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 .
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.
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: “holder drive unit” in claims 1-4, 7-8, and 13-14; “input device” in claims 4 and 8; and “workpiece support mechanism” in claims 6 and 11-12.
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 1-14 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Examples of these errors include, but are not limited to, the following:
Limitations structured as the grammatically improper “an X to Y” instead of the proper “an X configured to Y” (e.g., “a rotation driver to cause the main shaft to rotate about a first rotational axis that is along a longitudinal direction of the main shaft”).
Grammatically problematic phrasing of claim terms (i.e. “a honing tool to a tip portion of which a grindstone is disposed” rather than “a honing tool having a tip portion and a grindstone disposed on the tip portion”
Numerous limitations are introduced multiple times, e.g., “a tip portion” in claim 1 is introduced as both “a honing tool to a tip portion of which” and “a tip portion of the honing tool”; or “a direction along the first rotational axis” is independently introduced in claim 1 and twice in claim 2, which results in ambiguity as to the antecedent basis for the subsequently introduced limitations.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “an axial direction driver to cause the main shaft to move in a first direction that is along the first rotational axis…” and “a holder drive unit to…cause the workpiece holder to move in a second direction that is an opposite direction to the first direction”, while subsequent claims make reference to “vibration” of the main shaft and the workpiece holder. It is unclear from the disclosure whether the vibration refers to the same movement recited in claim 1 or an additional form of movement. Machines in the honing arts frequently use a combination of comparatively large-scale reciprocal motion to ensure a honing tool contacts all parts of a surface being worked and small-scale vibratory movement to enhance the localized performance of the honing tool, but it is unclear if the term “vibration” used in the dependent claims refers to one or both kinds of reciprocal motion. The disclosure does not appear to add clarity. Consequently, one of ordinary skill would be unclear as to the actual metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kline (US 2939250).
1. Kline teaches a honing device comprising:
a honing tool (1) to a tip portion of which a grindstone (2) is disposed (Kline figs. 1 and 3);
a main shaft (3) having a long length and to which the honing tool (1) is fixed while a tip portion of the honing tool extends from one end side in a longitudinal direction of the main shaft (see Kline fig. 1);
a rotation driver (46) to cause the main shaft to rotate about a first rotational axis that is along a longitudinal direction of the main shaft (motor 46 drives spindle 4 to rotate, see Kline figs. 1 and 3 and 5:3-18);
an axial direction driver to cause the main shaft to move in a first direction that is along the first rotational axis (driving mechanism powered by 46 also powers reciprocating motion of the tool and shaft, see Kline 5:3-18);
a workpiece holder (work holding fixture 26) to hold a workpiece while a central axis of a processed hole of the workpiece and the first rotational axis coincide with each other (see Kline fig. 3 and 4:41-43); and
a holder drive unit (transducer 29) to, by exerting a driving force on a portion of the workpiece holder corresponding to a point on an extension line of the first rotational axis in a direction along the first rotational axis, cause the workpiece holder to move in a second direction that is an opposite direction to the first direction (transducer 29 causes workpiece holder 26 to move up and down, see Kline fig. 3 and 4:41-73).
7. Kline teaches the honing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a machine body (44) including a head (45) to collectively hold the honing tool (1), the main shaft (3), the rotation driver (46), and the axial direction driver (head 45 holds each element including means for reciprocating the shaft, see Kline fig. 3 and 5:3-9) and a supporting column (44 includes a column, see Kline fig. 3) having a long length, arranged in an attitude in which a longitudinal direction of the supporting column is along the vertical direction, and configured to support the head at one end on a vertically upper side (head 45 is on an upper side of column 44, see Kline fig. 3),
wherein the holder drive unit (29) is fixed to the other end on a vertically lower side of the supporting column (29 is on a lower side of the column of 44, see Kline fig. 3).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pohlitz (US 9022837).
1. Pohlitz teaches a honing device (1) comprising:
a honing tool (19) to a tip portion of which a grindstone (21) is disposed (see Pohlitz fig. 1 and 5:27-35);
a main shaft (23) having a long length and to which the honing tool is fixed while a tip portion of the honing tool extends from one end side in a longitudinal direction of the main shaft (see Pohlitz fig. 1);
a rotation driver to cause the main shaft to rotate about a first rotational axis that is along a longitudinal direction of the main shaft (honing tool 19 may be configured to rotate instead of workpiece holder 11, see Pohlitz 6:5-9));
an axial direction driver (spindle unit 13 is moveable via a linear drive, Pohlitz 9:32-35); to cause the main shaft to move in a first direction that is along the first rotational axis (spindle unit 13 is moved along a rotation axis in a linear direction corresponding to arrow 29, see Pohlitz fig.1 and 5:45-51);
a workpiece holder (5) to hold a workpiece (7) while a central axis of a processed hole of the workpiece and the first rotational axis coincide with each other (see Pohlitz fig. 1); and
a holder drive unit (clamping unit 5 is moveable via a linear drive, Pohlitz 9:32-35) to, by exerting a driving force on a portion of the workpiece holder corresponding to a point on an extension line of the first rotational axis in a direction along the first rotational axis, cause the workpiece holder to move in a second direction that is an opposite direction to the first direction (clamping unit 5 may oscillate in the same direction as spindle unit 13, see Pohlitz fig.1 and 5:8-19).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pohlitz.
5. Pohlitz teaches the honing device according to claim 1, wherein the holder drive unit includes a rack gear and a pinion gear (linear drive for moving clamp unit 5 may be a toothed rack drive, which one of ordinary skill would understand to refer to a rack and pinion drive, Pohlitz 9:32-35), and that the rack may be mounted on the machine bed (3) and may also be used to move the spindle unit (Pohlitz fig. 1 and 9:49-57).
Because the machine bed (3) has a long length parallel to the rotational axis (Pohlitz fig. 1), a rack gear positioned on the machine bed such that the elements move along it would be parallel to the rotational axis. Therefore, Pohlitz teaches a rack gear having a long length and arranged in such a way that a longitudinal direction of the rack gear is along the first rotational axis.
Similarly, a linear drive using such a rack gear would include at least one pinion gear meshing with the rack gear to move in a direction along its length when rotated, such that it had a rotational axis orthogonal to the extension direction of the rack gear, and consequently orthogonal to the first rotational axis. Consequently, Pohlitz teaches the presence of a pinion gear to rotate about a second rotational axis that is orthogonal to the first rotational axis and mesh with the rack gear on an extension line of the first rotational axis.
Under an alternative theory of the claim, Pohlitz does not explicitly teach that the holder drive unit includes: a rack gear having a long length and arranged in such a way that a longitudinal direction of the rack gear is along the first rotational axis; and a pinion gear to rotate about a second rotational axis that is orthogonal to the first rotational axis and mesh with the rack gear on an extension line of the first rotational axis.
However, Pohlitz does teach that the holder drive unit includes a rack gear and a pinion gear (linear drive for moving clamp unit 5 may be a toothed rack drive, which one of ordinary skill would understand to refer to a rack and pinion drive, Pohlitz 9:32-35), and that the rack may be mounted on the machine bed (3) and may also be used to move the spindle unit (Pohlitz fig. 1 and 9:49-57).
Furthermore, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Although Pohlitz does not explicitly teach the structure for the rack and pinion gears, it would nevertheless have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the honing device of Pohlitz such that it included a rack gear having a long length and arranged in such a way that a longitudinal direction of the rack gear is along the first rotational axis; and a pinion gear to rotate about a second rotational axis that is orthogonal to the first rotational axis and mesh with the rack gear on an extension line of the first rotational axis, as one of ordinary skill would infer from the disclosure of a rack running along the machine bed and the conventional structure for a rack and pinion drive, that the basic structure should involve a rack gear parallel to the line of motion and a pinion gear rotating around an axis orthogonal to the line of motion, which would read on the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohlitz in view of Degen et al. (EP 2374574, "Degen").
2. Pohlitz teaches the honing device according to claim 1, but although it teaches that oscillation of the various elements may be generally controlled by modern machining controls (Pohlitz 7:18-29; a broad disclosure of a control unit is made at Pohlitz 3:13-18), it does not teach that it further comprises a controller to control the axial direction driver in such a way that the main shaft vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner and also control the holder drive unit in such a way that the workpiece holder vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner with a same period as a period of the main shaft and in a vibration waveform with a phase difference from a vibration waveform of the main shaft.
However, Degen teaches an improvement for a honing device (10, see Degen fig. 1 and Degen Translation [0020]) wherein the machine includes a control device (Degen Translation [0012]) configured to ensure that oscillating movement between a workpiece carrier and a tool are synchronized (Degen Translation [0012]), and wherein both the workpiece carrier and the tool are configured to be driven in linear oscillation (i.e. a periodic manner) such that their movements are superimposed on each other (Degen Translation [0009]-[0011]).
Degen does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the holder drive unit in such a way that the workpiece holder vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner with a same period as a period of the main shaft and in a vibration waveform with a phase difference from a vibration waveform of the main shaft. However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to possess a basic knowledge of resonant or vibratory behaviors insofar as they have an impact on honing device operations. Because of this, they would be familiar with the basic concepts of superimposing and synchronizing oscillating movements. Because of this, they would be expected to infer that Degen's disclosure of a control device that synchronized linear oscillating movements of a workpiece carrier and a tool (Degen Translation [0009]-[0012]) referred to ensuring that the linearly oscillating movements of each of the elements were occurring at the same frequency/period. Consequently, although Degen does not explicitly recite the frequency or period of the oscillator motion, the term "synchronize" would lead one of ordinary skill to conclude that it does teach such a concept.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Pohlitz according to the teachings from Degen regarding coordinating of a vibration of the holder drive unit and axial direction driver such that it included a controller to control the axial direction driver in such a way that the main shaft vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner and also control the holder drive unit in such a way that the workpiece holder vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner with a same period as a period of the main shaft and in a vibration waveform with a phase difference from a vibration waveform of the main shaft, ad doing so would make it easier to adjust a machine for specific honing tasks (Degen [0012]).
3. Pohlitz as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 2, wherein the controller would be capable of controlling the holder drive unit to cause the workpiece holder to vibrate in a vibration waveform with a phase difference of π radians from a vibration waveform of the main shaft (Degen teaches a controller that can coordinate and/or synchronize the movements of each linear drive unit, and would be capable of adjusting the system such that each drive unit vibrated at the same frequency, but with a phase difference of π radians. Furthermore, the recited phase difference corresponds to a maximum possible stroke length for a given amplitude, as it would result in the peak positive displacement at one end corresponding to the peak negative displacement at the other end, due to being a displacement of half a waveform).
9. Pohlitz as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 2, wherein the holder drive unit includes a rack gear and a pinion gear (linear drive for moving clamp unit 5 may be a toothed rack drive, which one of ordinary skill would understand to refer to a rack and pinion drive, Pohlitz 9:32-35), and that the rack may be mounted on the machine bed (3) and may also be used to move the spindle unit (Pohlitz fig. 1 and 9:49-57).
Because the machine bed (3) has a long length parallel to the rotational axis (Pohlitz fig. 1), a rack gear positioned on the machine bed such that the elements move along it would be parallel to the rotational axis. Therefore, Pohlitz teaches a rack gear having a long length and arranged in such a way that a longitudinal direction of the rack gear is along the first rotational axis.
Similarly, a linear drive using such a rack gear would include at least one pinion gear meshing with the rack gear to move in a direction along its length when rotated, such that it had a rotational axis orthogonal to the extension direction of the rack gear, and consequently orthogonal to the first rotational axis. Consequently, Pohlitz teaches the presence of a pinion gear to rotate about a second rotational axis that is orthogonal to the first rotational axis and mesh with the rack gear on an extension line of the first rotational axis.
10. Pohlitz as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 3, wherein the holder drive unit includes a rack gear and a pinion gear (linear drive for moving clamp unit 5 may be a toothed rack drive, which one of ordinary skill would understand to refer to a rack and pinion drive, Pohlitz 9:32-35), and that the rack may be mounted on the machine bed (3) and may also be used to move the spindle unit (Pohlitz fig. 1 and 9:49-57).
Because the machine bed (3) has a long length parallel to the rotational axis (Pohlitz fig. 1), a rack gear positioned on the machine bed such that the elements move along it would be parallel to the rotational axis. Therefore, Pohlitz teaches a rack gear having a long length and arranged in such a way that a longitudinal direction of the rack gear is along the first rotational axis.
Similarly, a linear drive using such a rack gear would include at least one pinion gear meshing with the rack gear to move in a direction along its length when rotated, such that it had a rotational axis orthogonal to the extension direction of the rack gear, and consequently orthogonal to the first rotational axis. Consequently, Pohlitz teaches the presence of a pinion gear to rotate about a second rotational axis that is orthogonal to the first rotational axis and mesh with the rack gear on an extension line of the first rotational axis.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline in view of Degen.
2. Kline teaches the honing device according to claim 1, but does not teach that it further comprises a controller to control the axial direction driver in such a way that the main shaft vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner and also control the holder drive unit in such a way that the workpiece holder vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner with a same period as a period of the main shaft and in a vibration waveform with a phase difference from a vibration waveform of the main shaft.
However, Degen teaches an improvement for a honing device (10, see Degen fig. 1 and Degen Translation [0020]) wherein the machine includes a control device (Degen Translation [0012]) configured to ensure that oscillating movement between a workpiece carrier and a tool are synchronized (Degen Translation [0012]), and wherein both the workpiece carrier and the tool are configured to be driven in linear oscillation (i.e. a periodic manner) such that their movements are superimposed on each other (Degen Translation [0009]-[0011]).
Degen does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the holder drive unit in such a way that the workpiece holder vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner with a same period as a period of the main shaft and in a vibration waveform with a phase difference from a vibration waveform of the main shaft. However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to possess a basic knowledge of resonant or vibratory behaviors insofar as they have an impact on honing device operations. Because of this, they would be familiar with the basic concepts of superimposing and synchronizing oscillating movements. Because of this, they would be expected to infer that Degen's disclosure of a control device that synchronized linear oscillating movements of a workpiece carrier and a tool (Degen Translation [0009]-[0012]) referred to ensuring that the linearly oscillating movements of each of the elements were occurring at the same frequency/period. Consequently, although Degen does not explicitly recite the frequency or period of the oscillator motion, the term "synchronize" would lead one of ordinary skill to conclude that it does teach such a concept.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Kline according to the teachings from Degen regarding coordinating of a vibration of the holder drive unit and axial direction driver such that it included a controller to control the axial direction driver in such a way that the main shaft vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner and also control the holder drive unit in such a way that the workpiece holder vibrates in a direction along the first rotational axis in a periodic manner with a same period as a period of the main shaft and in a vibration waveform with a phase difference from a vibration waveform of the main shaft, ad doing so would make it easier to adjust a machine for specific honing tasks (Degen [0012]).
3. Kline as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 2, wherein the controller would be capable of controlling the holder drive unit to cause the workpiece holder to vibrate in a vibration waveform with a phase difference of π radians from a vibration waveform of the main shaft (Degen teaches a controller that can coordinate and/or synchronize the movements of each linear drive unit, and would be capable of adjusting the system such that each drive unit vibrated at the same frequency, but with a phase difference of π radians. Furthermore, the recited phase difference corresponds to a maximum possible stroke length for a given amplitude, as it would result in the peak positive displacement at one end corresponding to the peak negative displacement at the other end, due to being a displacement of half a waveform).
13. Kline as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a machine body (44) including a head (45) to collectively hold the honing tool (1), the main shaft (3), the rotation driver (46), and the axial direction driver (head 45 holds each element including means for reciprocating the shaft, see Kline fig. 3 and 5:3-9) and a supporting column (44 includes a column, see Kline fig. 3) having a long length, arranged in an attitude in which a longitudinal direction of the supporting column is along the vertical direction, and configured to support the head at one end on a vertically upper side (head 45 is on an upper side of column 44, see Kline fig. 3), wherein the holder drive unit (29) is fixed to the other end on a vertically lower side of the supporting column (29 is on a lower side of the column of 44, see Kline fig. 3).
14. Kline as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a machine body (44) including a head (45) to collectively hold the honing tool (1), the main shaft (3), the rotation driver (46), and the axial direction driver (head 45 holds each element including means for reciprocating the shaft, see Kline fig. 3 and 5:3-9) and a supporting column (44 includes a column, see Kline fig. 3) having a long length, arranged in an attitude in which a longitudinal direction of the supporting column is along the vertical direction, and configured to support the head at one end on a vertically upper side (head 45 is on an upper side of column 44, see Kline fig. 3), wherein the holder drive unit (29) is fixed to the other end on a vertically lower side of the supporting column (29 is on a lower side of the column of 44, see Kline fig. 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline in view of Hessenkaemper et al. (WO 2012049216, "Hessenkaemper").
6. Kline teaches the honing device according to claim 1, wherein the workpiece holder includes:
a workpiece rotation restrictor to restrict the workpiece from relatively rotating about a central axis of the processed hole with respect to the workpiece holder (workpiece mounting system includes securement against rotation, Kline 4:5-9);
a workpiece axial direction movement restrictor to restrict the workpiece from relatively moving in a central axis direction of the processed hole with respect to the workpiece holder (table 24 prevents motion in an axial direction, see Kline figs. 1 and 3).
Kline does not teach the presence of a workpiece support mechanism to support the workpiece in a movable manner in a direction orthogonal to a direction along the first rotational axis in such a way that a central axis of the processed hole coincides with the first rotational axis.
However, Hessenkaemper teaches the concept of a system for vibration processing (10) including a holder (combination of 3, 11, and 13) for a workpiece (1, see Hessemkaemper fig. 1 and Hessenkaemper Translation [0020]-[0025]), wherein the workpiece holder includes a structure (13) for moving a workpiece along or around various axes to adjust the relative position of a workpiece to a tool and for securing a workpiece during work (Hessemkaemper fig. 1 and Hessenkaemper Translation [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the honing device of Kline according to the teachings from Hessenkaemper regarding a workpiece holder such that it included a workpiece support mechanism to support the workpiece in a movable manner in a direction orthogonal to a direction along the first rotational axis in such a way that a central axis of the processed hole coincides with the first rotational axis, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kline in view of Degen as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, respectively, and further in view of Hessenkaemper.
11. Kline as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 2, wherein the workpiece holder includes:
a workpiece rotation restrictor to restrict the workpiece from relatively rotating about a central axis of the processed hole with respect to the workpiece holder (workpiece mounting system includes securement against rotation, Kline 4:5-9);
a workpiece axial direction movement restrictor to restrict the workpiece from relatively moving in a central axis direction of the processed hole with respect to the workpiece holder (table 24 prevents motion in an axial direction, see Kline figs. 1 and 3).
Kline as modified does not teach the presence of a workpiece support mechanism to support the workpiece in a movable manner in a direction orthogonal to a direction along the first rotational axis in such a way that a central axis of the processed hole coincides with the first rotational axis.
However, Hessenkaemper teaches the concept of a system for vibration processing (10) including a holder (combination of 3, 11, and 13) for a workpiece (1, see Hessemkaemper fig. 1 and Hessenkaemper Translation [0020]-[0025]), wherein the workpiece holder includes a structure (13) for moving a workpiece along or around various axes to adjust the relative position of a workpiece to a tool and for securing a workpiece during work (Hessemkaemper fig. 1 and Hessenkaemper Translation [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the honing device of Kline as modified according to the teachings from Hessenkaemper regarding a workpiece holder such that it included a workpiece support mechanism to support the workpiece in a movable manner in a direction orthogonal to a direction along the first rotational axis in such a way that a central axis of the processed hole coincides with the first rotational axis, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
12. Kline as modified teaches the honing device according to claim 3, wherein the workpiece holder includes:
a workpiece rotation restrictor to restrict the workpiece from relatively rotating about a central axis of the processed hole with respect to the workpiece holder (workpiece mounting system includes securement against rotation, Kline 4:5-9);
a workpiece axial direction movement restrictor to restrict the workpiece from relatively moving in a central axis direction of the processed hole with respect to the workpiece holder (table 24 prevents motion in an axial direction, see Kline figs. 1 and 3).
Kline as modified does not teach the presence of a workpiece support mechanism to support the workpiece in a movable manner in a direction orthogonal to a direction along the first rotational axis in such a way that a central axis of the processed hole coincides with the first rotational axis.
However, Hessenkaemper teaches the concept of a system for vibration processing (10) including a holder (combination of 3, 11, and 13) for a workpiece (1, see Hessemkaemper fig. 1 and Hessenkaemper Translation [0020]-[0025]), wherein the workpiece holder includes a structure (13) for moving a workpiece along or around various axes to adjust the relative position of a workpiece to a tool and for securing a workpiece during work (Hessemkaemper fig. 1 and Hessenkaemper Translation [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the honing device of Kline as modified according to the teachings from Hessenkaemper regarding a workpiece holder such that it included a workpiece support mechanism to support the workpiece in a movable manner in a direction orthogonal to a direction along the first rotational axis in such a way that a central axis of the processed hole coincides with the first rotational axis, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: claims 4 and 8 each recite the additional limitations of “an input device through which a user inputs amplitude ratio information indicating an amplitude ratio of amplitude of a vibration waveform of the main shaft to amplitude of a vibration waveform of the workpiece holder, wherein the controller controls the axial direction driver and the holder drive unit in such a way that the main shaft and the workpiece holder vibrate at an amplitude ratio indicated by the amplitude ratio information.” No art has been identified that teaches or suggests the inclusion of an input device for receiving the claimed amplitude ratio information or a controller configured to control vibration of the axial direction driver and holder drive unit to vibrate at an amplitude ratio indicated by the amplitude ratio information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsuura (JP 2010208004 A) and Hunt (US 1564574) teach relevant aspects of honing devices. Sanuki et al. (US 7727050) and Pöschl (US 5540614) teach relevant aspects of synchronized workpiece movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights