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 is being considered by the Examiner.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a vibration generator for exciting the vibration in claim 6. Specification: page 5, lines 14-18.
a vibration generator for generating a vibration in claim 9. Specification: page 5, lines 14-18.
a frequency generator for generating an excitation signal in claim 17. Specification: Page 4, lines 28-35.
a transmission device for contactless transmission of the excitation signal between the rotating clamping device and the control device in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3, 12, 16-19, and 22-24 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, claim 2 recites “wherein the oscillating movement comprises a component along at least one of the following directions of movement”. Within the context of claim 2, claim 2 seemingly imparts a physical component when the gear-shaped workpiece is already the element being oscillated. Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to reflect “wherein the oscillating movement comprises at least one of the following directions of movement”. Further regarding claim 2, “torsional about the workpiece axis” is recited as a possible direction of movement. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites that the gear-shaped workpiece is rotated about the workpiece axis, and that the gear-shaped workpiece is also excited to carry about an oscillating movement that is superimposed on the rotation of the gear-shaped workpiece. It is unclear how the possible torsional movement about the workpiece axis would be superimposed on the rotation, as the two movements would become one movement.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “wherein the oscillating movement has a fundamental frequency”. It is unclear what is imparted by recitation of “fundamental” in the context of the claimed invention without improperly importing additional limitations from the specification. For the purposes of examination, the claimed invention requires an oscillating movement frequency above 15 kHz.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “wherein the vibration generator comprises at least one piezoelectric actuator element”. Claim 11, from which claim 12 depends, recites “wherein the vibration generator comprises at least one piezo actuator”. It is unclear how the “at least one piezoelectric actuator element” differs from “at least one piezo actuator”. Examiner is interpreting the claim such that the piezo actuator is being limited. Furthermore, in the recitation of “wherein a ring axis of the piezoelectric actuator element corresponds to the workpiece axis”, it is unclear what is being imparted by “corresponds”. Is the ring axis coaxial with the workpiece axis? Adjacent to the workpiece axis? Please amend the claim to reflect the intended structure.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “wherein the vibration sensor comprises at least one piezoelectric sensor element”. Claim 15, from which claim 16 depends, recites “wherein the vibration sensor comprises a piezo sensor”. It is unclear how the “at least one piezoelectric sensor element” differs from “a piezo sensor”. Examiner is interpreting the claim such that the piezo sensor is being limited. Furthermore, in the recitation of “wherein a ring axis of the piezoelectric sensor element corresponds to the workpiece axis”, it is unclear what is being imparted by “corresponds”. Is the ring axis coaxial with the workpiece axis? Adjacent to the workpiece axis? Please amend the claim to reflect the intended structure.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “the clamping device according to claim 10” and thus imparts the recitations within the scope of claim 10. Thus, claim 17 reciting “a gear-shaped workpiece” and “a clamping device” imparts redundant antecedent bases. Furthermore, claim 17 recites “a frequency generator for generating an excitation signal for the oscillation generator to cause vibration of the clamping device”. Recitation of “the oscillation generator” does not have antecedent basis. Lastly, within the scope of claim 10, “a vibration generator for generating a vibration” is incorporated (from claim 9). It is unclear if the vibration generator and the frequency generator are differentiated or correlated with one another, and if so, how the two structures are correlated.
Regarding claim 18, recitation of “the control device” does not have antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “a clamping device according to claim 9”. Thus, “a clamping device” has previously established antecedent basis. Furthermore, claim 9 recites “a workpiece spindle” and “a generating machining machine”, and thus the recitations of claim 19 of the same structures renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite. Lastly, it is unclear what is imparted by “a roll coupling” in the context of the claimed invention without improperly importing limitations from the specification.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (US 20180118938).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a method for machining a gear-shaped workpiece by a generating machining process in which
the gear-shaped workpiece rotates about a workpiece axis while it is in generating mesh with a generating machining tool (see work gear W having rotational axis X, as well as Figure 10, wherein the grinding wheel 2 meshes with the work gear W),
characterized in that the gear-shaped workpiece is specifically excited during machining to carry out an oscillating movement which is superimposed on the rotation of the gear-shaped workpiece ([0076]: wherein vibration controller 74 vibrates the work gear W, and wherein the direction of vibration can be a direction inclined, parallel, or orthogonal to a direction of facewidth or tooth depth of the work tooth flank 11, or they may be vibrated in a circle, or in the radial direction; see also [0081-0082]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Nakagawa further discloses wherein the oscillating movement comprises a component along at least one of the following directions of movement:
axial along the workpiece axis; radial to the workpiece axis; and torsional about the workpiece axis (see at least [0076] disclosing the direction of vibrational movement).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Nakagawa further discloses wherein the gear-shaped workpiece is clamped on a clamping device during the generating machining (see at least Figure 2, as well as [0065-0066]),
wherein the clamping device is arranged on a workpiece spindle (see shaft 61),
wherein the clamping device has a clamping portion at which the clamping device is in contact with the gear-shaped workpiece (see pressing member 62 and flange 612),
wherein the workpiece spindle drives the gear-shaped workpiece clamped on the clamping device to rotate about the workpiece axis (see at least [0065-0066]), and
wherein the oscillating movement of the gear-shaped workpiece is generated by exciting a vibration of the clamping portion with the gear-shaped workpiece being in contact therewith (see [0076-0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Nakagawa further discloses wherein the clamping device comprises a vibration generator for exciting the vibration (see [0076-0077]).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qin (CN104475874B).
Regarding claim 1, Qin discloses a method for machining a gear-shaped workpiece by a generating machining process (see lines 30-33) in which
the gear-shaped workpiece rotates about a workpiece axis while it is in generating mesh with a generating machining tool (see gear workpiece 6 located on rotary spindle 1, i.e. the gear workpiece 6 rotates about the central axis, as well as cutting hob 25; see Figures 1, 2, and 12; see also lines 77-80 and 204-206),
characterized in that the gear-shaped workpiece is specifically excited during machining to carry out an oscillating movement which is superimposed on the rotation of the gear-shaped workpiece (see lines 134-144; see also lines 279-286 disclosing that the gear workpiece is vibrated while being indexed and rotated, meshing with the cutting hob 25 in a combined movement, i.e. superimposed vibration on the rotation of the gear 6; see also lines 314-332).
Regarding claim 2, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein the oscillating movement comprises a component along at least one of the following directions of movement:
axial along the workpiece axis; radial to the workpiece axis; and torsional about the workpiece axis (see at least lines 317-332 disclosing radial ultrasonic vibration; see also Figures 14-16 and lines 134-144).
Regarding claim 3, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein the oscillating movement has a fundamental frequency above 15 kHz (see 20kHz disclosed in at least lines 134-144).
Regarding claim 4, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein the gear-shaped workpiece is clamped on a clamping device during the generating machining (see Figure 2; see mandrel 5 and fixing assembly 7; see also lines 201-209),
wherein the clamping device is arranged on a workpiece spindle (see spindle 1),
wherein the clamping device has a clamping portion at which the clamping device is in contact with the gear-shaped workpiece (see mandrel 5 and fixing assembly 7),
wherein the workpiece spindle drives the gear-shaped workpiece clamped on the clamping device to rotate about the workpiece axis (see at least lines 77-83, 163-164, 201-210), and
wherein the oscillating movement of the gear-shaped workpiece is generated by exciting a vibration of the clamping portion with the gear-shaped workpiece being in contact therewith (see lines 279-286 disclosing that ultrasonic vibration is generated and transmitted to core 3, wherein the vibration is then concentrated and amplified by mandrel 5).
Regarding claim 6, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein the clamping device comprises a vibration generator for exciting the vibration (see ultrasonic generator 17).
Regarding claim 9, Qin discloses a clamping device for clamping a gear-shaped workpiece on a workpiece spindle of a generating machining machine, in order to drive the gear-shaped workpiece to rotate about a workpiece axis (see Figures 1, 2, 12, and 13, as well as gear workpiece 6 located on rotary spindle 1, i.e. the gear workpiece 6 rotates about the central axis, as well as cutting hob 25; see also lines 204-206),
wherein the clamping device has a clamping portion in which the clamping device is in contact with the gear-shaped workpiece (see Figure 2; see mandrel 5 and fixing assembly 7; see also lines 201-209),
characterized in that the clamping device comprises a vibration generator for generating a vibration of the clamping portion with the gear-shaped workpiece being in contact therewith (see ultrasonic generator 17; see also lines 134-144; see also lines 279-286 disclosing that the gear workpiece is vibrated while being indexed and rotated, meshing with the cutting hob 25 in a combined movement, i.e. superimposed vibration on the rotation of the gear 6; see also lines 314-332).
Regarding claim 10, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein the vibration generator is configured to generate a vibration excitation along at least one of the following directions of movement: axial along the workpiece axis; radial to the workpiece axis; and torsional about the workpiece axis (see at least lines 317-332 disclosing radial ultrasonic vibration; see also Figures 14-16 and lines 134-144).
Regarding claim 13, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein the clamping device defines a proximal end and a distal end (see at least Figure 2 regarding elements 5 and 7),
wherein the proximal end is adapted to be connected to the workpiece spindle (see mandrel 5 and connection to spindle 1 for adapting rotation), and
wherein the vibration generator (17) is disposed between the proximal end and the clamping portion or distally from the clamping portion (wherein as can be seen in Figure 1, the ultrasonic generator 17 is disposed distally from the mandrel 5 and fixing assembly 7).
Regarding claim 20, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein the generating machining tool is a worm-shape profiled grinding tool (see cutting gear hob 25 in Figures 12 and 13; see also lines 114-132).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-19, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin (CN 104475874B) in view of Takazakura (US 20150352713).
Regarding claim 7, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses wherein an electrical excitation signal is supplied to the vibration generator (see ultrasonic signal disclosed in lines 279-286).
However, Qin does not explicitly teach wherein at least one electrical sensor signal is determined which characterizes the vibration caused by the excitation signal, and wherein the excitation signal is controlled on the basis of the sensor signal in such a way that the excitation of the vibration is resonant.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Takazakura (US 20150352713) teaches wherein an electrical excitation signal is supplied to the vibration generator (see [0088] as well as Qin cited above),
wherein at least one electrical sensor signal is determined which characterizes the vibration caused by the excitation signal (see [0004], [0014-0015], [0090], [0092]; see also [0097-0098] teaching of detecting the state of vibration of the ultrasonic transducer by the detection circuit employing a Hall element or the like, as well as the detection signal; see also [0099] disclosing the detection signal taken from the tool side is input into the control device, and wherein characteristics are deduced therefrom; see also the electrical signal taught in [0100]; see also [0118-0119]), and wherein the excitation signal is controlled on the basis of the sensor signal in such a way that the excitation of the vibration is resonant (see [0012], [0035-0037], [0087-0088], [0099], [0113-0114], [0116]; wherein feedback control is employed in order to control the device; see also [0129], [0131-0132]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the control teachings of Takazakura into the invention of Qin. While Qin describes the electrical circuitry and control in a general sense, in addition to a type of control panel (see lines 279-306), Qin is silent regarding additional details. Takazakura answers the silence of Qin by providing an controlled ultrasonic device; one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Takazakura into the invention of Qin in order to provide greater processing accuracy ([0100], [0015]) and efficiently drive the ultrasonic element in a manner that adapts to changing conditions such as temperature fluctuations ([0090]).
Regarding claim 8, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches wherein the excitation signal and the sensor signal are transmitted in a contactless manner between the rotating clamping device and a stationary control device (Takazakura: see [0015] regarding contact free transmission of signals; see also [0037], [0077], [0086], [0089], [0095], [0098], and Figures 9 and 21).
Regarding claim 11, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Qin does not explicitly teach wherein the vibration generator comprises at least one piezo actuator.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Takazakura teaches wherein the vibration generator comprises at least one piezo actuator ([0035], [0036], [0082-0083], [0118-0119]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Takazakura, i.e. employing a type of piezo actuator in the context of devices configured to provide ultrasonic vibrations, into the invention of Qin. One would be motivated to do so because the piezoelectric ultrasonic transducer as taught by Takazakura also acts as a detection member, thereby improving stability ([0036]) while still ensuring that space is being used efficiently due to the configuration taught by Takazakura ([0036], [0107], [0119]).
Regarding claim 12, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches wherein the vibration generator comprises at least one piezoelectric actuator element which is disk-ring-shaped or ring-segment-shaped, wherein a ring axis of the piezoelectric actuator element corresponds to the workpiece axis (Takazakura: see [0036], as well as Figure 8 regarding piezoelectric elements 116, and [0082-0083]; see also Figure 22, and [0118]).
Regarding claim 14, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Qin does not explicitly teach a vibration sensor for determining at least one sensor signal characterizing the vibration of the clamping device with the gear-shaped workpiece clamped thereon.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Takazakura teaches a vibration sensor for determining at least one sensor signal characterizing the vibration of the clamping device with the gear-shaped workpiece clamped thereon (wherein the combination of Takazakura teaches the actual clamping element 5,7, of Qin is provided with ultrasonic vibration, and the detection is provided by Takazaura; see Takazakura teaching vibration detection and signal sensing in [0004], [0014-0015], [0090], [0092]; see also [0097-0098] teaching of detecting the state of vibration of the ultrasonic transducer by the detection circuit employing a Hall element or the like, as well as the detection signal; see also [0099] disclosing the detection signal taken from the tool side is input into the control device, and wherein characteristics are deduced therefrom; see also the electrical signal taught in [0100]; see also [0118-0119]; see also see [0012], [0035-0037], [0087-0088], [0099], [0113-0114], [0116]; wherein feedback control is employed in order to control the device; see also [0129], [0131-0132]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the control teachings of Takazakura into the invention of Qin. While Qin describes the electrical circuitry and control in a general sense, in addition to a type of control panel (see lines 279-306), Qin is silent regarding additional details. Takazakura answers the silence of Qin by providing a controlled ultrasonic device; one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Takazakura into the invention of Qin in order to provide greater processing accuracy ([0100], [0015]) and efficiently drive the ultrasonic element in a manner that adapts to changing conditions such as temperature fluctuations ([0090]).
Regarding claim 15, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches wherein the vibration sensor comprises a piezo sensor (Takazakure: see [0035] specifically teaching that the detection member is a piezoelectric element; see also [0036], [0082-0083], [0118-0119]).
Regarding claim 16, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches wherein the vibration sensor comprises at least one piezoelectric sensor element which is disk-ring-shaped or ring-segment-shaped, wherein a ring axis of the piezoelectric sensor element corresponds to the workpiece axis (Takazakura: see [0036], as well as Figure 8 regarding piezoelectric elements 116, and [0082-0083]; see also Figure 22, and [0118]).
Regarding claim 17, Qin discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Qin further discloses a system for generating an oscillating movement of a gear-shaped workpiece during machining by continuous generating grinding, comprising:
a clamping device according to claim 10 (please refer to the rejection of claim 10 provided above).
However, Qin does not explicitly teach a frequency generator for generating an excitation signal for the oscillation generator to cause the vibration of the clamping device with the gear-shaped workpiece clamped thereon (see frequency supply in [0014-0015], [0037], as well as the control device 140 described in [0087]; see also [0094-0096], [0099-0100], [0108], [0113], [0128-0129]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the element including the controller to generate an excitation signal, as taught by Takazakura, into the invention of Qin. While Qin describes the electrical circuitry and control in a general sense, in addition to a type of control panel (see lines 279-306), Qin is silent regarding additional details. Takazakura answers the silence of Qin by providing a controlled ultrasonic device; one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Takazakura into the invention of Qin in order to provide greater processing accuracy ([0100], [0015]) and efficiently drive the ultrasonic element in a manner that adapts to changing conditions such as temperature fluctuations ([0090]).
Regarding claim 18, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches a transmission device for contactless transmission of the excitation signal between the rotating clamping device and the control device (Takazakura: see [0015] regarding contact free transmission of signals; see also [0037], [0077], [0086], [0089], [0095], [0098], and Figures 9 and 21).
Regarding claim 19, Qin discloses a generating machining machine (see Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a tool spindle for driving a generating machining tool to rotate about a tool axis (see Figure 12 regarding gear hob 25; see also lines 299-312);
a workpiece spindle for driving the gear-shaped workpiece to rotate about the workpiece axis (see spindle 1; see at least lines 77-83, 163-164, 201-210); and
a roll coupling is established between the rotation of the generating machining tool generated by the tool spindle and the rotation of the workpiece generated by the workpiece spindle (see lines 288-312 and 114-132),
characterized in that a clamping device according to claim 9 is mounted on the workpiece spindle (please refer to the rejection statement of claim 9 provided above).
However, Qin does not explicitly teach a machine controller configured to control the tool spindle and the workpiece spindle.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Takazakura teaches of a machine controller configured to control the tool spindle and the workpiece spindle (see [0014-0015], [0037], as well as the control device 140 described in [0087]; see also [0094-0096], [0099-0100], [0108], [0113], [0128-0129]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the element including the controller, as taught by Takazakura, into the invention of Qin. While Qin describes the electrical circuitry and control in a general sense, in addition to a type of control panel (see lines 279-306), Qin is silent regarding additional details. Takazakura answers the silence of Qin by providing a controlled ultrasonic device; one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Takazakura into the invention of Qin in order to provide greater processing accuracy ([0100], [0015]) and efficiently drive the ultrasonic element in a manner that adapts to changing conditions such as temperature fluctuations ([0090]).
Regarding claim 22, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches further comprising a controller configured to receive a sensor signal and, on the basis of the sensor signal to control the excitation signal in such a way that the excitation of the vibration occurs resonantly and with a predetermined amplitude (Takazakura: see control device 140, as well as [0014-0015], [0037], [0087]; see also [0090], [0092], [0094-0100], [0108], [0113], [0118-0119], [0128-0129], [0131-0132]).
Regarding claim 23, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches wherein the transmission device is further configured for contactless transmission of the sensor signal between the rotating clamping device and the control device (Takazakura: see [0015] regarding contact free transmission of signals; see also [0037], [0077], [0086], [0089], [0095], [0098], and Figures 9 and 21).
Regarding claim 24, Qin in view of Takazakura teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Qin further teaches wherein the machine is a generating grinding machine and wherein the machining tool is a worm-shape profiled grinding tool (see cutting gear hob 25 in Figures 12 and 13; see also lines 114-132).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights