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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024, 07/01/2024 and 09/03/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to an apparatus for finishing an edge of a glass sheet, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 – as torque is directly related to current and a torque ratio of a current/maximum current of the motor is just means for normalization and comparing, The Examiner understands that in essence, Claim 2 is to determine if the difference between the working current and the baseline current is greater than the upper threshold current, where the upper threshold current occurs at a maximum groove depth.
Claim 3 – “within a range of 48% to 52%” , the Examiner understands this to mean 48% to 52% inclusive.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
Claim 10 is considered directed to the structural limitation “the edge finishing wheel comprises a plurality of grooves.”
Claim 11 is considered directed to the structural limitation “a depth of the plurality of grooves is greater than or equal to 0.3mm and less than or equal to 0.6mm.”
Claim 12 is considered directed to the structural limitation “a pitch of the plurality of grooves is less than or equal to 1.5mm.”
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 2 is/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 Claim 2 – recites “maximum current of the motor” (2x), rendering the claim indefinite. The maximum current of a motor is defined by thermal limits where excessive heat can damage windings or magnets, and varies from motor to motor. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, Examiner understands that “maximum current of the motor”, since the maximum current of the motor is used for definitive calculations, is the definitive value of the rated current of the motor.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206084655U (as
submitted in the IDS dated 05/22/2024) by Laio et. al. (herein “Liao”) in further view of JP2010036315A
by Obata et. al. (herein “Obata”) and in further view of WO2019204215A1 (as submitted in the IDS
dated 09/03/2025) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Fu et. al (herein “Fu”) and in further view of JP2000263437A (English language
translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Miyake (herein
“Miyake”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Laio teaches a method of finishing edges of glass sheets, the method comprising,
engaging an edge of a glass sheet with a groove of an edge finishing wheel as the edge finishing wheel is rotated with a motor; Page 1 lines 35-36, Page 3 lines 6-8, Fig. 1 and Fig 2, “In order to achieve the above object, the utility model provides a glass grinder comprising a motor and said motor-driven rotating grinding wheel, “and drives the glass 7 to move linearly so that the glass can enter the opening groove 61 of the grinding box 3 to come into contact with the grinding wheel 2 and cut by the high-speed rotation of the grinding wheel 2 the edge of the glass 7.”
While Laio teaches a method of using the peripheral edge of grinding wheel on a motor, controlling the movement of the glass substrate to engage the peripheral edge of the grinding wheel to edge grind a sheet of glass, and adding coolant to prevent/manage grinding wheel wear and affect the quality of the grinding (Page 1 lines 19-23), Laio fails to teach,
monitoring a working current of the motor when the edge finishing wheel is engaged with the edge of the glass sheet,
wherein,
the working current is indicative of a working torque of the motor;
determining if the working torque of the motor is greater than an upper threshold torque value
corresponding to a maximum groove depth;
In a similar endeavor of controlled edge grinding of the edge of a glass substrate with the peripheral edge of a motorized grinding wheel and a process to manage grinding wheel wear, Obata teaches a) a rotation driving unit and a feed control unit of the polishing wheel, and the rotation driving unit includes: A load current detecting means for detecting a load current flowing when contacting the substrate and the end face and means for determining the appropriate value of the load current value are provided [0006].
b) That the working current is indicative of a working torque of the motor;
Per Claim Interpretation,
Ib = baseline current where the grinder operates without touching the workpiece.
IL = the load current due only to the current increase when the grinder is engaged in with the workpiece.
IW = working current = Ib + IL
Torque, Ƭ, is such that Ƭ = K Ƭ x I, where K Ƭ is the torque constant of any motor in units of (N*m)/A in a standard torque equation for motors. As such the torque the equation is Ƭw = K Ƭ x Iw, where ,Ƭw is the working torque associated with the working current IW. The equation Ƭ = K Ƭ x I is known in the art, indicating that any type of load current is indicative of torque and that torque can be derived from any type of load current. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that load current is indicative of torque.
c) As torque has been shown to be indicative and directly related to a type of load current (Ib, IL or IW), determining if the working torque of the motor is greater than an upper threshold torque value is equivalent to determining if the working current of the motor is greater than an upper threshold working load current value. Here, Obata teaches an example of a measure for controlling the cutting wheel direction feed operation (and the thrust direction feed operation) of the polishing wheel based on the load current value appropriateness determination means, the load current value appropriateness determination means is configured such that the load current value at the time of polishing the substrate end face… When it is determined that the predetermined value has been exceeded, the next substrate end face processing includes a method in which the thrust direction feed control means moves the polishing wheel by a predetermined pitch and starts polishing ” [0008].
d) Further, Obata teaches that the of the grinding wheel is moved by a pre-determined pitch in a thrust direction( vertical/Z-axis) when the wear groove generated in the grinding wheel becomes deep from the load current value detected by the load current detection means provided in the rotation drive means, and cannot be used any more [0009]. “Since it has been clarified in the preliminary investigation that the load current value of the rotary drive section increases as the wear groove d becomes deeper, the depth of the wear groove and the quality of the polishing quality are judged based on the increase amount of the load current value. A means for determining the appropriateness of the load current value is provided. The load current value appropriateness determining means has, for example, a calculation program for calculating the wear groove depth from the change of the load current value, and when it is determined that the depth of the wear groove d is the limit, the thrust direction feed When the control means (Z-axis) starts polishing the next substrate, the control means (Z-axis) moves in the Z-axis direction by the pitch P” [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the grinding wheel management process of Obata which is based on current load of the motor associated with unusable groove depth as well as controlled grinder feed direction, to the process of Laio, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of further supporting management of grinding wheel wear to improve the quality of the polishing (grinding and polishing used interchangeably) and provide for continuous machining for improved productivity compared to the conventional method where the wear groove depth is temporarily stopped and the sliding contact position of the grinding wheel is changed, as noted by Obata [0010].
Liao and Obata teach a grinding process for glass substrates where a single unit performs grinding with a grinding wheel, controls load current, determines load current thresholds at a maximum depth in the grinding wheel, and acts upon load current thresholds for grinding wheel management for the benefits of grinding quality and improved productivity. Yet, Liao and Obata fail to teach,
engaging a blade of a cutting head with an outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel thereby shaving material from the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel.
In a similar endeavor of controlled edge grinding of the edge of a glass substrate with the peripheral edge of a motorized grinding wheel and a process to manage grinding wheel wear, Fu teaches a method the peripheral edge surface 16 of glass sheet 18 is pressed into contact surface 12 of abrasive wheel 10 with a predetermined force, abrasive particles are dulled (e.g., smoothed), and the resultant increased friction with the glass edge can loosen and remove abrasive particles from the contact surface. After a time, a groove 24 forms in the contact surface. As the groove deepens, debris can fill the groove and prevent full contact between the abrasive wheel and edge surface 16, thereby reducing the efficacy of abrasive wheel 10 [0031]. Each time a groove 24 deepens to the point where the abrasive effect of the abrasive wheel is diminished, the abrasive wheel can be shifted in a direction along the axis of rotation to expose an unused portion of contact surface 12 to an edge surface of a glass sheet. Eventually, contact surface 12 is filled with grooves [0033]. Cutting tool 120 can be any suitable cutting tool configured to remove a layer of material from a surface of abrasive wheel 102 [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the in-machine cutting tool of Fu into the method of the combination as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of not discarding the abrasive wheel to be more cost effective and implement an in-line cutting process without removing the abrasive wheel from the spindle [0033], [0009].
Further, truing and/or dressing a grinding wheel is a common practice known in the art. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
While Obata teaches monitoring/detection/action/process control of a grinding process based upon the load currents (torque) detected in the process, and Fu teaches a cutting tool to dress the grinding wheel by removing material, Laio, Fu and Obata fail to teach,
engaging a blade of a cutting head with an outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel when the working torque of the motor is greater than the upper threshold torque value,
thereby shaving material from the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel decreasing the working torque of the motor.
In a similar endeavor of dressing a grinding wheel after use on a workpiece, Miyake teaches a rotating grindstone with a work object, and brings the grindstone into contact with the work, thereby the work surface in a cylindrical grinder that grinds, the load current value of a motor (torque) that rotates the grindstone is measured, and if the load current value exceeds a certain threshold value, it is determined that the sharpness of the grindstone has deteriorated, and the grindstone is applied to a dressing device [0006]. Further, the better the sharpness of the grindstone 1, the smaller the load current value becomes, and the worse the sharpness, the larger the load current value becomes ([0012]) The threshold value is an upper limit value with which the work 2 can be favorably processed by the grindstone 1, suggesting after dressing, the load current has been reduced. Miyake teaches engaging dressing a grinding wheel during the grinding of a workpiece based upon the load current (torque) threshold being exceeded and obtaining decreased load current (torque) as a result. While Miyake does not teach grinding the edge surface of a glass sheet/substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of engaging a dressing of a grinding wheel based upon exceeding a load current threshold as in Miyake for the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes to make it possible to eliminate the waste of performing dressing on the grindstone even though the sharpness is not deteriorated, and since the sharpening is automatically performed, the processing time of dressing the grinding wheel is shortened, as noted by Miyake [0017].
Regarding Claim 2 - Laio, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Obata further teaches determining if the working torque of the motor is greater than the upper threshold torque ratio comprises,
determining a working torque ratio of the motor, wherein the working torque ratio = (the working current of the motor/ a maximum current of the motor) x 100;
determining a difference between the working torque ratio and a baseline torque ratio of the motor, wherein the baseline torque ratio =(a baseline current of the motor / the maximum current of the motor) x 100;
comparing the difference between the working torque ratio and the baseline torque ratio to the upper threshold torque ratio.
the upper threshold torque value is an upper threshold torque ratio corresponding to the maximum groove depth;
For clarity,
Ƭ = Torque
Ƭ upper threshold ratio = upper threshold current/maximum current of the motor (as understood by the Examiner)
Ƭ working ratio = working current/maximum current of the motor
Ƭ baseline ratio = baseline current/maximum current of the motor
Ƭ working ratio - Ƭ baseline ratio = (working current/maximum current of the motor) – (baseline current/maximum current of the motor).
Per Claim Interpretation, the Examiner understands that in essence, the instant claim is to determine if the difference between the working current and the baseline current, i.e. the increase on load current, is greater than the upper threshold current where the upper threshold current occurs at a maximum groove depth.
Here, Obata teaches an example of a measure for controlling the cutting wheel direction feed operation (and the thrust direction feed operation) of the polishing wheel based on the load current value appropriateness determination means, the load current value appropriateness determination means is configured such that the load current value at the time of polishing the substrate end face… When it is determined that the predetermined value has been exceeded, the next substrate end face processing includes a method in which the thrust direction feed control means moves the polishing wheel by a predetermined pitch and starts polishing ” [0008]. Further,
“From the result of this preliminary investigation, it became clear that the wear
groove depth of the grinding wheel can be predicted from the change of the load current value”, [0011].
“Since it has been clarified in the preliminary investigation that the load current value of the rotary drive section increases as the wear groove d becomes deeper, the depth of the wear groove and the quality of the polishing quality are judged based on the increase amount of the load current value”, which suggests this load current value represents a threshold current value. “A means for determining the appropriateness of the load current value is provided. The load current value appropriateness determining means has, for example, a calculation program for calculating the wear groove depth from the change of the load current value, and when it is determined that the depth of the wear groove d is the limit, the thrust direction feed When the control means (Z-axis) starts polishing the next substrate”, [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for managing wear of the grinding wheel of Obata in the method of Laio, one being motivated to do so for the purposes of maintaining polishing quality and providing continuous processing to improve productivity, as noted by Obata [0002], [0005].
Regarding Claim 3 - Laio, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 2 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 2.
Obata further teaches wherein,
the upper threshold torque ratio is within a range from 48% to 52%; “when the number of polishing processes increases to about 2000, the wear groove depth becomes 1.0 mm, and the load current value at that time is about 40% larger than the average when no wear groove is generated. It was. From the result of this preliminary investigation, it became clear that the wear groove depth of the grinding wheel can be predicted from the change of the load current value”, [0011]. Here, Obata teaches a relative increase of load current (40%) (depending on groove depth (1.0mm) ) in reference to zero groove depth, as well a previously teaching the depth of the wear groove based on the increase amount of the load current value, which suggests a load current value represents a threshold current value.
Obata indirectly teaches,
Let x = Ib = baseline current where the grinder operates without touching the workpiece (zero groove depth).
Let 1.4 x =IL = the load current due only to the current increase when the grinder is engaged in with the workpiece.
In the case where the Ib + IL= 100% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor,
2.4x = 100% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor
x = 41.7% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor
Let 1.4 x =IL = 58.3% of the maximum (rated) current of the motor, which would correspond to the upper threshold torque ratio.
While Obata does not directly teach an upper threshold torque ratio in the range of 48%-52%, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that every motor has a maximum (rated) current of the motor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the upper threshold torque ration, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of properly choosing and sizing a motor for the process design as well as to not overload the motor to risk motor failure.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 4 - Laio, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fu further teaches comprising,
directing liquid onto the blade of the cutting head and the edge finishing wheel
when the blade of the cutting head is engaged with the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel; [0006], Claim 3, “…wherein the coolant nozzle is arranged to direct coolant at a point of contact between the cutting tool and the abrasive wheel”. Applying coolant to a cutting tool and the surface to be cut is a common industrial process to dissipate heat. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9 - Laio, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Laio further teaches wherein,
the edge finishing wheel; Page 3 lines 6-8, …”and drives the glass 7 to move linearly so that the glass can enter the opening groove 61 of the grinding box 3 to come into contact with the grinding wheel 2 and cut by the high-speed rotation of the grinding wheel 2 The edge of the glass 7…”
Laio fails to teach wherein the edge finishing wheel
comprises abrasive particles embedded in a resin matrix.
Obata teaches a polishing wheel (grinding wheel) having abrasive particles and fibers embedded in a resin such that the wheel provides elastic material on the peripheral edge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the grinding wheel of Obata on the method of Laio, one being motivated for the purpose of using a wheel with an elastic material in the peripheral portion that has excellent conformability when the outer peripheral surface of the wheel is brought into sliding contact with the end surface of the substrate, as noted by Obata ([0002], lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 10 - Laio, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
Laio further teaches wherein,
the edge finishing wheel comprises a plurality of grooves; Fig. 1, Fig. 2 (enlarge).
Regarding Claim 11 - Laio, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 10 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 10.
While Laio teaches a plurality of grooves in the edge finishing wheel, Laio fails to teach further wherein,
a depth of the plurality of grooves is greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 0.6 mm.
Obata teaches depth of multiple grooves (Fig. 1) worn into the periphery of the polishing (grinding) wheel at different depths (0.2mm to 1.01mm) that correspond to a different number of sheets polished (Fig. 5) that also correspond to different increased load current [0010]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Obata’s groove depth range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 12 - Laio, Obata, Fu and Miyake in the rejection of claim 10 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 10.
While Laio teaches a plurality of grooves further teaches wherein, Laio fails to teach,
a pitch of the plurality of grooves is less than or equal to 1.5 mm.
Obata teaches wear grooves formed sequentially at predetermined pitches on the peripheral edge of the grinding wheel where the depth of the grooves are determined by a change in load current during grinding the edge of a sheet of glass ([0009], [0014], lines 8-11). Further, that the polishing wheel (grinding) is raised top to bottom by pitch P after each successive groove. While Obata does teach specifically a dimension for the pitch it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pitch dimension since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the pitch dimension for the purpose of the common industrial effort for efficiency and thickness of the glass substrate, as the dimension of the pitch P only needs to be larger than the thickness of the substrate, as noted by Obata ([0014], lines 13-16.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Claims 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206084655U by Laio et. al.
(herein “Liao”) in further view of JP2010036315Aby Obata et. al. (herein “Obata”) and in further view of
WO2019204215A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 09/03/2025) (English language translation of the
Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Fu et. al (herein “Fu”) and in further view
of JP2000263437A (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Miyake (herein “Miyake”) and in further view of PGPUB 20070087665A1 by Curtis
et. al. (herein “Curtis”).
The combination fails to teach
collecting the liquid and debris from the shaving material from the outer diameter of the edge finishing wheel in a collection trough (Claim 5).
a debris shield is disposed proximate the edge finishing wheel and oriented to direct the liquid and debris projected from the edge finishing wheel into the collection trough (Claim 6)
applying vacuum to the collection trough to evacuate the liquid and debris from the collection trough (Claim 7).
directing the liquid and debris from the collection trough to a waste recovery bin (Claim 8).
In an analogous endeavor of grinding small components, Curtis teaches an apparatus and a method that includes,
a single grinding machine , a grinding wheel, a workpiece holder, an enclosure that contains the aforementioned [0006].
coolant to cool the workpiece and grinding wheel during the grinding operation
a grinding wheel mounted to a motor [0051].
The motor outside the external to the enclosure [0024].
a dressing tool [0058] inside the enclosure [0025].
mechanism to bring the grinding wheel and dressing to together so the grinding well can be dressed [0026].
a)-e) above provides a nexus.
Further, Curtis teaches,
a wheel guard that covers the grinding wheel ([0051], Fig. 6 element 54) and further describes a grinding wheel guard around a grinding wheel to help contain pieces of the grinding wheel and to contain coolant [0004].
that cooling liquid in grinding machines also carry away debris in the form of chip/cutting debris from the workpiece and abrasive material worn away from the grinding wheel [0003].
a coolant removal means… for removing the coolant and any grinding debris and fumes from the enclosure. The coolant removal means preferably comprises a pipe leading from the enclosure ((where trough base 30, that contains the coolant and likely material and grinding wheel debris resides, [0041], Fig. 3) to a coolant removal tank (waste recovery bin). and an extractor for aiding the removal of airborne coolant and grinding debris and fumes. The extractor may be any suitable extractor such as a fan or pump, providing it provides sufficient suction to draw airborne coolant and debris and fumes out of the enclosure ( including the trough base) and prevent such escaping from the enclosure when the door is opened.
…it is necessary (a) for the grinding wheel to move between its grinding position and its dressing position…the necessary aperture in the back of the enclosure is always closed by the cover plate 56, and the front of the enclosure is closed by the door 36 and the sliding panel 42. The labyrinth seals between the opening door and panel, together with the slightly sub-ambient pressure within the grinding enclosure, ensure that there is virtually no escape of cooling fluid and debris from the enclosure, and all the fluid and debris passes into the trough 30 and through the outlet pipe 32, to a conventional filtration and cleaning system which allows the coolant to be recycled through the machine.
In essence, Curtis teaches a horizontal motor grinding machine where grinding debris/coolant/fumes are removed from the grinding machine trough to a cooling removal tank via suction, where the used coolant is then recycled. As well, while not explicitly stated, Curtis implies that the dressing tool is used on the grinding wheel in the enclosure with, where shavings from grinding wheel would be produced during the dressing operation. Curtis discloses the claimed invention except for a vertical grinding machine for edge grinding glass sheets. On the whole for Claims 5-8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the process of Curtis in regard to containing and managing waste grinding debris/coolant/fumes/dressing shavings into the method of the combination, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose that the enclosure within the machine thus substantially avoids any exposure of the machine parts to the coolant and grinding debris which can substantially prolong their working life, the coolant can be efficiently collected, cleaned and recycled as it is contained within a relatively small volume, and cleaning of the machine as a whole is also made considerably easier, as noted by Curtis [0060].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741