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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/12/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cutting means” in claims 1, 13 and their dependents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The term “wide” in claim 1, line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an irregular angular division" in line 3. This limitation had previously been recited in claim 1 on line 20. A limitation should only be recited once in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the recitation in claim 6 has been assumed to be “a second irregular angular division.”
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "one, several or all receiving grooves" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the limitation should read “one or more receiving grooves.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one receiving groove" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been assumed to be “at least on receiving groove.”
The term “a short strip-like cutting means unit” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a short strip-like cutting means unit” 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. In particular, it is not clear what the parameter to “short” is claiming.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "one side" in line 5 and line 7. A limitation should only be recited once in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the recitation in line 7 has been assumed to be “another side.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the larger tool body segments" in line 8 and line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the first recitation should read “one or more larger tool body segments.” Claim 12 recites the limitation "the narrower tool body segments" in line 10 and line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the first recitation should read “one or more narrower tool body segments.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the tool body segments" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the limitation should read “one or more tool body segments.”
The term “wide” in claim 13, line 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” 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. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the feed bore" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the limitation should read “the guide bore.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "one side" in line 5 and line 7. A limitation should only be recited once in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the recitation in line 7 has been assumed to be “another side.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the larger tool body segments" in line 8 and line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the first recitation should read “one or more larger tool body segments.” Claim 14 recites the limitation "the narrower tool body segments" in line 10 and line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the first recitation should read “one or more narrower tool body segments.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tool body segments" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the limitation should read “one or more tool body segments.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kranichsfeld et al. DE 102019201465 A1 (herein Kranichsfeld).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kranichsfeld Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
426
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kranichsfeld Figure 2
Regarding claim 1, Kranichsfeld teaches a honing tool (100) for machining an inner surface of a bore in a workpiece (English Translation, abstract), comprising:
a tool body (110) which defines a tool axis (112) and has a guide bore (the space in which 170-1 and 170-2 sit) coaxial to the tool axis for receiving two axially movable feed elements (170-1, 170-2), and a plurality of guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) which are distributed over the circumference of the tool body (110) and lead radially relative to the tool axis (112) from the guide bore (the space in which 170-1 and 170-2 sit) to an outside of the tool body (110);
a first feed element (170-1) and a second feed element (170-2) which are received in the guide bore (the space in which 170-1 and 170-2 sit) and are axially movable independently of one another;
a plurality of cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) which each have a carrier portion (152-1, the portion in which 140-2 sits) which is wide in the circumferential direction and has an outside for receiving cutting means (140-1, 140-2), and have a feed portion (156-1) which is narrower than the carrier portion (the portion in which 140-1, 140-2 sits) and has a sloping face on the inside facing away from the outside for cooperating with an assigned sloping face of one of the two feed elements (170-1, 170-2), wherein the feed portions of cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) are each radially movably received in one of the guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit);
wherein all cutting means carriers (150-1) which can be advanced via the first feed element (170-1) form a first cutter group (160-1), and all cutting means carriers (150-2) which can be advanced via the second feed element (170-2) form a second cutter group (160-2);
wherein: the tool body (110) has fourteen or more guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) which have an irregular angular division such that one or more of the guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) has a different angular spacing (English Translation, pg. 5, ln 33-34 – pg. 6, ln 1) from the directly adjacent guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 2, Kranichsfeld teaches the number of guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) is an even number, wherein guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) lie in pairs diametrically opposite one another relative to the tool axis (112).
Regarding claim 3, Kranichsfeld teaches the number of guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) is not divisible by four
Regarding claim 4, Kranichsfeld teaches the guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) are distributed over the circumference of the tool body (110) such that there is a two-fold rotational symmetry around the tool axis (112), but no mirror symmetry relative to a plane containing the tool axis.
Regarding claim 5, Kranichsfeld teaches for a number T of cutting means carriers (where T can equal 4), one of the cutter groups (160-1) comprises a number T/2-1 of cutting means carriers (150-1) and the other cutter group (160-2) a number T/2+1 of cutting means carriers (150-2).
Regarding claim 8, Kranichsfeld teaches the guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) and/or the cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) have an axial length which amounts to more than 50% of the maximum effective outer diameter of the honing tool (100) (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 24-25).
Regarding claim 9, Kranichsfeld teaches carrier portions (152-1) have on the outsides multiple mutually parallel receiving grooves (the slots in which 140-1 fit), each for receiving at least one strip-like cutting means unit (140-1).
Regarding claim 10, Kranichsfeld teaches one or more receiving grooves (the slots in which 140-2 fit) are fitted with cutting means units (140-2) which substantially fill the entire length (English Translation, pg. 6 ln 6-7) of a receiving groove (the slots in which 140-2 fit).
Regarding claim 11, Kranichsfeld teaches a short strip-like cutting means unit (140-1) is arranged in the at least one receiving groove (the slots in which 140-1 fit) (English Translation, pg. 6, ln 12-14).
Regarding claim 12, Kranichsfeld teaches the tool body (110) is equipped according to the configuration in which within one or more tool body (110) segments between directly adjacent guide strips (180 (mislabeled 130 in figure 2)), cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) of both cutter groups (160-1, 160-2) are arranged alternately next to one another in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 13, Kranichsfeld teaches a method for producing a honing tool (100) for machining an inner face of a bore (English Translation, abstract) with the following steps:
provision of a tool body (110) which defines a tool axis (112) and comprises a guide bore (the space in which 170-1 and 170-2 sit) coaxial to the tool axis for receiving two mutually independently axially movable feed elements (170-1, 170-2), and a number of fourteen or more guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) which lead radially relative to the tool axis (112) from the guide bore (the space in which 170-1 and 170-2 sit) to an outside of the tool body (110) and are distributed over the circumference with an irregular angular division, such that one or more guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) have different angular spacings from the directly adjacent guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) in the circumferential direction (English Translation, pg. 5, ln 33-34 – pg. 6, ln 1);
equipping the tool body (110) with cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) each having a carrier portion (the portion in which 140-1, 140-2 sits) which is wide in the circumferential direction and has an outside for receiving cutting means (140-1, 140-2), and have a feed portion (156-1) which is narrower than the carrier portion (the portion in which 140-1, 140-2 sits) and has a sloping face on the inside facing away from the outside for cooperating with a sloping face of a feed element (170-1, 170-2), wherein the feed portions (156-1) of cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) are each inserted into one of the guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) in the radial direction;
equipping the tool body (110) with a first feed element (170-1) and a second feed element (170-2) by insertion into the guide bore (the space in which 170-1 and 170-2 sit);
wherein the cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) and the feed elements (170-1, 170-2) are adapted to one another configuration-dependently, such that the first feed element (170-1) acts only on cutting means carriers (150-1) of a first cutter group (160-1) and the second feed element (170-2) acts only on cutting means carriers (150-2) of a second cutter group (160-2).
Regarding claim 14, Kranichsfeld teaches the tool body (110) is equipped according to the configuration in which within one or more tool body (110) segments between directly adjacent guide strips (180 (mislabeled 130 in figure 2)), cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) of both cutter groups (160-1, 160-2) are arranged alternately next to one another in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 15, Kranichsfeld teaches identical cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) of the same cutter group (160-1, 160-2) with cutting means (140-1, 140-2) provided in identical fashion are arranged at the guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) diametrically opposite one another.
Regarding claim 16, Kranichsfeld teaches the tool body (110) has precisely eighteen guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit).
Regarding claim 17, Kranichsfeld teaches mutually identical cutting means carriers (150-1, 150-2) fitted with cutting means (140-1, 140-2) of the same cutter group (160-1, 160-2) are arranged at the diametrically opposed guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) (figure 1 depicts each cutting group 160-1 and 160-2 with identical cutting means).
Regarding claim 19, Kranichsfeld teaches carrier portions (152-1) comprising on the outsides two, three or four mutually parallel receiving grooves (the slots in which 140-1 fit), each for receiving at least one strip-like cutting means unit (140-1).
Regarding claim 20, Kranichsfeld teaches the cutting means unit (140-1) has a length which corresponds to less than 50% of the axial length of the carrier portion.
Regarding claim 21, Kranichsfeld teaches cutting means are arranged exclusively in an axially short region having a length which is less than 50% of the axial length of the carrier portion (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 6-7, pg. 9, ln 43-44).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranichsfeld et al. DE 102019201465 A1 (herein Kranichsfeld) in view of Weigmann et al. DE 10341991 A1 (herein Weigmann).
Regarding claim 6, Kranichsfeld teaches the limitations of claim 1 and that the honing tool (100) has a guide group with multiple non-cutting guide strips (180 (mislabeled on figure 2 as 130))
Kranichsfeld does not teach the guide stripes being distributed on the tool body with an irregular angular division over the circumference of the tool body.
PNG
media_image3.png
279
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Weigmann Figure 6
However, in a related device, Weigmann teaches a honing tool (1), with non-cutting guide strips (36), which are distributed on the tool body (2) with an irregular angular division over the circumference of the tool body (2). Furthermore, Weigmann specifies that these non-cutting guide strips are for containing outflow channels in use for measuring the honing process (English Translation, para 43, ln 8-10). Kranichsfeld also teaches that the guide strips can contain a pneumatic measuring system (English Translation, pg. 10, ln 18-20 of Kranichsfeld). Therefore the prior art contained all the limitations of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine the honing tool of Kranichsfeld with the guide strip spacing of Weigmann prior to the filing date of instant application with predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kranichsfeld and Weigmann teaches four non-cutting guide strips (36 of Weigmann) are arranged in pairs, diametrically opposite, on the tool body (110 of Kranichsfeld), such that tool body (110 of Kranichsfeld) segments lying between directly adjacent guide strips (36 of Weigmann) in the circumferential direction in pairs have different circumferential widths
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kranichsfeld and Weigmann teaches that in the tool body (110 of Kranichsfeld) segments with the greater circumferential width, there is a number N (the number N can be equal to 1 or 2), and in the tool body segments with smaller circumferential width, there is a number N-1 of guide openings (the openings in the tool body where elements 150-1, 150-2, and 180 (mislabeled in figure 2 as 130) sit) arranged directly next to one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding honing tools with more than 14 guide openings, Yamamoto et al. US 8303799 B2 and Yamamoto US 8708780 B2 are made of record. Regarding honing tools with irregular angular spacings, Mitchell US 244578 A, Benoit FR 2977517 A1, Young KR 101477628 B1, and Kossmann DE 3610738 A1 are made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/G.D.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights