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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshima (EP 1 707 763 A1).
Claim 1:
Takeshima discloses a method for manufacturing cams for a camshaft, comprising:
finish-forging a cam (22 (24)) with a chamfer (46a) disposed between a bearing surface (30) of the cam (22 (24)) and a side surface of the cam, the bearing surface (30) disposed radially outwards of the side surface,
wherein finish-forging the cam with the chamfer includes forming the chamfer by finish-forging in a single forging step (figs. 28-30, [0015]); and,
wherein the chamfer (46a) is not reworked (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 7:
Takeshima discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the cam is cold forged (figs. 28-30, [0015]).
Claim 8:
Takeshima discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the cam has a second chamfer (46b) disposed between the bearing surface and a second sided surface of the cam, and wherein the second chamfer is finish-forged with the chamfer in the single forging step (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11-12, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshima (EP 1 707 763 A1).
Claim 2:
Takeshima discloses the method according to claim 1; wherein the cam is finish-forged; and, Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer having an angle of 5° ≤ α ≤ 40° to a bearing surface. Instead, Takeshima discloses beveled facets (46a, 46b) that are at an undefined angle relative to the bearing surface (figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 5°
≤
α
≤
40° to a bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 2.
Claim 4:
Takeshima discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer having an angle of 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to the bearing surface. Instead, Takeshima discloses beveled facets (46a, 46b) that are at an undefined angle relative to the bearing surface (figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° relative to the bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 4.
Claim 9:
The recitation "a finished-forge chamfer that is not reworked" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Takeshima discloses a cam for a camshaft (abstract), comprising:
a cam body having a cam bore (32) for receiving a shaft, the cam body provided with two side surfaces and a bearing surface (30) disposed radially outwards of the two side surfaces relative to the cam bore (32) (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]);
wherein the cam body (32) has at least one chamfer (46a, 46b) the at least one chamfer (46a, 46b) disposed between the bearing surface (30) and at least one of the two side surfaces (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with at least one finish-forged chamfer having an angle of 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to the bearing surface. Instead, Takeshima discloses beveled facets (46a, 46b) that are at an undefined angle relative to the bearing surface (figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° relative to the bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 9.
Claim 11:
The recitation "the two side surfaces of the cam are ground" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam having two side surfaces.
Takeshima renders obvious the cam according to claim 9, a cam body having a cam bore (32) for receiving a shaft, the cam body provided with two side surfaces and a bearing surface (30) disposed radially outwards of the two side surfaces relative to the cam bore (32) (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]);
wherein the cam body (32) has at least one chamfer (46a, 46b) the at least one chamfer (46a, 46b) disposed between the bearing surface (30) and at least one of the two side surfaces (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 12:
Takeshima renders obvious the cam according to claim 9, wherein the at least one finish-forged chamfer has an area with a linear chamfer surface in cross-section (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 17:
The recitation "a finished-forge chamfer that is not reworked" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Takeshima discloses a cam for a camshaft (abstract), comprising:
a chamfer (46a, 46b) disposed between a bearing surface (30) of the cam (22 (24)) and a side surface of the cam (22 (24)), the bearing surface (30) disposed radially outwards of the side surface (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with at least one finish-forged chamfer having an angle of 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to the bearing surface. Instead, Takeshima discloses beveled facets (46a, 46b) that are at an undefined angle relative to the bearing surface (figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° relative to the bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 17.
Claim 18:
The recitation "the cam is cold-forged" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Takeshima renders obvious the cam of claim 17, wherein the cam is cold forged (figs. 28-30, [0015]).
Claim 19:
Takeshima renders obvious the cam of claim 17, wherein the chamfer has an area with a linear chamfer surface in cross-section (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 22:
The recitation "the bearing surface is ground after the at least one finished-forged chamfer is formed" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is the cam according to claim 9.
Takeshima renders obvious the cam according to claim 9 as recited above (Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037], and [0040]).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (US 2010/0224145 A1) in view of Takeshima (EP 1 707 763 A1).
Claim 1:
Mueller discloses a method for manufacturing cams for a camshaft, comprising: finish-forging a cam (1a) with a chamfer (4) disposed between a bearing surface (6) of the cam and a side surface of the cam, wherein the chamfer (4) is not reworked (figs. 1-4, [0036] and [0048]). Mueller fails to disclose the bearing surface is the circumferentially outer surface of the cam. Instead, Mueller discloses a cylindrical bore bearing surface (figs. 1-4, [0036] and [0048]).
Takeshima discloses a cam (22 (24)) with a chamfer (46a, 46b) disposed between a bearing surface (30) of the cam (22 (24)) and a side surface of the cam, the bearing surface (30) disposed radially outwards of the side surface, wherein finish-forging the cam with the chamfer includes forming the chamfer by finish-forging in a single forging step (figs. 28-30, [0015]); and, wherein the chamfer (46a, 46b) is not reworked (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cam of Mueller with a beveled/chamfered transition between the outer circumferential cam surface and the side surface as taught by Takeshima because Takeshima teaches that such chamfered surfaces facilitate manufacture by preventing rupture-surface burr formation during subsequent processing operations and reducing or eliminating deburring operations, thereby improving manufacturing efficiency and reducing post-forming finishing requirement (Takeshima, [0048]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both prior art references are drawn to finish-forging cams for camshafts.
Claim 2:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1; wherein the cam is finish-forged; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer having an angle of 5° ≤ α ≤ 40° to the bearing surface. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious an angle, α, that is undefined to a bearing surface (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0037] and Takeshima, figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller in view of Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 5°
≤
α
≤
40° to a bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 2.
Claim 4:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer having an angle of 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to the bearing surface. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious an angle, α, that is undefined relative to the bearing surface (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0037] and Takeshima, figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller in view of Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° relative to the bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 4.
Claim 5:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the chamfer is finish-forged at least in an area with a radius of R ≤ 2.0 mm. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the chamfer has a radius, R, of undefined size (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller in view of Takeshima to provide a chamfer having a radius, R, within the claimed range of R
≤
2.0 mm in at least an area, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 5.
Claim 7:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the cam is cold forged (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0048] and Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015]).
Claim 8:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the cam has a second chamfer (Takeshima, 46b) disposed between the bearing surface and a second sided surface of the cam, and wherein the second (Takeshima, 46b) chamfer is finish-forged with the chamfer in the single forging step (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 9:
The recitation "a finished-forge chamfer that is not reworked" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Mueller discloses a cam for a camshaft (abstract), comprising:
a cam body (1) having a cam bore (A) for receiving a shaft (2), the cam body (1) provided with two side surfaces and a bearing surface (6) (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]); wherein the cam body (1) has at least one chamfer (4) the at least one chamfer (4) disposed between the bearing surface (6) and at least one of the two side surfaces (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]).
Mueller fails to disclose the bearing surface is the circumferentially outer surface of the cam. Instead, Mueller discloses a cylindrical bore bearing surface (figs. 1-4, [0036] and [0048]).
Takeshima discloses a cam (22 (24)) with a chamfer (46a, 46b) disposed between a bearing surface (30) of the cam (22 (24)) and a side surface of the cam, the bearing surface (30) disposed radially outwards of the side surface, wherein the chamfer (46a, 46b) is not reworked (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cam of Mueller with a beveled/chamfered transition between the outer circumferential cam surface and the side surface as taught by Takeshima because Takeshima teaches that such chamfered surfaces facilitate manufacture by preventing rupture-surface burr formation during subsequent processing operations and reducing or eliminating deburring operations, thereby improving manufacturing efficiency and reducing post-forming finishing requirement (Takeshima, [0048]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both prior art references are drawn to finish-forging cams for camshafts.
Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with at least one finish-forged chamfer having an angle of 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to the bearing surface. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious beveled facets (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) that are at an undefined angle relative to the bearing surface (figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller in view of Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° relative to the bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 9.
Claim 10:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the cam according to claim 9; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the at least one finished-forged chamfer has a radius of R ≤= 2.0 mm at least in an area. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the chamfer has a radius, R, of undefined size (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller in view of Takeshima to provide a chamfer having a radius, R, within the claimed range of R
≤
2.0 mm in at least an area, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 10.
Claim 11:
The recitation "the two side surfaces of the cam are ground" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam having two side surfaces.
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious a cam for a camshaft, comprising: a cam (Mueller, 1 or Takeshima, 22 (24)) with a chamfer (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) disposed between a bearing surface (Takeshima, 30) of the cam (Mueller, 1 or Takeshima, 22 (24)) and a side surface of the cam, the bearing surface (Takeshima, 30) disposed radially outwards of the side surface, wherein the chamfer (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) is not reworked (Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 12:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the cam according to claim 9, wherein the at least one finish-forged chamfer (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) has an area with a linear chamfer surface in cross-section (Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 13:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the cam according to claim 9, wherein the at least one finished-forged chamfer has an area with a curved chamfer surface in cross-section (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0037]).
Claim 17:
The recitation "a finished-forge chamfer that is not reworked" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Mueller discloses a cam for a camshaft (abstract), comprising:
a cam body (1) having a cam bore (A) for receiving a shaft (2), the cam body (1) provided with two side surfaces and a bearing surface (6) (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]); wherein the cam body (1) has at least one chamfer (4) the at least one chamfer (4) disposed between the bearing surface (6) and at least one of the two side surfaces (figs. 1-5, [0035] and [0036]).
Mueller fails to disclose the bearing surface is the circumferentially outer surface of the cam. Instead, Mueller discloses a cylindrical bore bearing surface (figs. 1-4, [0036] and [0048]).
Takeshima discloses a cam (22 (24)) with a chamfer (46a, 46b) disposed between a bearing surface (30) of the cam (22 (24)) and a side surface of the cam, the bearing surface (30) disposed radially outwards of the side surface, wherein the chamfer (46a, 46b) is not reworked (figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the cam of Mueller with a beveled/chamfered transition between the outer circumferential cam surface and the side surface as taught by Takeshima because Takeshima teaches that such chamfered surfaces facilitate manufacture by preventing rupture-surface burr formation during subsequent processing operations and reducing or eliminating deburring operations, thereby improving manufacturing efficiency and reducing post-forming finishing requirement (Takeshima, [0048]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both prior art references are drawn to finish-forging cams for camshafts.
Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with at least one finish-forged chamfer having an angle of 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° to the bearing surface. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious beveled facets (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) that are at an undefined angle relative to the bearing surface (figs. 24-26, [0052]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller in view of Takeshima to provide a chamfer having an angle, α, within the claimed range of between 10° ≤ α ≤ 30° relative to the bearing surface, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 9.
Claim 18:
The recitation "the cam is cold-forged" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is a cam with a chamfer for a camshaft.
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious a cam for a camshaft, comprising: a cam (Mueller, 1 or Takeshima, 22 (24)) with a chamfer (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) disposed between a bearing surface (Takeshima, 30) of the cam (Mueller, 1 or Takeshima, 22 (24)) and a side surface of the cam, the bearing surface (Takeshima, 30) disposed radially outwards of the side surface, wherein the chamfer (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) is not reworked (Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 19:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the cam of claim 17, wherein the chamfer has an area with a linear chamfer surface in cross-section (Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037] and [0040]).
Claim 20:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the cam of claim 17; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the chamfer has a radius of R ≤ 2.0 mm at least in an area. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the chamfer has a radius, R, of undefined size (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0037]). MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Mueller in view of Takeshima to provide a chamfer having a radius, R within the claimed range of R
≤
2.0 mm in at least an area, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 20.
Claim 22:
The recitation "the bearing surface is ground after the at least one finished-forged chamfer is formed" is a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP § 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP § 2113. The structure implied by the abovementioned steps is the cam according to claim 9.
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the cam according to claim 9 as recited above (Mueller figs. 1-5, [0035], [0036], and [0048] and Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015], [0037], and [0040]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Takeshima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vogel et al. (US 2008/0173128 A1).
Claim 6:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose grinding the side surface of the cam. Instead, in Mueller view of Takeshima discloses the orifice A (which includes the chamfer) may be produced by rough turning, drilling, sintering or even forging without any finishing work (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0036]).
Vogel discloses a method of producing a cam (abstract, [0017]) comprising forging a cam (3) with an orifice (60), wherein the orifice is finish formed by turning (figs. 1-3, [0047]); wherein the side surfaces of the cam are formed by grinding (figs. 1-3, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to grind the side surfaces of the Mueller/Takeshima cam as taught by Vogel in order to manufacture the cam to the final dimension (Vogel, [0047]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both prior art references are drawn to manufacturing a cam and the base reference discloses a cam orifice may be produced by turning, drilling sintering or forging (Mueller, [0036]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Takeshima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thielenhaus et al. (US 3,548,546).
Claim 15:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose grinding the side surface of the cam and a second side surface of a second cam simultaneously. Instead, Mueller in view of Takeshima teaches the cam may be formed by rough turning, drilling or sintering (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0036]).
Thielenhaus discloses a method and apparatus for machining a toroidal surface (col. 1, lines 27-30); further comprising grinding a side surface of a cam (4, 13) and a second side surface of a second cam (4, 13) (figs. 1-4, col. 2, lines 50-51 and col. 3, lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Mueller in view of Takeshima by using the grinding apparatus of Thielenhaus in order to simultaneously grind the side surfaces of the cams as further taught by Thielenhaus (Thielenhaus, figs. 1-4, col. 1, lines 59-62, col. 2, lines 50-51 and col. 3, lines 24-28). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Takeshima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karlsrud (US 5,274,960).
Claim 16:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1, further comprising forming a cam bore without pre-machining (finish-forged cam bore); and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose simultaneously grinding the side surfaces. Karlsrud discloses a machine for simultaneously finishing two sides of a workpiece (abstract) further comprising simultaneously grinding two sides of a workpiece (col. 6, lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method for manufacturing cams for a camshaft of Mueller in view of Takeshima by simultaneously grinding the side surfaces of the cam as taught by Karlsrud in order to provide uniform stock removal at all points on the side surfaces of the cam (Karlsrud, col. 6, lines 50-59). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 4,660,269).
Claim 21:
Takeshima discloses the method according to claim 1; including forming the peripheral beveled facets (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) during cold forging. Takeshima subsequently renders obvious performing profile drawing on the outer circumferential surface corresponding to the final cam profile, while expressly stating that this subsequent operation is performed without affecting the previously formed beveled facets (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) (Takeshima, figs.28-30, [0052]). Therefore, Takeshima establishes a manufacturing sequence in which the beveled facet/chamber is established by forging and is retained, without reworking, while additional processing of the cam occurs.
Takeshima fails to disclose grinding the bearing surface after finish-forging the chamfer. Instead, the objective of Takeshima is generally to obtain sufficient dimensional accuracy and surface roughness through its cold-forging operations so that final machining of the chamfer can be avoided.
Suzuki teaches another method manufacturing a camshaft in which a cam piece is formed by forging (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 22-26) and the cam surface is thereafter subjected to surface processing, including grinding, to provide the finished cam piece (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Takeshima method to include grinding the bearing surface of the cam after finish-forging the chamfer, as taught by Suzuki, in order to provide the bearing surface with a desired final surface finish and dimensional accuracy. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because Suzuki demonstrates that grinding a cam surface after forging was a known finishing operation in the manufacture of camshafts and applying Suzuki’s known grinding operation to the bearing surface of Takeshima’s cam after formation of the finish-forged chamfer would have amounted to the predictable use of a known finishing technique for its known purpose of finishing the functional cam surface. Such a modification would not require reworking the finish-forged chamfer, because claim 21 requires grinding the bearing surface, rather than grinding the chamfer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller in view of Takeshima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 4,660,269).
Claim 21:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the method according to claim 1; including forming the peripheral beveled facets (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) during cold forging. Mueller in view of Takeshima subsequently renders obvious performing profile drawing on the outer circumferential surface corresponding to the final cam profile, while expressly stating that this subsequent operation is performed without affecting the previously formed beveled facets (Takeshima, 46a, 46b) (Takeshima, figs.28-30, [0052]). Therefore, Mueller in view of Takeshima establishes a manufacturing sequence in which the beveled facet/chamber is established by forging and is retained, without reworking, while additional processing of the cam occurs.
Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose grinding the bearing surface after finish-forging the chamfer. Instead, the objective of Mueller in view of Takeshima is generally to obtain sufficient dimensional accuracy and surface roughness through its cold-forging operations so that final machining of the chamfer can be avoided.
Suzuki teaches another method manufacturing a camshaft in which a cam piece is formed by forging (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 22-26) and the cam surface is thereafter subjected to surface processing, including grinding, to provide the finished cam piece (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Mueller/Takeshima method to include grinding the bearing surface of the cam after finish-forging the chamfer, as taught by Suzuki, in order to provide the bearing surface with a desired final surface finish and dimensional accuracy. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because Suzuki demonstrates that grinding a cam surface after forging was a known finishing operation in the manufacture of camshafts and applying Suzuki’s known grinding operation to the bearing surface of Mueller/Takeshima’s cam after formation of the finish-forged chamfer would have amounted to the predictable use of a known finishing technique for its known purpose of finishing the functional cam surface. Such a modification would not require reworking the finish-forged chamfer, because claim 21 requires grinding the bearing surface, rather than grinding the chamfer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 01 September 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Takeshima fails to disclose “finish-forging the cam with the chamfer includes forming the chamfer by finish-forging in a single forging step.” In particular, Applicant argues that Takeshima employs multiple forging operations S2-S7 and that beveled facets (46a, 46b) are formed during preliminary profile upsetting step S2, which Applicant characterizes as an intermediate rather than finish-forging step.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant acknowledges that the beveled facets (46a, 46b) relied upon by the Examiner as the claimed chamfers are formed during a single forging step, namely preliminary profile upsetting step S2. The fact that Takeshima subsequently performs additional forging operations on other portions of the cam does not establish that the beveled facets themselves are not finish-forged during step S2. The claim requires that forming the chamfer by finish-forging occur “in a single forging step.” The claim does not require that the single forging step forming the chamfer be the final forging operation performed on the cam as a whole, nor does the claim preclude subsequent forging or other processing of portions of the cam other than the already-formed chamfer.
Takeshima expressly supports the Examiner's interpretation. As acknowledged by Applicant, Takeshima teaches that during the subsequent profile drawing operation, the process is performed “without affecting the first and second beveled facets (46a, 46b) that were formed in the previous process.” Thus, the subsequent forging of the cam does not further form or alter the beveled facets. Rather, the facets are formed during the single S2 forging operation and retain that formed geometry during subsequent processing. Therefore, the existence of subsequent forging operations directed to other portions of the cam does not distinguish the claimed finish-forging of the chamfer from Takeshima.
Applicant further argues that the final product is not obtained until Takeshima's subsequent ironing operation and therefore characterizes the facets formed in S2 as merely “pre-forged features.” This argument is not persuasive because it treats finish-forging of the claimed chamfer as requiring completion of the forging of the entire cam. Claim 1 does not impose such a requirement. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the chamfer itself is formed to its finished forged configuration in the recited single forging step. Takeshima's express disclosure that subsequent profile drawing occurs without affecting the previously formed facets supports the finding that the facets have already been formed to the configuration retained through those subsequent operations.
Therefore, Applicant's amendment specifying formation of the chamfer by finish-forging “in a single forging step” does not distinguish claim 1 from Takeshima.
Regarding the rejection over Mueller in view of Takeshima, Applicant argues that Mueller's run-in chamfer (4) is located at the internal cam bore and serves a different function from the claimed chamfer between the radially outer bearing surface and side surface. Applicant further argues that there would have been no reason to modify Mueller in view of Takeshima.
Applicant's argument does not address the rejection as a whole. The rejection does not rely upon Mueller alone for the location and configuration of the claimed outer chamfer. Rather, Takeshima is relied upon for its teaching of beveled facets at the transition between the outer circumferential cam region and the side surfaces. Takeshima further teaches that the beveled facets facilitate manufacture by preventing formation of an undesirable ruptured-surface burr during subsequent processing. Thus, the proposed modification is based upon Takeshima's express manufacturing teaching concerning the peripheral beveled facets, rather than upon treating Mueller's internal run-in chamfer as itself satisfying the claimed outer chamfer configuration.
Applicant additionally argues that Takeshima's facets are specifically useful because additional manufacturing operations follow their formation and that the claimed single-step finish-forging eliminates such subsequent forging operations. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Claim 1 does not recite that no forging operation may occur after finish-forging the chamfer. It requires that the chamfer itself be formed by finish-forging in a single forging step. Takeshima forms the relied-upon facets in S2 and expressly teaches that the subsequent profile drawing operation does not affect those facets.
Regarding independent claims 9 and 17, Applicant argues that the claimed chamfer angle of 10° < α < 30° is critical because paragraph [0024] states that, within this range, subsequent deburring can be dispensed with. The Examiner has considered this argument but does not find it persuasive. Applicant's own specification characterizes the claimed angular range as a preferred subset of angles that ordinarily occur between a chamfer and a cam bearing surface. In particular, paragraph [0008] states that the disclosed angle ranges “cover all the angles that usually occur between the chamfer and the cam bearing surface.” Thus, the claimed range is within the range of chamfer angles characterized by Applicant as ordinarily occurring in the art.
Moreover, the specification does not establish that the claimed endpoints of 10° and 30° produce an unexpected or critical result. Rather, paragraph [0024] describes a predictable relationship between chamfer angle and burr formation, expressly stating that “[t]he smaller the angle α, the lower the tendency for burr formation when grinding the bearing surface.” The disclosure therefore identifies chamfer angle as a variable affecting the degree of burr formation and teaches the direction in which that variable is adjusted to reduce burr formation. The additional statement that subsequent deburring can be dispensed with at angles of 10° to 30° identifies an advantageous result within the disclosed continuum, but does not establish an unexpected result or demonstrate criticality of the claimed endpoints.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Applicant argues that Takeshima's two beveled facets (46a, 46b) are not both finish-forged in the same single forging step because S2 is merely an intermediate forging operation.
The argument is not persuasive for substantially the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Applicant acknowledges that both beveled facets (46a, 46b) are formed during the same preliminary profile upsetting step S2. Takeshima further expressly states that the subsequent profile drawing operation occurs without affecting either previously formed facet. Accordingly, the relied-upon first and second chamfers are formed together in a single forging step, and subsequent forging of other portions of the cam does not establish that the previously formed facets were not finish-forged.
Regarding new claim 21, Applicant argues that neither Takeshima nor Mueller teaches “grinding the bearing surface after finish-forging the chamfer” and further argues that Takeshima teaches away from grinding because Takeshima seeks to eliminate finishing operations such as cutting or grinding.
Applicant's arguments regarding the absence of grinding in Takeshima have been considered. However, the rejection of claim 21 has been newly formulated in view of Suzuki. While Takeshima teaches forming the relied-upon beveled facet during forging and subsequently processing the cam without affecting that facet, Suzuki provides evidence that subsequent grinding of a cam surface was a known camshaft manufacturing operation. Suzuki teaches forming cam disks approximately to their desired cam profiles by, inter alia, forging, and thereafter expressly teaches subjecting the cam surfaces to finishing by grinding.
Applicant further argues that Takeshima “expressly teaches away” from grinding the bearing surface because Takeshima states that its final product “does not require” finishing, such as cutting, polishing, or grinding. Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Takeshima's disclosure that such finishing is not required does not constitute a teaching that subsequent grinding cannot or should not be performed. Applicant has not identified, and the Examiner does not find, any disclosure in Takeshima criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging subsequent grinding of a cam surface. Rather, Takeshima teaches that its forging process may provide sufficient dimensional accuracy and surface roughness such that subsequent finishing may be unnecessary. A disclosure that an additional manufacturing operation is unnecessary is not equivalent to a disclosure that the operation is undesirable, detrimental, incompatible with the resulting cam, or should be avoided. Takeshima therefore does not teach away from subsequently grinding the cam surface.
Moreover, the proposed modification does not require changing Takeshima's forging process or reworking Takeshima's finish-forged chamfer. Suzuki is relied upon for the known practice of subsequently grinding a cam surface after forging. Suzuki expressly teaches that cam disks may be formed approximately to their desired cam profiles by forging and thereafter teaches finishing the cam surfaces by grinding. Thus, although Takeshima teaches that subsequent grinding may not be necessary to obtain its final cam product, Suzuki establishes that subsequent grinding of a forged cam surface was nevertheless a known finishing technique. The proposed combination merely applies that known finishing technique to Takeshima's bearing surface while leaving the previously finish-forged chamfer unreworked.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Muster (US 2008/0276888 A1) discloses cams for camshafts. Curlic (DE 10 2016 123 557 A1) discloses a method for producing cams for camshafts.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
