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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species (i) (a first embodiment) in the reply filed on 9/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following ground(s):
Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's determination of lack of unity for the following reasons.
The Examiner asserts lack of unity based on CH 715794 B1 ("Kirsch") and CN 102478815 A ("Gu"). In doing so, the Examiner equates two fundamentally different sensor technologies that operate on distinct physical principles and solve different technical problems.
Claim 1 is directed to calibrating a meshing sensor configured to detect a phase position of teeth of a rotating workpiece. A person skilled in the art would have understood that such a sensor is necessarily an electronic, contactless sensor. The technical problem solved by the claimed invention is correcting for the drift due to thermal expansion and for variations of the contactless switching region due to manufacturing tolerances (see Specification, paras. [0007]- [0009], [0078]).
In contrast, Gu discloses a mechanical, tactile contact probe (18) featuring physical styluses/pens (20, 22) (Gu, para. [0026]). Gu's calibration is directed to correcting physical stylus bending (deflection) and mechanical coordinate table center offsets (Gu, Abstract, para. [0031]). A skilled person seeking to calibrate the response behavior of a contactless meshing sensor (Claim 1) would have no technical reason to consult the calibration protocol of a tactile coordinate touch probe (Gu). The physical failure modes (field drift and field tolerances versus. mechanical stylus bending) are entirely non-analogous.
In view of at least the foregoing differences, Applicant kindly requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the alleged lack unity of invention.
Applicant submits that if any of the elected claims is found to be allowable, claims dependent therefrom should similarly be considered allowable in the same application.
This is not found to be persuasive. The Unity of Invention mailed on 6/22/2026 was based upon Kirsch in view of Gu. However, Applicant’s arguments never specifically address this
combination of prior art in which Kirsch was utilized as the base reference. Rather, when it comes to Kirsch in view of Gu, Applicant only provides arguments directed toward Gu. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
What’s more is that by arguing, “A skilled person seeking to calibrate the response behavior of a contactless meshing sensor (Claim 1) would have no technical reason to consult the calibration protocol of a tactile coordinate touch probe (Gu),” it appears Applicant has submitted arguments toward a hypothetical combination of the machine tool of claim 1 (as filed on 3/8/2024) in view of Gu. This combination isn’t what the Unity of Invention is based on. Thus, Applicant’s argument concerning consulting “the calibration protocol of a tactile coordinate touch probe (Gu)” for “seeking to calibrate the response behavior of a contactless meshing sensor (Claim 1)” is moot.
Since Applicant’s arguments don’t address the combination of prior art utilized in the Unity of Invention, and attack against Gu separately from Kirsh (wherein Kirsch isn’t even addressed with any specifics), Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-8, 12-17, 32, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “a” should be inserted before “workpiece spindle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 12 of the claim, “method” should either be deleted or amended to “steps”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 15-16 of the claim, “by the sensor controller moving the meshing sensor” should be amended to “by having the sensor controller move the meshing sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 9-11, 18-31, 34, and 35 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.
Lines 13-14 of claim 1 state, “moving the meshing sensor relative to the workpiece spindle to a calibration position in which the meshing sensor is located at the calibration piece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because the meets and bounds of “a calibration position in which the meshing sensor is located at the calibration piece.” When in the calibration position so as to be “located at the calibration piece,” does “located at” mean that the meshing sensor is in contact with the calibration piece or is separated from the calibration piece? In other words, “located at” is vague, and the meaning of “located at” in the contact of this limitation is viewed to be unclear.
Lines 15-17 of claim 1 state, “determining a response behavior of the meshing sensor by the sensor controller moving the meshing sensor relative to the calibration piece while receiving sensor calibration signals of the meshing sensor.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear as to what is occurring “while receiving sensor calibration signals of the meshing sensor.” Is “determining a response behavior of the meshing sensor” or “moving the meshing sensor relative to the calibration piece” occurring “while receiving sensor calibration signals of the meshing sensor”?
Lines 18-19 of claim 1 state, “moving the meshing sensor relative to a workpiece measuring position in which the meshing sensor is located at the workpiece.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because the meets and bounds of “a workpiece measuring position in which the meshing sensor is located at the workpiece.” When in the workpiece measuring position so as to be “located at the workpiece,” does “located at” mean that the meshing sensor is in contact with the workpiece or is separated from the workpiece? In other words, “located at” is vague, and the meaning of “located at” in the contact of this limitation is viewed to be unclear.
The term “substantially cuboid” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially cuboid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As what point is a calibration piece considered to meet the metric of “substantially cuboid”?
Line 4 of claim 26 states, “wherein the sensor-specific switching region defines a fictitious sensor axis.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “a fictitious sensor axis” and how one is defined.
Lines 8-9 of claim 27 state, “the determined fictitious sensor axis coincides with the predefined measuring axis.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how “the determined fictitious sensor axis” is able to coincide with “the predefined measuring axis” due to being “fictitious.”
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 18-31, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 15-17 of claim 1 state, “determining a response behavior of the meshing sensor by the sensor controller moving the meshing sensor relative to the calibration piece while receiving sensor calibration signals of the meshing sensor.” This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to the specification filed on 3/8/2024, it discloses the following:
[Page 8, Line 35 – Page 9, Line 7] The meshing sensor may be configured to output a switching signal, wherein the meshing sensor has a sensor-specific switching region, and wherein the sensor-specific switching region defines a fictitious sensor axis. If material enters the switching region, the switching signal changes. The switching signal may be analog or digital. In particular, the switching signal may be a binary switching signal that indicates whether material is present within the switching region: If yes, the binary switching signal assumes a first value, preferably a logical one, if no, the binary switching signal assumes a second value, preferably a logical zero.
[Page 15, Lines 11–25] FIGS. 4a-4d illustrate in a schematic (not to scale) manner a method for calibrating a contactless meshing sensor 1 that outputs switching signals in accordance with the present invention. The meshing sensor shown in this embodiment has a switching region B which extends from a meshing sensor surface O to a switching interface G shown here as a dashed line and defines a fictitious sensor axis AS. If material enters the switching region B, the switching signal output by the meshing sensor 1 changes. In order to be able to reliably determine the phase position of the teeth of a pre-toothed workpiece 23 with tip circle K, the workpiece measuring position PW is to be calculated in such a way that a response behavior of the meshing sensor 1 that is as symmetrical as possible is achieved. Such a symmetrical response behavior is achieved if the fictitious sensor axis AS coincides with a predefined measuring axis AM (here parallel to the YM direction at a predefined height in the ZM direction), and if the meshing sensor surface O is spaced apart from the tip circle K by a predefined measuring distance d such that the tip circle K crosses the switching region B (see FIG. 4a).
As can be seen in the above disclosure, the meshing sensor (1) outputs switching signals (which may be analog or digital) not sensor calibration signals. Based on the foregoing, the specification and the aforesaid limitation of lines 15-17 of claim 1 are not found to be in agreement with one another.
Next, with respect to the drawings filed on 3/8/2024, in none of the figures thereof are the signals of the meshing signal (1) shown by Applicant to be “sensor calibration signals.” Based on the foregoing, the drawings and the aforesaid limitation of lines 15-17 of claim 1 are not in agreement with one another.
Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph: “while receiving switching signals [[of]] that are output by the meshing sensor.”
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 18-20, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch (Switzerland Publication No. CH 715794 B1) in view of Gu (China Publication No. CN 102478815 A).
Please be advised that Kirsch and Gu were cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 6/22/2026.
Please also note that an EPO Machine Translation of each of Kirsch and Gu are relied upon below. These EPO Machine Translations were previously provided by Examiner with the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 6/22/2026.
Claim 1: Figures 1-2 of Kirsch show therein a machine tool for machining pre-toothed workpieces (220). The machine tool comprises a workpiece carrier (200) and a workpiece spindle (210) arranged on the workpiece carrier (200) and defining a workpiece spindle axis (C).
As can be seen on the following page in annotated Figure 1, the workpiece spindle (210) comprises a workpiece spindle housing and a workpiece spindle shaft rotatable in the workpiece spindle housing about the workpiece spindle axis (C) for rotationally driving a given pre-toothed workpiece (220).
Next, as can be seen in Figure 4 of Kirsch, the machine tool further comprises a meshing sensor (411) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0074] which is configured to detect a phase position of teeth of the given workpiece (200) when the given workpiece (200) rotates about the workpiece spindle axis (C).
Also, Figures 1-2 of Kirsch show the machine tool as comprising a sensor controller (600).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kirsch though, does not provide disclosure on the machine tool further comprising, “a calibration piece located at a defined calibration point relative to the workpiece spindle.” Thus, Kirsch does not teach the sensor controller (600) as being programmed so as to carry out the following method: “moving the meshing sensor relative to the workpiece spindle to a calibration position in which the meshing sensor is located at the calibration piece; determining a response behavior of the meshing sensor by the sensor controller moving the meshing sensor relative to the calibration piece while receiving sensor calibration signals of the meshing sensor, and moving the meshing sensor to a workpiece measuring position in which the meshing sensor is located at the workpiece, wherein the workpiece measuring position depends on the response behavior.”
Figure 1 of Gu though, shows therein a sensor (18), a sensor controller (26), and a calibration piece (24) which is located on a workpiece carrier (12). Please be advised that these elements are part of a CNC machine tool (10) [Gu, EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0026]. Noting this, the sensor controller (26) is programmed to carry out the following method, including moving the sensor (18) relative to a workpiece carrier (12) to a calibration position (as is shown in Figure 1) in which the sensor (18) is located at the calibration piece (24). Gu further discloses a step of determining a response behavior of the sensor (18) by the sensor controller (26) moving the sensor (18) relative to the calibration piece (24) while receiving sensor calibration signals of the sensor (18). This will now be explained. The response behavior that is determined by the sensor controller (26) moving the sensor (18) relative to the calibration piece (24) is the deviation of the sensor (18) between an actual carrier/table center and a nominal carrier/table center [EPO Machine Translation, paragraphs 0028-0029]. In determining the response behavior/deviation, the sensor controller (26) receives sensor calibration signals corresponding to measurements made about a circumference of the calibration piece (24) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraphs 0030]. After calibration and when a workpiece is mounted on the workpiece carrier (12), for example, the sensor controller (26) will function to move the sensor (18) to a workpiece measurement position in which the sensor (18) is located at the workpiece, wherein the workpiece measuring position depends on the determined response behavior/deviation, which of course necessitated the need for the calibration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool of Kirsch with the calibration piece (24) of Gu and to also have programmed the sensor controller (600) of Kirsch to carry out the method of Gu, so as to provide the machine tool of Kirsch with the advantage of being able to calibrate the meshing sensor (411) of Kirsch with respect to an actual center of the workpiece carrier (200) of Kirsch (in accordance with the method of Gu), noting that the workpiece spindle (210) of Kirsch is shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Kirsch as being centered about the actual center of said workpiece carrier (200).
In making the above modification it is noted that as per the disclosure of Gu, the calibration piece (24) of Gu is mounted to the workpiece carrier (200) of Kirsch. Moreover, in having programmed the sensor controller (600) of Kirsch to carry out the method of Gu, said sensor controller (600) of Kirsch is configured to carry out the following:
1). moving the meshing sensor (411) relative to the workpiece carrier (200) and the workpiece spindle (211) mounted thereto to a calibration position in which the meshing sensor is located at the calibration position;
2). determining a response behavior of the meshing sensor (411) (which corresponds to the deviation of the meshing sensor (411) between the actual center of the workpiece carrier (200) and a nominal center) by the sensor controller (600) moving the meshing sensor (411) relative to the calibration piece (24) while receiving sensor calibration signals (which correspond to measurements made about the circumference of the calibration piece (24)) of the meshing sensor (411), and
3). moving the meshing sensor (411) to a workpiece measuring position in which the meshing sensor (411) is located at the given pre-toothed workpiece (220), wherein the workpiece measuring position depends on the response behavior.
Claim 2: Be advised that moving the meshing sensor (411) relative to the calibration piece (24) includes at least one movements in an axial direction, noting that the meshing sensor (411) has to incur movements along the X-axis and/or along the Z-axis (see Figure 1 of Kirsch) by means of an X-slide (310) and or a Z-slide (300) in order to be moved into the calibration position.
Claim 3: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, in modifying Kirsch in view of Gu, that as per the disclosure of Gu, the calibration piece (24) of Gu is mounted to the workpiece carrier (200) of Kirsch.
Claim 4: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, in modifying Kirsch in view of Gu, that as per the disclosure of Gu, the calibration piece (24) of Gu is mounted to the workpiece carrier (200) of Kirsch. Noting this, the calibration piece (24) of Gu is “arranged on” (as broadly claimed) the workpiece spindle housing, which is a stationary part of the workpiece spindle (210), via the workpiece carrier (200).
Claim 9: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, in modifying Kirsch in view of Gu, that as per the disclosure of Gu, the calibration piece (24) of Gu is mounted to the workpiece carrier (200) of Kirsch. Via the connection thereto, the calibration piece (24) “has” (as broadly claimed) a substantially cuboid base body in the form of the workpiece carrier (200) to which said calibration piece (24) is mounted. See Figure 1 of Kirsch for the workpiece carrier’s (200)/ base body’s (200) substantially cuboid shape.
Claim 10: With respect to the X-axis direction (see Figure 1 of Kirsch), the base body (200) of the calibration piece (24) has a first groove which is disposed between the opposing ends of the base body (200), wherein the opposing ends project upward in the Z-axis direction.
Claim 11: The calibration piece (24) is arranged in the modified machine tool of Kirsch such that the first groove in the base body (200) of the calibration piece (24) runs perpendicular (in the X-axis direction, see Figure 1 of Kirsch) perpendicular to the workpiece spindle axis (C).
Claim 18: Kirsch does not provide disclosure on the machine tool further comprising, “a tactile sensor, wherein the tactile sensor is adapted to measure the calibration piece to obtain a defined calibration point.”
With regards to Gu though, the probe (18) is embodied as a tactile sensor (18) which is adapted to measure objects. Figures 9-11 of Gu, for example, show the probe/tactile sensor (18) using its pens (20, 22) to measure element 58. By using the pens (20, 22) to interface with the calibration piece (24) like in Figures 7-8 of Gu, for example, said probe/tactile sensor (18) is capable of measuring the calibration piece (24) to obtain a defined calibration point. Thus, in at least this way, the probe/tactile sensor (18) is “adapted” to measure the calibration piece (24) to obtain a defined calibration point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool of Kirsch with the probe/tactile sensor (18) of Gu, so as to provide the machine tool of Kirsch with the added advantage of a tactile sensor that can be utilized for measuring objects.
Noting the above, when the probe/tactile sensor (18) is mounted to a tool spindle (320) of Kirsch in place of a given machining tool (330), for example, said probe/tactile sensor (18) is able to be utilized to measure the calibration piece (24) to obtain a defined calibration point, noting again that said calibration piece (24) is mounted to the workpiece carrier (200) of Kirsch.
Claim 19: Figure 3 of Kirsch shows the machine tool comprising a tool carrier (310) on which a tool spindle (320) for rotationally driving a machining tool (330) is arranged, and wherein the meshing sensor (411) is arranged on the tool carrier (310) via a single centering device (410).
Claim 20: The sensor controller (600) of Kirsch is configured to cause the movement of the meshing sensor (411) relative to the workpiece carrier (200) and the workpiece spindle (211) mounted thereto by movements of the tool carrier (310) relative to said workpiece spindle (211).
Claim 30: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, in modifying Kirsch in view of Gu, that as per the disclosure of Gu, the calibration piece (24) of Gu is mounted to the workpiece carrier (200) of Kirsch. Noting this, the calibration piece (24) of Gu is “arranged on” (as broadly claimed) the workpiece spindle housing, which is the stationary part of the workpiece spindle (210), via the workpiece carrier (200).
Claim 31: With respect to a Z-Y plane, for example, the first groove (which is disposed between the opposing ends of the base body (200)) has a rectangular cross-section.
Examiner’s Comment
A thorough search has been conducted re: the invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 21-29, 34, and 35. Examiner notes that no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 21-29, 34, and 35 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Figure 4 of Kato (JP 2006349410 A) shows in Figures 1-4 a sensor (61) and a calibration gauge (100), the calibration gauge (100) comprising a concave groove (101) and a convex spherical surface (104) utilized in execution of a calibration execution program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
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, Sunil K Singh 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
