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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Machining tool unit; clamping unit, “feed device” in claims 1-11.
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
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.
The terms “Machining tool unit”; “clamping unit”, and “feed device” all invoke 112(f) treatment as reciting a means or means equivalent nonce, and being functions with no structure capable of performing the corresponding function, therefore requiring specific support and clarity in the specification. Here, the specification does not recite with particularity any specific definition of any of these units, elements, or ‘devices’ and as such fails to reasonably apprise those of ordinary skill of the scope of these terms. Specifically, the term “feed device” appears to require the incorporation as an essential part of the device a ‘clamping unit’ in order to function as a feed device, but there is no ascertainable boundary to what portion or elements must be present to comprise either the clamping unit OR the feed device. The scope literally cannot be analyzed because it is not clear to what extent the terms are co-extensive.
Claim 4 requires “a tooth contour” which is not shown or described in particular in the disclosure. As a result the nature of this cannot be ascertained, and the claim scope is not reasonably precise as a result. Claim 4 is rejected under 112(b) for this reason.
Claim 5 requires “the press down unit” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 requires “an auxiliary clamping unit (13) respectively in front of and behind the clamping unit (6)” which is not understood. The figures show two clamping units 13, one in front and one behind;; the nature of the claim is therefore not understood. Is this requiring at least one, or is this requiring two units---. The claim require a unit in front and behind, but the disclosure shows two units. The nature of the Unit should be clarified, or the nature of how many units are being claimed should be clarified. It is additionally not understood if “auxiliary” has meaning beyond an arbitrary naming convention—e.g. would ‘second’ or ‘additional’ be synonymous, or must there be some subjective aspect of auxiliary be ascribed to the clamp.
Claim 11 requires “the cooling unit” which lacks antecedent basis, and is therefore indefinite. Claim 11 requires “essentially constant” which is subjective and therefore indefinite.
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 “tooth contour” (claim 4) 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 § 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) 1, 2, 5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gustavsson (US 4,693,145).
Regarding claim 1 Gustavsson discloses A device (Figure 1, title) for grinding (See title) and/or milling teeth of saw bands (13 figure 1), comprising: a feed device (23 and piston mounted to 25 shown in figure 4, as best understood—see above 112(b) for context) for the clocked feeding of a temporary workpiece (24 is a stack of blades, same as applicant’s; see column 3 lines 1+ discussing the synchronous and controlled feed of the blade blank).
Gustavsson further discloses the temporary workpiece (24) is formed from a plurality of mutually parallel saw bands (column 2 line 52+ ‘stack of steel bands…’). Gustavsson further discloses a clamping unit (25 figure 4) into which the temporary workpiece (24) is clamped (see in figure 4; inter alia column 3 line 1+), and a machining tool unit (1718 figure 4) with at least one machining tool (18) for simultaneous machining of a plurality of teeth of the temporary workpiece (24; column 3 line 13-15), wherein the clamping unit (25) is displaceable together with the feed device (the piston is a feed device since it moves the clamp 25) along a feed direction ((arrows shown in figure 4 showing the movement of 25 from one position to a moved position for repositioning the stack).
Regarding claim 2, Gustavsson further discloses. The device according to claim 1, wherein the clamping unit (25) is arranged on the feed device (the piston which 25 is mounted on—as seen in figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Gustavsson further discloses wherein the press down unit (29 – a hydraulic used to press the clamp part of the clamp 25) for pressing down the temporary workpiece (24) is arranged on the feed device (see figure 4 which shows 29 mounted on 25 on the hydraulic shaft of 26 / the feed unit).
Regarding claim 7, Gustavsson further discloses the machining unit (17-18) has a grinding tool and/or a milling tool (See figure 4).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the cutter of the Gustavsson device has the same type of cutter (dressing tool) within a receptacle, which includes different cutting tools—the different sizes thereof shown in the several figures –including figure 4.
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsson.
Regarding claim 3. Gustavsson further discloses the clamping jaw edges (the surfaces which engage 24 within 25 shown in side view in figure 4 are jaw edges per se) of the clamping unit (25) are oriented along the feed direction (there are shown lines in figure 4 which is evidence of the presence of these edges). Gustavsson does not further disclose and are at least twice as long as a machining width of the machining tool.
The ’edge’ being longer than the machining width is not an inventive concept, but is the selection of a size of a known element. In Gustavsson the clamps laterally hold the blades and clamp them as shown and discussed. The nature of how long those edges are is a matter of routine size selection. since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Here, making the clamp bigger or smaller will increase and decrease the friction hold on the blade during movement and during holding—thus the increase or decrease has a plain physical effect that a person of ordinary skill would be able to optimize. Choosing bigger or smaller clamp sizes would have the predictable effect of increasing the load (or the distribution of the load) and increasing the material cost (or decreasing it) according to the amount of force and cost the designer was comfortable with. The relationship being “at least twice as long” is just one small subset of the obvious range for the size here.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsson in view of Duffy (US 4,778,315).
Regarding claim 11, Gustavsson does not disclose wherein the cooling unit (21) for cooling the machining tool (8) comprises a plurality of nozzles directed at the machining tool (8), wherein the cooling unit (21) is displaceable in such a way that a predefined spacing between the nozzles and the machining tool (8) is essentially constant.
It is well known to provide lubrication to machining processes by a plurality of nozzles, which work to lubricate and cool the work during processing, especially during machining or grinding when tolerances are important—because heating of work results in changes to the effect of a machining tool. See Duffy, which shows nozzles (50, 50R2 etc.) for this purpose of moving and applying many nozzles to a machining process. In that context, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply multiple directed nozzles to the Gustavsson devices grinder, since doing so would cool and lubricate the work and ensure dimensional tolerancing was superior, as known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the use of grinding tools for the pricewise grinding of a set of teeth simultaneously is known, as set forth most relevantly above with respect to claim 1 and reference Gustavsson. What Gustavsson lacks with respect to claim 12 is the ability or desire to process the tooth grinding in an incomplete step with two different advance distances. In the context of Gustavsson this would change the nature of the operation—not just cutting a profile pattern repeatedly, but processing a portion of the pattern to be completed in a second pass. This is not a simple division into portions, rather this changes the nature of the processing steps and requires specific kinds of patterns or else additional grinding machining tools not envisioned by Gustavsson or the known art.
Claims 4, 6, and 10 each contain additional subject matter which may render the claims patentable, if the underlying indefiniteness is capable of being sufficiently resolved.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724