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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/18/2024. The preliminary amendment submitted on 07/18/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A) claim 6 should read as “wherein said end at which the parking zone is placed [[is]] outside said casing”.
B) claim 17 should read as “first actuating means .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“further comprising air suction and filtering means configured to suck and filter air in said working zone” in claim 14.
“first actuating means (211) being provided to move said first carriage and said first slide” in claim 17.
“second actuating means being provided to move said second carriage and said second slide” in claim 17.
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.
Claims 17 and 19 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 17 (Currently Amended), the following limitations are indefinite:
A) “said grinding group comprises a first carriage slidable along a first direction parallel to said longitudinal direction of development and a first slide which is connected to said first carriage in a slidable manner with respect to it along a first transverse direction perpendicular to said first direction”; and
B) “said texturing group comprises a second carriage slidable along a second direction parallel to said longitudinal direction of development and a second slide which is connected to said second carriage in a slidable manner with respect to it along a second transverse direction perpendicular to said second direction”.
Where limitations A and B are indefinite because of the term “it” is unclear on what structure is exactly being referred back to. What is the structure that “it” refers in reference to? Since there is a relationship of the grinding group/texturing group to the longitudinal direction to the first/second slide(s) to the first/second transverse direction(s), it is unclear what is being referenced exactly.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), the limitation “wherein each of said steady rests comprises a pair of plain bearings” is indefinite because the term “plain” is unclear. The term “plain” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plain” 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. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein each of said steady rests comprises a pair of
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 1-3, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroo et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2000227423) as evidenced by the machine translation of Hiroo, in view of Nagaya et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0361789), hereinafter referred to as Hiroo and Nagaya, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Hiroo discloses a machine for carrying out surface treatments onto rolls [Hiroo, fig 1], comprising:
a supporting structure extending along a longitudinal direction of development [Hiroo, fig 1, 17];
at least two supporting elements placed on that supporting structure, opposed to each other and aligned along a rotation axis parallel to said longitudinal direction of development, said supporting elements being configured to support a roll having a surface to be treated [Hiroo, fig 1, 1 and 5 support roll 4];
a rotation motor configured to put in rotation said roll when supported by the two supporting elements [Hiroo, page 17, pp 0027, 1 and 5 hold and rotate the roll as well];
a grinding group slidably connected to the supporting structure and comprising a grinding tool, said grinding tool being able to face said roll and movable over a working zone for grinding at least part of the surface of said roll [Hiroo, page 15, pp 0024 and claims 1 and 11, grinding device as part of the processing apparatus];
a texturing group slidably connected to the supporting structure and comprising a laser head, said laser head being able to face said roll and movable over said working zone for texturing at least part of the surface of said roll [Hiroo, page 15, pp 0024 and claims 1 and 11, laser dulling device embodiment]; and
a control unit [Hiroo, page 18, pp 0027, numerically controlled x-y table and roll support device and accessories] and the said grinding group and said texturing group are automatically controlled [Hiroo, page 10, pp 0018, page 11, pp 0019, page 13, pp 0022, and page 15, pp 0024, all teaching that the device is automatically controlled such that the grinding device and laser head operations are also automatically controlled].
Hiroo does not explicitly disclose a casing placed at least partially to cover said supporting structure; and the control unit placed in signal communication with said grinding group and with said texturing group, said control unit being configured to control said grinding group and said texturing group.
Nagaya teaches a machine for carrying out surface treatments onto rolls [Nagaya, fig 1], comprising:
a supporting structure extending along a longitudinal direction of development [Nagaya, figs 1 and 3, 2];
a casing placed at least partially to cover said supporting structure [Nagaya, page 3, pp 0036, cover 81];
at least two supporting elements placed on that supporting structure, opposed to each other and aligned along a rotation axis parallel to said longitudinal direction of development, said supporting elements being configured to support a roll having a surface to be treated [Nagaya, fig 2, 30 and 40 which supports the roll W];
a rotation motor configured to put in rotation said roll when supported by the two supporting elements [Nagaya, page 3, pp 0040];
a grinding group slidably connected to the supporting structure [Nagaya, fig 2, 20] and comprising a grinding tool [Nagaya, fig 2, 22], said grinding tool being able to face said roll and movable over a working zone for grinding at least part of the surface of said roll [Nagaya, page 3, pp’s 0038-0039]; and
a control unit placed in signal communication with said grinding group, said control unit being configured to control said grinding group [Nagaya, page 3, pp’s 0035-0036 and 0039, 50 and having an automatic mode].
Regarding the casing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll grinding apparatus of Hiroo to include the cover/casing as taught by Nagaya because the cover is to ensure the operators safety [Nagaya, page 3, pp 0035, summarized].
Regarding the control unit being connected to the grinding group and the texturing group, since Hiroo discloses that the two operations work in unison and together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the roll grinding apparatus of Hiroo to connect the control unit to the grinding group, and hence also to the texturing group, as the control apparatus is connected to the grinding group as taught by Nagaya, because by connecting the grinding group to the controller the user is able to have by the invention of Nagaya, a more controlled manual positioning of the grinding wheel to the workpiece for finer and more controlled machining [Nagaya, page 4, pp’s 0044 and 0046, summarized]. Further, the connection of the control unit can therefore be extended to the texturing group as giving a greater control to the placement of the texturing group during manual adjustment in relation to the workpiece. The predictable result being that by connecting the control unit to both the grinding group and the texturing group that during initial manual control and placement, that greater control finer placement can be achieved within each group.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 1, and discloses that the grinding group and texturing group, as part of larger processing group can be used together [Hiroo, page 15, pp 0024 and claims 1 and 11], and wherein the supporting structure comprises a guide parallel with respect to said longitudinal direction of development [Hiroo, fig 1, 16 is the laser head and is on guide 9 which is parallel to the longitudinal direction of 4], said texturing group being slidably coupled with said guide [Hiroo, page 12, pp 0021, rail 8 is driven by 8 for sliding] on a side of the workpiece [Hiroo, figs 1 and 2, showing 16 is at the front of the workpiece].
Hiroo as modified however does not explicitly disclose wherein the supporting structure comprises a first guide and a second guide spaced from each other and parallel with respect to said longitudinal direction of development, said grinding group being slidably coupled with said first guide and said texturing group being slidably coupled with said second guide.
Nagaya further teaches the supporting structure [Nagaya, fig 2, 2] comprises a guide parallel with respect to said longitudinal direction of development [Nagaya, fig 2, guide GZ is parallel to the longitudinal direction of roll W], said grinding group being slidably coupled with said guide [Nagaya, fig 2, 20 is coupled to guide GZ], on a side of the workpiece [Nagaya, figs 1 and 2, showing that 20 is on the backside of the work, opposite the operator location].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roll grinding apparatus of Hiroo to place the grinding group on a separate slide from the laser head on the backside of the workpiece away from operator as taught by Nagaya because this placement ensures the cover is able to cover the grinding group and to keep the operator safe which is the primary operation of the cover [Nagaya, page 3, pp 0035, summarized].
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Hirro as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 2, wherein said first guide and said second guide are parallel to each other and placed on opposite sides of the supporting structure with respect to said rotation axis [In the combination of Hiroo and Nagaya as explained in claim 2, the laser head (Hiroo, figs 1 and 2, 16) is on the front side of the workpiece, and grinding head (Nagaya, figs 2 and 3, 20) is on the backside of the workpiece W away from the operator, such that in the combination that the first and second guides holding the respective grinding and texturing groups, are on opposite sides of the workpiece].
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 2, further comprising a gauge group slidably coupled with said first guide or said second guide, said gauge group comprising a gauge configured to detect dimensional parameters related to said surface to be treated [Hiroo, fig 1, and page 12, pp 0021, 14].
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 11, wherein said gauge group comprises a surface defects detection system [Hiroo, page 14, pp 0024 and page 16, pp 0025].
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 1, further comprising a cleaning unit associated with said supporting structure and configured to remove processing waste from the surface of said roll being treated [Hiroo, fig 1, and page 12, pp 0021, 10].
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 2, wherein said supporting structure comprises a first portion and a second portion separated from each other and rigidly jointed [In the combination of Hiroo and Nagaya, the supporting structure comprises second portion (Hiroo, fig 1, 15) which is associated with the laser head 16, and a first portion (Nagaya, fig 2, 10) associated with the grinding head 22, and since these portions are joined to support each individual component, they are rigidly joined, but are in fact separate components], said first guide being associated with said first portion [Nagaya, fig 2, 10 is associated with GZ] and said second guide being associated with said second portion [Hiroo, fig 1, 15 is associated with 9 and 8].
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 1, that the grinding group and texturing group, as part of larger processing group can be used together [Hiroo, page 15, pp 0024 and claims 1 and 11], wherein: said texturing group comprises a second carriage slidable along a second direction parallel to said longitudinal direction of development and a second slide which is connected to said second carriage in a slidable manner with respect to it along a second transverse direction perpendicular to said second direction [Hiroo, fig 1, 15 is slidable along slide 9 which is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the workpiece 4], second actuating means being provided to move said second carriage and said second slide [Hiroo, fig 1, and page 12, pp 0021, 8].
