DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 sets forth “at least one pair of rolling tools” in line 5 and then claims “at least one pair of rolling tools” in claim 9 and “at least one pair of rolling tools” in line 13, it is not clear if the pair of rolling tools claimed in lines 9 and 13 are the same pair as set forth in line 5 or different pairs of rolling tools. Claim 11, claims “the rolling tools” it is not clear if this is referring to the pair of rolling tools set forth in claim 5 or the pair of rolling tools claimed in line 9. It appears that claims 9-10 and 13-14 are identical recitations and it is not clear if this language was intentionally repeated or not. Line 16 claims “at least one axial slide”, it is not clear if this is the same movable axial slide claimed in line 9 or a different axial slide.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the vertical direction" bridging lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A horizontal direction and a vertical direction have not been set forth in the and it isn’t clear what frame of reference “vertical dimension” is.
Claim 15 uses “and/or” language and it is not clear if the changing apparatus is rotatable and displaceable since the displaceable option is already claimed in claim 14, line 15.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the vertical direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20, bridging lines 1 and 2 claims “at least one axial slide”, it is not clear if this is the same movable axial slide claimed in claim 14, line 9 or a different axial slide.
Claim 21, bridging lines 1 and 2 claims “at least one rolling tool”, it is not clear is this is referring to the at least one pair of rolling tools set forth in claim 14, line 5 or a different rolling tool limitation.
Claim 22, bridging lines 1 and 2 claims “each rolling tool” it is not clear what this limitation is referring to, is it the “at least one pair of rolling tools” set forth in claim 14, line 5 or a different rolling tool.
Claim 23, bridging lines 1 and 2 claims “at least one pivotably mounted rolling tool” it is not clear if this limitation is further limiting the “at least one pair of rolling tools” set forth in claim 14, line 5 or is claiming another, new tool limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asari et al. (4,669,291). Asari discloses a machining device comprising two live centers (11,16) arranged on a central axis (horizontal axis between live centers; Fig. 1) for receiving a shaft workpiece (12) and a drive (17; col. 5, lines 23-25) for rotating the shaft (12; col. 6, lines 52-55). Asari discloses at least one pair of rolling tools (34,35,36; 34’,35’,36’; Fig. 6; col. 5, lines 64-66) for working the shaft, the rolling tools are arranged on a movable axial slide (22; col. 5, lines 58-60) which is displaceable along the central axis (col. 6, lines 30-35). The rolling tools (34,35,36) are displaceable in a radial direction (col. 6, lines 20-26 and col. 6, lines 60-65) relative to the central axis to machine the workpiece (12). Asari discloses at least one changing apparatus (201,202,218,218a) for changing the rolling tools (203a,203b,203c; 204a,204b,204c; Fig. 17) and that on at least one axial slide (201,202; col. 12, lines 6-10) there is arranged a shaft support (218) that is displaceable (piston rod, 218a) in a vertical direction (upward, Fig. 17; col. 11, lines 60-65) to tilt the slide platform (201) and slide the axial slide (202; Figs. 15A-15E) to exchange new rolling tools (204a,204b,204c) for used rolling tools (203a,203b,203c; col. 12, lines 67-68 and col. 13, lines 1-4 and 10-12).
Regarding claim 15, the changing apparatus slide (201,202) is displaceable in a vertical direction (upward, Fig. 17; col. 11, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 16, the changing apparatus (201,202,218,218a) has at least two receptacles (211,213; col. 12, lines 26-32) for rolling tools.
Regarding claim 17, the changing apparatus has a clamping device (206,209a,209b,210; col.12, lines 10-14 and 19-20).
Regarding claim 18, the changing apparatus is arranged in the region of the live centers as it is attached to the machine (col. 11, 45-48) and configured to move the movable axial slide for the rolling tools into position on a rotating table (109; Fig. 10) for placing the new set of rolls into the machine.
Regarding claim 19, the device includes two or more pairs of rolling tools (34,35,36; 34’,35’,36’; Fig. 6; col. 5, lines 64-66).
Regarding claim 20, on the axial slide (22) there are arranged at least two radial slides (27,28,29) for bring the rolling tools (34,35,36) into a radial position for working the workpiece (12; col. 6, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 22, the rolling tools (34,35,36) comprise a rolling cylinder (Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asari et al. (4,669,291) in view of Kostermeier (5,676,007). Asari discloses two pairs of rolling tools (Fig. 6) on opposite sides of the workpiece but does not disclose that they are pivoted. Kostermeier teaches pivotal pairs of rolling tools (55,55’; 65,65’; col. 5, lines 62-65) which are pivoted to move the rolling tools radially into contact with a shaft workpiece (7). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the rolling tools of Asari to be pivotable as taught by Kostermeier in order to move both pairs of rolling tools radially inwardly at the same time to contact opposite sides of the workpiece Regarding claim 23, Kostermeier teaches that pivot axes (50,60) for the pair of rolling tools (55,55’; 65,65’) are located a short distance in a vertical direction from a contact position of the rolling tools and the workpiece (Fig. 1) and teaches that a high degree of stability is provided (col. 3, lines 59-62), it is an obvious modification to design the lever arm to have a low torque with the distance approaching zero to produce high stability at the point of contact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights