discloses the damping mass is coupled to and spaced from an inwardly facing surface of the internal cavity by one or more elastomeric or rubber couplings 48, 50 (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
Re Claim 26, as best understood, de Souza Filho discloses the damping mass is in the form of a generally cylindrical body with two opposing end faces 44, 46 and one or more elastomeric couplings 48, 50 are arranged on the end faces of the damping mass (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
Re Claim 27, de Souza Filho discloses the elastomeric couplings are in the form of O-rings (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
Re Claim 28, de Souza Filho discloses the elastomeric couplings are in the form of a plurality of discrete elastomeric elements (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
Re Claim 29, de Souza Filho discloses the elastomeric couplings are coupled to the inwardly facing surface of the annular body (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
Re Claim 30, de Souza Filho discloses the elastomeric couplings are coupled to the outer surfaces of the damping mass (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
Re Claim 31, de Souza Filho discloses the elastomeric or rubber couplings are continuous and portions of the inwardly facing surface of the internal cavity and/or an outer surface of the damping mass are provided with recesses 52, 54 in alignment with a line of contact of the elastomeric couplings and the damping mass (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
Re Claim 38, de Souza Filho discloses a damper for a tool comprising a cylindrical body 32 and a central circular aperture; the cylindrical body comprising radially inwardly extending fixtures [arranged to couple the damper to a portion of the tool], wherein the damper comprises a circumferentially extending cavity 42 within the damper, the cavity comprising a movable damping mass 40 (Fig. 1-2; para. 20). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 39, de Souza Filho discloses a cutting tool 10/12 comprising: a damping apparatus for a machine tool, including an annular body 32 with an inwardly facing surface, the inwardly facing surface [arranged for coupling to an outer surface of a machine tool stem or an outer surface of a machine tool holder], wherein the annular body comprises an internal cavity 42, the cavity comprising a damping mass 40 (Fig. 1-2; para. 20). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 41, as best understood, de Souza Filho discloses the damping apparatus is coupled to a tool holder 10 of the machine (Fig. 1-2; para. 20).
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) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Souza Filho in view of Sasaki (PGPub 2012/0003055).
Re Claim 25, de Souza Filho does not disclose the elastomeric couplings are arranged around the circumference of the damping mass. However, Sasaki teaches elastomeric couplings 130 are arranged around the circumference of a damping mass 110 (Fig. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize elastomeric couplings arranged around the circumference of the damping mass, as taught by Sasaki, for the purpose of providing support in a desired area and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Souza Filho in view of Richter (US 3,643,546).
Re Claim 32, de Souza Filho does not disclose the damping mass is in the form of a single metallic or plastic element. However, Richter teaches damping mass is in the form of a single metallic or plastic element (Fig. 1-3; col. 2, lines 10-30). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a single metallic or plastic element, as taught by Richter, for the purpose of providing desired strength properties and ensure the component can absorb vibrations effectively and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Souza Filho in view of Bellinghausen (US 5,095,786).
Re Claim 33-34, as best understood, de Souza Filho discloses the inwardly facing surface of the internal cavity is provided with a plurality of circumferentially spaced recesses in alignment with the one or more elastomeric or rubber couplings, the recesses have an angle of between 5 and 15 degrees measured circumferentially around the apparatus and a depth of between 0.5mm and 3 mm. However, Bellinghausen teaches inwardly facing surface of an internal cavity is provided with a plurality of circumferentially spaced recesses in alignment with the one or more elastomeric or rubber couplings 576, the recesses have an angle of between 5 and 15 degrees measured circumferentially around the apparatus (Fig. 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of circumferentially spaced recesses, as taught by Bellinghausen, for the purpose of providing sufficient support for couplings so that they stay in desired location. Further, the size of such couplings is generally in the claimed size range and it would be obvious to make the recess for the coupling in the range of 0.5-3 mm in order to accommodate the couplings as this is standard practice in the art and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Souza Filho in view of Nedzlek (WO 2016000870 A1, from IDS).
Re Claim 35-37, de Souza Filho does not disclose the damping mass is formed of a plurality of discrete and independent elements contained within the internal cavity, the plurality of discrete and independent elements are a plurality of metallic elements, the metallic elements are selected from powder, shot peen or metallic spheres. However, Nedzlek teaches a damping mass is formed of a plurality of discrete and independent elements contained within the internal cavity, the plurality of discrete and independent elements are a plurality of metallic elements, the metallic elements are selected from powder, shot peen or metallic spheres 6 (Fig. 1; pg. 7, lines 22-37; pg. 10). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such metallic elements, as taught by Nedzlek, for the purpose of providing effective damping using known means and since the limited movements of balls 6, shaft 4, disks 5 and O-rings 8 thereby allowed will cause a substantial dissipation of energy and momentum due to any vibrational movement incurred upon operation of a corresponding tool, thereby improving the damping effect (pg. 10).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Souza Filho in view of Matano (PGPub 2014/0105701).
Re Claim 40, de Souza Filho does not disclose the damping apparatus is fixed to the stem of the cutting tool. However, Matano teaches damping apparatus 1A is fixed to the stem of the cutting tool 4/5 (Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such metallic elements, as taught by Nedzlek, for the purpose of providing damping directly to the cutting tool to improve the cutting process and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799