Hiroo as modified does not explicitly disclose said grinding group comprises a first carriage slidable along a first direction parallel to said longitudinal direction of development and a first slide which is connected to said first carriage in a slidable manner with respect to it along a first transverse direction perpendicular to said first direction, first actuating means
Nagaya further teaches the supporting structure [Nagaya, fig 2, 2] comprises said grinding group which comprises a first carriage slidable [Nagaya, fig 2, 10] along a first direction parallel to said longitudinal direction of development and a first slide which is connected to said first carriage in a slidable manner with respect to it along a first transverse direction perpendicular to said first direction [Nagaya, fig 2, 10 is associated with GZ and is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the workpiece], first actuating means
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roll grinding apparatus of Hiroo to place the grinding group on a separate slide from the laser head on the backside of the workpiece away from operator as taught by Nagaya because this placement ensures the cover is able to cover the grinding group and to keep the operator safe which is the primary operation of the cover [Nagaya, page 3, pp 0035, summarized].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroo et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2000227423) as evidenced by the machine translation of Hiroo, in view of Nagaya et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0361789) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of KR1 (Korean Patent Publication No. KR101490619) as evidenced by the machine translation of KR1, hereinafter referred to as Hiroo, Nagaya, and KR1, respectively.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 1, further comprising a roll cleaning device [Hiroo, fig 1, and page 12, pp 0021, 10] but does not explicitly disclose further comprising air suction and filtering means configured to suck and filter air in said working zone.
KR1 teaches a roll cleaning apparatus [KR1, fig 5, 150] comprising air suction and filtering means configured to suck and filter air in said working zone [KR1, fig 5, where 150 includes hose 160 and housing 156, and page 21, pp 0046 to suction and filter].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the roll cleaning device of Hiroo include the air suction and filtering as taught by KR because this allows users to remain safe while inspecting the roll [page 4, pp 0006, summarized].
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroo et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2000227423) as evidenced by the machine translation of Hiroo, in view of Nagaya et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0361789) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Bennett Jr et al (US Patent No. 4,092,048), hereinafter referred to as Hiroo, Nagaya, and Bennett, respectively.
Regarding claims 18 (Currently Amended) and 19 (Currently Amended), Hiroo as modified further discloses the machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least two supporting elements [Hiroo, fig 1, 1 and 5] comprise: a headstock and tailstock system disposed to support said roll [Hiroo, page 12, pp 0021], but does not explicitly disclose two steady rests disposed to support said roll, wherein said headstock and tailstock system and said two steady rests are alternatively couplable with said roll (clm 18); and wherein each of said steady rests comprises a pair of plain bearings (clm 19).
Bennett teaches a machine for carrying out surface treatments onto rolls, comprising:
a supporting structure extending along a longitudinal direction of development [Bennet, fig 1, 10];
at least two supporting elements placed on that supporting structure, opposed to each other and aligned along a rotation axis parallel to said longitudinal direction of development [Bennett, fig 1, 26 and 28], said supporting elements being configured to support a roll having a surface to be treated [Bennentt, fig 1, 26 and 28 support the roll 24 that is to be machined]; and
a grinding group slidably connected to the supporting structure and comprising a grinding tool, said grinding tool being able to face said roll and movable over a working zone for grinding at least part of the surface of said roll [Bennentt, fig 1, 16 is mounted onto 14 and is movable along the work 24];
wherein said at least two supporting elements [Bennentt, fig 1, 26 and 28] comprise: a headstock and tailstock system disposed to support said roll [Bennentt, fig 1, 26 and 28 are the headstock and tailstock to hold 24], and two steady rests disposed to support said roll [Bennett, fig 1, 30 on each end of 24], wherein said headstock and tailstock system and said two steady rests are alternatively couplable with said roll [Bennentt, fig 1, showing that all of 26, 28, and each 30 are couplable with 24] (clm 18);
wherein each of said steady rests comprises a pair of plain bearings [Bennett, fig 3, showing that each 30 comprises at least a pair of plain bearings 60] (clm 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roll grinding apparatus of Hiroo to incorporate the steady rest bearings as taught by Bennett because this allows the roll workpiece to be closer clearance that does not hinder the resurfacing operation [Bennett, col 1, line 28 – col 2, line 2, summarized].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 15 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Hiroo et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2000227423) teaches in figure 1 the texturing group [Hiroo, fig 1, 16] is movable along a slide [Hiroo, fig 1, 8], but does not disclose or show an area that is outside of the working area.
Therefore, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “further comprising a parking zone configured to house at least partially the texturing group when said grinding group is working and/or when said texturing group is not working” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claim(s) 5-10 and 15 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 4.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Hiroo et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2000227423) teaches in figure 1 the texturing group [Hiroo, fig 1, 16] is movable along a slide [Hiroo, fig 1, 8], but does not disclose or show an area that is outside of the working area.
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a parking zone configured to house at least partially said texturing group when said grinding group is working and/or when said texturing group is not working” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claims 21 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights