DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski (US Patent No. 5181898) in view of Dietz (US PG Pub No. 20220134459).
In regards to claim 1, Piotrowski discloses
a grinding machine (machine tool 220, fig. 1, 6-8) for gear grinding, the grinding machine comprising:
a tool spindle (spindle 237, fig. 6-8) for holding a gear machining tool (tool 275, fig. 6-8),
a workpiece spindle (rotatable workpiece changing mechanism 26, fig. 1, 6-8) for holding a workpiece (workpiece 40, fig. 1, 6-8) to be toothed,
a plurality of controlled machine axes (col. 7 lines 33; col. 9 line 65 - col. 10 line 11; transverse axis T’ and longitudinal axis L’) for executing relative movements for chip-removing machining of the workpiece to be toothed by means of the gear machining tool (tool 275, fig. 6-8),
at least one insulation device (at least one of a front wall 51, rear wall 59, top wall 56, right side wall 61, left side wall 70, debris collection apron 71; see fig. 1-8) is provided in order to protect a load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component of the grinding machine (machine tool 220, fig. 1, 6-8) from a fluid flow and/or sparking.
While Piotrowski teaches coolant being in the area where machining occurs and then being directed from the work area, it fails to explicitly disclose “a device for applying cooling fluid, which is set up to introduce cooling into a region of the chip removal between the gear machining tool and the workpiece to be toothed during the chip-removing machining operation.”
However, Dietz, which discloses a machine tool apparatus, teaches a coolant dispenser in the region of gear machining tool and workpiece:
[0090] A coolant nozzle 19 directs a jet of coolant into the machining zone. In order to record noises which are transmitted via this jet of coolant, a further acoustic sensor (not illustrated) can be provided.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
431
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Piotrowski and Dietz are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, machining tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piotrowski in view of Dietz, and provide an element for spraying coolant/cooling liquid in the machining area, as that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the results of the combination were predictable.
Examiner’s Note:
It has been held that a recitation of a grinding machine “for gear grinding”, and an insulation device “to protect a load-bearing structure and/or component of the grinding machine from a fluid flow and/or sparking” with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In regards to claim 2, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 1, wherein the insulation device (at least one of a front wall 51, rear wall 59, top wall 56, right side wall 61, left side wall 70, debris collection apron 71; see fig. 1-8) comprises a flat component such as a sheet (see fig. 7 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
654
1153
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 2, wherein the flat component is at a distance (see fig. 7 – ann. 2) from the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component of the grinding machine to be protected and/or
the insulation device (at least one debris collection apron 71; see fig. 1-8) is at a distance (see fig. 7 – ann. 2) from the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component of the grinding machine to be protected.
PNG
media_image4.png
654
1153
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 3, wherein an air gap (see fig. 7 – ann. 3) is formed at least in sections between the flat component and the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component to be protected and/or
an insulating material with low thermal conductivity, such as a plastic is arranged at least in sections between the flat component and the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component to be protected.
PNG
media_image5.png
654
1153
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 2, but fails to provide a material thickness of the flat component is less than 5mm, and/or a length of the flat component is more than 10cm and/or a width of the flat component is more than 10 cm.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
[0031] A material thickness, in particular sheet thickness, of the flat component can be less than 5 mm, in particular less than 2 mm.
[0032] Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a length of the flat component can be more than 10 cm, in particular more than 20 cm.
[0033] Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that a width of the flat component can be more than 10 cm, in particular more than 20 cm.
[0034] It may be provided that a material thickness of the above-mentioned insulating material is more than 0.5 cm, in particular more than 1 cm, in particular more than 2 cm, in particular more than 5 cm.
[0035] Alternatively or additionally, a length of the insulating material may be more than 10 cm, in particular more than 20 cm.
[0036] Alternatively or additionally, it may be provided that the width of the flat component is more than 10 cm, in particular more than 20 cm.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the debris aprons/ insulation devices will have a specific dimensionality, and finding the correct dimensions for these insulation devices to enclose the grinding machine, and protect different components would address design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 6, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 1, wherein the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) is a machine bed of the grinding machine (machine tool 220, fig. 1, 6-8),
wherein the insulation device (debris collection aprons 71; see fig. 1-8) , as viewed in a vertical direction, is arranged at least in sections (see fig. 7 – ann. 4) between the device for discharging the cooling fluid (as taught by Dietz) and the machine bed,
PNG
media_image6.png
672
1247
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the insulation device (debris collection aprons 71; see fig. 1-8) is arranged within a machining space (see fig. 1 – ann. 1) of the grinding machine which is closed (under the cover assembly 15) during operation of the grinding machine and within which the machining of the workpiece to be toothed takes place by means of the gear machining tool (tool 275, fig. 6-8).
In regards to claim 7, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 1, wherein the insulation device (debris collection apron 71; see fig. 1-8) has an inclination (see fig. 7 – ann. 5) and is set up to guide cooling fluid to a cooling fluid outlet (trough 74, fig. 5 and 7).
PNG
media_image7.png
672
1247
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 1, wherein the insulation device (debris collection aprons 71, top cover, and side walls; see fig. 1-8) has a seal (see fig. 7 – ann. 6) to an adjacent component (retainer ridge 23, see fig. 5 – ann. 1) or structure of the grinding machine in the area of one attachment point or a plurality of attachment points and/or at its edges in order to delimit (see fig. 7 – ann. 6) an area of the grinding machine in which the fluid flow and/or the sparking occur,
PNG
media_image8.png
734
1538
media_image8.png
Greyscale
at least in sections from the area in which the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component of the grinding machine to be protected are arranged.
In regards to claim 9, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 1, wherein the insulation device (cover assembly 15; see fig. 1-8) rests at least in sections (being mounted upon) on the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component of the grinding machine to be protected.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Dietz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grob (US Patent No. 7150706).
In regards to claim 10, Piotrowski as modified discloses
the grinding machine according to claim 1, wherein the insulation device (at least one of a front wall 51, rear wall 59, top wall 56, right side wall 61, left side wall 70; see fig. 1-8) is arranged outside of the machining space of the grinding machine (creates the cover assembly 15, see fig. 1),
which is closed during operation of the grinding machine (abstract: The cover assembly includes an external housing member which encloses the workhead and the second machine part and permits movement of the second machine part therewithin), in order to protect the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component of the grinding machine from ambient air, from an environment of the grinding machine,
wherein the insulation device (at least one of a front wall 51, rear wall 59, top wall 56, right side wall 61, left side wall 70; see fig. 1-8) is an enclosure (cover assembly 15; fig. 1-8) which encloses the load-bearing structure (base 22, fig. 1-8) and/or component of the grinding machine to be protected on the periphery.
Piotrowski as modified fails to disclose that the “enclosure extends, as far as a hall floor on which the grinding machine is set up, and is furthermore sealed against the hall floor.” This generally understood as the enclosure extending to be flush with the surface it is set upon.
However, Grob, which also discloses a machining station, teaches an enclosure that extends to the floor (see fig. 5).
PNG
media_image9.png
622
724
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Piotrowski and Grob are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, machining tools/stations with covers and cooling/coolant applied within the machining area.
Therefore, pursuant of MPEP 2144.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such, to change the cover assembly relative length of Piotrowski, such that it extends and touches the ground/floor surface the station of Piotrowski sits upon, would be a design choice and within the abilities of a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights