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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 May 2026 has been entered.
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, 7-9, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshima (EP 1 707 763 A1).
Claim 1:
Takeshima disclose a method for manufacturing cams for a camshaft, comprising:
finish-forging 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]).
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 is finish-forged with the chamfer in a single forging step (figs. 28-30, [0015]). Examiner note: Claim 8 does not exclude the presence of additional forging operations. The claim merely requires that the cam be finish-forged with the chamfer in a single forging step. Because claim 1 employs the open transitional phrase “comprising,” the method may include additional forging operations before the finish-forging step.
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]).
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 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]).
Claim 12:
Takeshima discloses 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]).
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 discloses a cam (22 (24)) with a chamfer (46a, 46b) (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, 14 and 19 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 3:
Takeshima discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Takeshima fails to disclose the cam is finish-forged with the chamfer at an angle of 8° ≤ α ≤ 37° 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 8° ≤ α ≤ 37° to 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 3.
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 14:
Takeshima discloses the cam of claim 9; and Takeshima fails to disclose the at least one finish-forged chamfer has an angle of 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 14.
Claim 19:
Takeshima discloses the cam of claim 17; and, Takeshima fails to disclose the chamfer has an angle of 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 19.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 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 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 3:
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 at an angle of 8° ≤ α ≤ 37° 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 8° ≤ α ≤ 37° to 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 3.
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 is finish-forged with the chamfer in a single forging step (Mueller, figs. 1-4, [0048] and Takeshima, figs. 28-30, [0015]). Examiner note: Claim 8 does not exclude the presence of additional forging operations. The claim merely requires that the cam be finish-forged with the chamfer in a single forging step. Because claim 1 employs the open transitional phrase “comprising,” the method may include additional forging operations before the finish-forging step.
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.
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 (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 14:
Mueller in view of Takeshima renders obvious the cam of claim 9; and Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the at least one finish-forged chamfer has an angle of 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 14.
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.
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; and, Mueller in view of Takeshima fails to disclose the chamfer has an angle of 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 5°
≤
α
≤
40° 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 19.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 09 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 25 U.S.C 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claimed invention to resolve the issue. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
On page 10, Applicant argues the claimed bearing surface is limited to the running surface, raceway, or cam tread. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because they rely upon the location of reference numeral 2 in the drawings rather than the language of the claims. The claims recite a “bearing surface” and do not recite an outer circumferential surface, cam profile surface, raceway, tread or running surface. Limitations appearing in a preferred embodiment are not imported into the claims absent a clear intent to define the term. The mere identification of a bearing surface as element 2 in the drawings does not constitute lexicography requiring the term “bearing surface” to be limited to the outer cam profile.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 09 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takeshima (EP 1 707 763 A1).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights