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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election (of Group I, drawn to a method for hard finishing) was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 21, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the arrangement wherein only two of the three contactless sensors are arranged on a common support arm (as encompassed by the first alternative of claim 17 re “wherein two…of the first contactless sensor, the second contactless sensor, and the third contactless sensor are arranged on a common support arm”).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 and 16-18 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.
In claim 1, line 9, the claim recites “to enable tool engagement for carrying out the respective machining process”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being engaged, i.e., the engagement of (presumably some unspecified tool) what tool (or tools) with what else?
In claim 1, lines 11-12, and in claim 1, lines 14-15, it is unclear as claimed what is meant by “a rotational axis position of the workpiece spindle”. For example, it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to mean, (as the claim appears to) literally (say), “a (some) position of a rotational axis of the workpiece spindle”, vs. whether this limitation is instead intended to mean “a position of the workpiece spindle about a rotational axis of the workpiece spindle”, vs. whether this limitation is instead intended to mean “a position of the workpiece spindle along a rotational axis of the workpiece spindle”, or something else entirely.
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the workpiece spindle holding and clamping the workpiece clamped for the first machining process” as set forth in claim 1, lines 12-13 (noting that no reference to “clamping” was previously set forth, nor did the claim previously recite any workpiece spindle that “hold[s] and clamp[s] the workpiece clamped for the first machining process”, specifically);
“the workpiece spindle holding and clamping the workpiece clamped for the second machining process” as set forth in claim 1, lines 15-16 (noting that the claim did not previously recite any workpiece spindle that “hold[s] and clamp[s] the workpiece clamped for the second machining process”);
“the difference between the first and second rotational position references” in claim 1, lines 20-21 (noting that no such difference was previously recited, nor is it inherent that there is a difference between the two rotational position references);
“said workpiece spindle of said gear hard finishing machine” in claim 1, line 18 (noting that it is unclear whether plural such workpiece spindles were previously recited, given the lack of clear antecedent bases/basis in lines 12-13 and 15-16, respectively, re the limitations “the workpiece spindle holding and clamping the workpiece clamped for the first machining process” and “the workpiece spindle holding and clamping the workpiece clamped for the second machining process”, and given the additional recitation in lines 2-3 re the “rotatable workpiece spindle of a gear hard finishing machine”);
“the relative rotational position of the first toothing…” in claim 1, lines 21-22;
“the rotational position of the second toothing” in claim 1, lines 22-23;
“the selected reference tooth” in claims 4 and 7 (particularly given the lack of clarity in claim 3 as to how many reference teeth/toothings are being referenced, described in a separate rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 112(b) hereinbelow);
“the first and second rotational position references for engagement with the first and/or second hard finishing tool” (note that no such first and second rotational position references that are, specifically, “for engagement with the first and/or second hard finishing tool” were previously recited);
“the first workpiece to be hard finished” in claim 6, line 2, and also “the first workpiece” in claim 6, line 5 (noting that claim 5 set forth plural “first” workpiece to be hard finished, i.e., “a first workpiece of a batch of identical workpieces to be hard finished”, and “a first workpiece to be hard finished after a replacement or resharpening/profiling of at least one of the first and/or second hard finishing tools”);
“”the workpiece spindle axis” in claim 6 (noting the clarity issues described re claim 1 as to how many spindles, etc., are intended to be required in claim 1);
“the first and/or second relative rotational angle positions determined for the first workpiece” in claim 6 (noting that “the first workpiece” lacks clear antecedent basis as noted above, and also noting that no first and/or second “relative rotational positions” that are, specifically, for any “first” workpiece were previously recited);
“the rotational position of the workpiece spindle axis” in claim 6 (noting the clarity issues described re claim 1 as to how many spindles, etc., are intended to be required in claim 1, and noting that it is unclear as claimed which specific rotational position of such an axis, per se, is intended);
“each workpiece” in claim 7 (in the event that claim 1 was intended to only reference a single workpiece);
“the marking” in claim 7;
“the workpieces with said first toothing and said second toothing” in claim 16 (unclear how many workpieces were intended to be recited in claim 1, but it appears that the first toothing and the second toothing were only previously recited as of one workpiece);
“the first toothing” in claim 16, lines 4-5 and line 8 (noting that claim 16 lines 2-3 previously set forth “the workpieces with said first toothing and said second toothing”, such that it appears that plural first toothings may be intended to be recited, rendering it unclear which specific “first toothing” is intended to be referenced in lines 4-5 via the recitation of “the first toothing”);
“the second toothing” in claim 16, lines 5-6, and line 8 (noting that it is unclear as claimed whether such intends to refer to the “second toothing” of a workpiece, previously set forth in claim 1, or whether such instead intends to refer to a particular toothing of the “first and second toothings” of the plural workpieces as recited in, for example, claim 16, line 2);
“the workpieces” in claim 16, line 2 (unclear which plural workpieces are intended to be referenced); and
“the workpiece” in claim 16, line 6 (noting that it is unclear which specific previously-recited “workpiece” is intended to be referenced, i.e., one of the ones of claim 1, or, in the event that claim 1 only intended to recite a single workpiece, the workpiece of claim 1, or to one of the plural workpieces of claim 16, line 2, and if so, which one of the plural workpieces of claim 16, line 2).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 17-18, the claim sets forth “characterized in that the first and second machining processes are carried out on said workpiece spindle of said gear hard finishing machine…”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends, as it literally says, that plural machining operations are carried out on the workpiece spindle, i.e., the workpiece spindle is itself being machined. In the event that the claim actually intends for the claim to reference machining of the workpiece, or possibly of the first and second toothings of the workpiece, rather than of the workpiece spindle, appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, last three lines, the claim sets forth “defining the relative rotational position of the first toothing with respect to the rotational position of the second toothing for the first and second machining processes”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “for the first and second machining processes” is intended to only go with “the rotational position of the second toothing”, or whether “for the first and second machining processes” is also intended to go with “the relative rotational position of the first toothing”.
In claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the first and second rotational position references consists of a rotational angle difference (∆φ) between the first and second rotational position references”. However, it is unclear how or in what regard the first and second rotational position references can “consists of” (sic) a rotational angle difference between themselves. For example, calling a first rotational position reference “φ1” and a second rotational position reference “φ2”, claim 2 essentially indicates that φ1 and φ2 “consists of” a difference (∆φ) between φ1 and φ2, which is unclear (i.e., φ1 and φ2 are φ1 and φ2; φ1 and φ2 are not “φ1 minus φ2” or “φ2 minus φ1”). (See also Figure 2, for example.)
Regarding claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the first and second rotational position references are assigned to a prespecified reference comprising a selected reference tooth (21) of a toothing (2)”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends that each of the first and second rotational position references are to be considered to be assigned to a common prespecified reference comprising a selected (one, i.e., the same) reference tooth of a (same/common) reference toothing, or whether the claim instead intends that each of the first and second rotational position references are to be considered to be assigned to a respective selected reference tooth of a respective toothing. That said, it is unclear how many prespecified references are being claimed: one vs. two. It is also unclear how many selected reference teeth are being claimed, i.e., one vs. two. It is also unclear how many toothings are being claimed (in the last line of claim 3), i.e., one vs. two. Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed whether “a toothing” is intended to be additional to the previously-recited “two different toothings”, and/or to the previously-recited “first toothing” and “second toothing”, or whether “a toothing” is instead intended to refer to one of the previously-recited “two different toothings”/”first toothing”/”second toothing” (and if so, which one is intended is unclear). It is further unclear as claimed whether the “prespecified reference” set forth in claim 3 is/are, or is/are not, intended to be additional to any of the previously-recited “references”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the first and second rotational position references are assigned to a prespecified reference comprising a selected reference tooth (21) of a toothing (2)”. In addition to the lack of clarity in claim 3 related to the issued discussed above, it is unclear how or in what regard the first and second rotational position references are to be considered to be “assigned to” such a “selected reference tooth”, e.g., in some calculation? The first and second positional references are in the form of such “a” reference tooth? The first and second positional references are part of such “a” reference tooth”? Etc.
As noted above, in claim 4, the limitation “the selected reference tooth” lacks clear antecedent basis in claim 4, given the lack of clarity in claim 3 as to how many reference teeth are intended to be recited. That being said, in the limitation “the selected reference tooth is determined by a marking (3) which is arranged on the workpiece itself”, it is thus also unclear how many markings are intended to be required (i.e., in the event that plural reference teeth were intended re claim 3, then it is unclear in claim 4 (and thus, in claim 7) whether plural markings are intended to be required by claims 4 and 7). Additionally, it is also unclear as claimed how or in what regard a selected reference tooth is to be considered to be “determined” by a marking re claim 4.
In claim 4, it is unclear as claimed as to what “itself” is intended to refer, i.e., the workpiece, or the marking.
In claim 5, lines 3-4, in the limitation “resharpening/profiling”, the intended meaning of the “/” is unclear. In particular, it is unclear as claimed whether “/” is intended to mean “and”, “or”, or “and/or”.
In claim 5, the claim now recites “wherein the first and second rotational position references for engagement with the first and/or second hard finishing tool”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being engaged, i.e., first and second rotational position “references” for engagement of what with the first and/or second hard finishing tool?
In claim 5, the claim recites “wherein, for a first workpiece of a batch of identical workpieces to be hard finished, and/or for a first workpiece to be hard finished after a replacement or resharpening/profiling of at least one of the first and/or second hard finishing tools, the first and/or second relative rotational angle position is/are determined via sensor-detected contact between the first and/or second workpiece toothing and the respective first and/or second hard finishing tool”. That said, the relationship (if any) between the plural workpieces re the “batch of identical workpieces” and the previously recited “workpiece” is unclear. Similarly, the relationship (if any) between the “first workpiece of a batch…” re lines 1-2 of claim 5 to the previously recited “workpiece” is unclear. Similarly, the relationship (if any) between the “first workpiece to be hard finished after replacement or resharpening/profiling…” and the previously recited “workpiece” is unclear. That said, similarly, the relationship between: (i) the previously-recited first toothing and second toothing of the previously-recited workpiece, and (ii) the first and/or second workpiece toothing in claim 5, line 6 is unclear, as it is unclear whether “the first and/or second workpiece toothing” in claim 5, line 6 is intended to be that of the workpiece of claim 1, or is instead intended to be some first and/or second workpiece toothing re one of the additional/plural workpieces set forth in claim 5 (e.g., of a first workpiece of a batch of identical workpieces, or of a first workpiece to be hard finished after a replacement or resharpening/profiling). Additionally, similarly, the limitation(s) “the first and/or second relative rotational angle position” in lines 4-5 of claims 5 and 6 is/are unclear, in that it is unclear whether such is intended to refer to the previously-recited “first relative rotational angle position” and “second relative rotational angle position” that were set forth in claim 1 with respect to a “workpiece” that was set forth in claim 1, or whether “the first and/or second relative rotational angle position” in lines 4-5 of claim 5 (and in claim 6) is instead intended to refer to different such relative rotational angle positions re one or more of the workpieces set forth in claim 5.
In claim 5, penultimate line, it is unclear as claimed as to what “engagement” is intended to reference, i.e., the engagement of what with the first and/or second hard finishing tool?
In claim 6, the claim sets forth “wherein for workpieces following the first workpiece to be hard finished, the following workpieces are set to a rotational position of the workpiece spindle axis for the engagement by the first and/or second hard finishing tool based on the first and/or second relative rotational angle positions determined for the first workpiece, the rotational position of the workpiece spindle being determined by means of a contactless sensor”. A number of clarity issues in claim 6 have been addressed hereinabove. Furthermore, re the limitation “the engagement” in line 4, it is unclear as claimed what is being engaged with what? Also, in claim 6, lines 2-5, it is unclear what is being set forth as being “for the engagement by the first and/or second hard finishing tool”, i.e., a rotational position of the workpiece spindle axis? The setting of the “following” workpieces? Additionally, in claim 6, lines 4-5, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “based on the first and/or second relative rotational angle positions determined for the first workpiece”, i.e., the claimed “engagement”, the setting of the “following” workpieces to some rotational position of the workpiece spindle axis; the rotational position of the workpiece spindle axis; etc. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed what is meant by a “rotational position” that is “of the workpiece spindle axis”, i.e., literally a position of such an axis itself, or a position of some other element about or relative to such an axis.
In claim 8, the claim sets forth “wherein the determination of the second relative rotational angle position is carried out before the first machining process of the first toothing is started, and vice versa”. However, the intended meaning of what is encompassed by the language “and vice versa” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “vice versa” is intended to mean “and wherein the first machining of the first toothing is started before the determination of the second relative rotational angle position”, or whether “vice versa” is instead intended to mean “the determination of the first toothing is carried out before the first machining of the second relative rotational angle position”. In the event that the former is intended, noting the use of the term “and” prior to the language “vice versa”, it is unclear how the determination of the second relative rotational angle position can be carried out before the first machining process of the first toothing is started and also how the first machining process of the first toothing is started before the determination of the second relative rotational angle position, as the two seem to be mutually exclusive. Alternatively, in the event that the latter is intended, that raises a number of additional clarity issues. For example. it is unclear how or in what regard a “determination”, per se, of the first toothing is to be considered to be “carried out”, i.e., it is unclear how or in what regard a toothing, per se, is to be “determined”, i.e., determined to exist? Determined to have a particular feature? Etc. Additionally, it is unclear how or in what regard a “second relative rotational angle position”, i.e., a position, per se, is to be considered to be machined (as opposed to a portion of a workpiece that is located at that position being machined).
In claim 9, the claim sets forth “wherein first and second dressing tools (401, 402) for the first and second hard finishing tools (101, 102), in the form of diamond dressing wheels having toothings”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “in the form of diamond dressing wheels”, i.e., the tools, or the dressing tools. In the event that such is in keeping with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider language such as --wherein first and second dressing tools (401, 402) are provided, which first and second dressing tools are for dressing the first and second hard finishing tools (101, 102), respectively, wherein the first and second dressing tools each comprise a respective diamond dressing wheel having respective toothings…-- instead of “wherein first and second dressing tools (401, 402) for the first and second hard finishing tools (101, 102), in the form of diamond dressing wheels having toothings”.
In claim 16, the claim sets forth “a sensor arrangement for a centering operation during the hard finishing of the workpieces (4) with said first toothing and said second toothing, said sensor arrangement having a first contactless sensor (110) for detecting a tooth gap of the first toothing, a second contactless sensor (120) for detecting a tooth gap of the second toothing, and a third sensor (130) for detecting a marking (3) on the workpiece (4), which marking serving as a reference for determining a difference in rotational position references of the first and second toothings”. Firstly, there are no clear axes of frames of reference provided in the claim for determining what axis or frame of reference is being “centered” with respect to what other axis or frame of reference, and it is noted that it does not appear that the claimed first, second, and third sensors perform any sort of “centering” operation (i.e., does not perform any action of making one center/axis match another center/axis). Additionally, noting that claim 1 previously set forth a method for hard finishing “two different toothings (1, 2) provided on a workpiece (4), and claim 1 also previously set forth that the two different toothings comprise a “first toothing” and a “second toothing”. That being said, it is unclear as set forth in claim 16 whether the plural “workpieces” set forth in line 2 are intended to include the “workpiece” previously set forth in claim 1, line 2, the workpiece previously set forth in claim 1¸ line 12, the workpiece previously set forth in claim 1, lines 15-16, or whether the plural “workpieces” in line 2 of claim 16 are instead intended to be additional to the aforedescribed “workpiece” or workpieces previously set forth in claim 1. Similarly, it is unclear as set forth in claim 16 whether the claimed “said first toothing and said second toothing” that are of plural “workpieces” as set forth in claim 16¸ lines 2-3, are intended to be additional to the “two different toothings”/”first toothing”/”second toothing” of claim 1, or are instead intended to include the first and second toothings set forth in claim 1. Furthermore, in claim 16¸ lines 2-3, in the limitation “workpieces (4) with said first toothing and said second toothing”, it is unclear what is being set forth as “with said first toothing and said second toothing”, i.e., each workpiece of the recited plural workpieces having or being “with” both of the first and second toothings (thus requiring each of those workpieces to have a respective first toothing and a respective second toothing), vs. workpiece A of the plurality of workpieces having the first toothing(s), and workpiece B of the plurality of workpieces having the second toothing(s) (thus requiring each workpiece of the plural workpieces to have one toothing).
In claim 16, the claim sets forth “a difference in rotational positional references of the first and second toothings”. It is unclear as claimed whether the “rotational positional references” set forth in claim 16 are the same as, or additional to, the first and second rotational position references set forth in claim 1, or whether the “rotational positional references” in claim 16 are different from/additional to those first and second rotational positional references of claim 1 (particularly noting the additional workpieces and toothings set forth in claim 16).
Claims 1-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, the claim sets forth “characterized in that the first and second machining processes are carried out on said workpiece spindle of said gear hard finishing machine with no workpiece clamping change occurring between said first and second machining processes”. That said, it appears that the claim literally recites that machining processes are being carried out on the workpiece spindle (108; 208), i.e., that the workpiece spindle is, itself, being machined. That said, it does not appear that the specification as filed teaches such in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof. See, for example, page 9, lines 22-26, which instead teaches that the workpieces 4 of a workpiece batch are machined, and particularly, the hard finishing of the toothings 1, 2, is carried out “without an intervening clamping change – that is, in the same clamping on the same workpiece spindle”. In other words, it appears that the specification teaches machining of the toothings 1, 2 of the workpiece (rather than of the workpiece spindle 108, for example) while the workpiece 4 remains clamped in the workpiece spindle 108.
In claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the first and second rotational position references consists of a rotational angle difference (∆φ) between the first and second rotational position references”. However, it is unclear how or in what regard the first and second rotational position references can “consists of” (sic) a rotational angle difference between themselves. For example, calling a first rotational position reference “φ1” and a second rotational position reference “φ2”, claim 2 essentially indicates that φ1 and φ2 “consists of” a difference (∆φ) between φ1 and φ2, which is unclear (i.e., φ1 and φ2 are φ1 and φ2; φ1 and φ2 are not “φ1 minus φ2” or “φ2 minus φ1”). See also Figure 2, for example. The specification as filed does not appear to disclose “wherein the first and second rotational position references consists of a rotational angle difference (∆φ) between the first and second rotational position references” in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
Regarding claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the first and second rotational position references are assigned to a prespecified reference comprising a selected reference tooth (21) of a toothing (2)”. However, the specification as filed does not appear to teach such in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof. In addition to the lack of clarity in claim 3 related to the issued discussed above, it is unclear how or in what regard the first and second rotational position references are to be considered to be “assigned to” such a “selected reference tooth”, e.g., in some calculation? The first and second positional references are in the form of such “a” reference tooth? The first and second positional references are part of such “a” reference tooth”? Etc.
As noted in a separate rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112 above, in claim 4, the limitation “the selected reference tooth” lacks clear antecedent basis in claim 4, given the lack of clarity in claim 3 as to how many reference teeth are intended to be recited. That being said, it is also unclear as claimed how or in what regard the “selected” reference tooth is to be considered to be “determined” by a marking, as set forth in claim 4. It does not appear that the specification teaches such in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
In claim 5, the claim recites “wherein, for a first workpiece of a batch of identical workpieces to be hard finished, and/or for a first workpiece to be hard finished after a replacement or resharpening/profiling of at least one of the first and/or second hard finishing tools, the first and/or second relative rotational angle position is/are determined via sensor-detected contact between the first and/or second workpiece toothing and the tool, and the respective first and/or second hard finishing tool, wherein the first and second rotational position references for engagement with the first and/or second hard finishing tool are determined from the first workpiece”. There are a number of clarity issues in claim 5, as described in a separate rejection or rejections of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) hereinabove. That said, it does not appear that the specification as filed describes the subject matter of claim 5 in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
In claim 7, the claim recites “the selected reference tooth, is identified for each workpiece to be hard finished and wherein a rotational position of the marking is detected by sensors in a contactless manner”. It is noted that a number of clarity issues arise from the language of claim 7, as was discussed separately in rejection(s) of claim 7 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth hereinabove. That said, it does not appear that the specification as filed teaches (in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof) that the rotational position of the marking 3 is detected by plural sensors in a contactless manner. In contrast, it appears that the specification as filed teaches that sensor 130 detects the marking 3 in a contactless manner, whereas other sensors (such as 110, 120) detect other things (i.e., rather than detecting marking 3). See, for example, pages 11, lines 18-30, and original claim 16, for example.
In claim 8, the claim sets forth “wherein the determination of the second relative rotational angle position is carried out before the first machining process of the first toothing is started, and vice versa”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) hereinabove, the intended meaning of what is encompassed by the language “and vice versa” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “vice versa” is intended to mean “and wherein the first machining process of the first toothing is started before the determination of the second relative rotational angle position”, or whether “vice versa” is instead intended to mean “the determination of the first toothing is carried out before the first machining process of the second relative rotational angle position”. In the event that the former is intended, noting the use of the term “and” prior to the language “vice versa”, it is unclear how the determination of the second relative rotational angle position can be carried out before the first machining process of the first toothing is started and also how the first machining process of the first toothing is started before the determination of the second relative rotational angle position, as the two seem to be mutually exclusive. That said, the specification as filed does not appear to teach both “wherein the determination of the second relative rotational angle position is carried out before the first machining process of the first toothing is started, and” (vice versa) “wherein the first machining process of the first toothing is started before the determination of the second relative rotational angle position”, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof. Additionally/alternatively, the specification as filed likewise does not appear to teach the alternative interpretation of “and vice versa” re claim 8 (i.e., the determination of the first toothing is carried out before the first machining process of the second relative rotational angle position) in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
In claim 17, the claim now recites “wherein two or three of the first contactless sensor, the second contactless sensor, and the third sensor are arranged on a common support arm”. However, noting that “two” is set forth as an alternative to “three”, and thus encompasses an alternative in which two of the first (110), second (120), and third (130) sensors are arranged on the common support arm (150), and one (i.e., the remaining one) of the first (110), second (120), and third (130) sensors are not arranged on the common support arm (150), the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide support for the alternative limitation “two…of the first contactless sensor, the second contactless sensor, and the third sensor are arranged on a common support arm”. On page 11, lines 28-30, the specification as filed teaches that all three of the sensors (110, 120, and 130) “can be fixed in position via a common support arm 150 (as illustrated)”, and that “[T]he support arm 150 could also be retractable”. However, the specification as filed does not teach that (instead of/alternatively to all three sensors 110, 120, 130 being mounted on the common support arm 150) only two of the three sensors (110, 120, 130) are mounted on the common support arm (150) as claimed in the first alternative of claim 17. Note that the teaching in original claim 17 of “two, in particular three of the sensors are arranged in a defined, fixed positional relationship to each other, in particular via their attachment to the same carrier…” is not a specific teaching that the “same carrier” is a “support arm” as now set forth in claim 17, nor is such inherent.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In claim 5, the claim recites “wherein, for a first workpiece of a batch of identical workpieces to be hard finished, and/or for a first workpiece to be hard finished after a replacement or resharpening/profiling of at least one of the first and/or second hard finishing tools, the first and/or second relative rotational angle position is/are determined via sensor-detected contact between the first and/or second workpiece toothing and the tool, and the respective first and/or second hard finishing tool, wherein the first and second rotational position references for engagement with the first and/or second hard finishing tool are determined from the first workpiece”. There are a number of clarity issues in claim 5, as described in a separate rejection or rejections of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) hereinabove. That said, noting that claim 5 now sets forth “wherein the first and second rotational position references for engagement with the first and/or second hard finishing tool are determined from the first workpiece”, which first workpiece appears to be set forth in claim 5 as additional to/different from the workpiece of claim 1, it is noted that claim 5 appears to be attempting to redefine the first and second rotational position references in claim 5 (as being re a different workpiece than they were for/of in claim 1). Thus, it appears that claim 5 does not further limit claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1-8 and 16-18, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0046784 to Eger et al. (hereinafter “Eger”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,379,554 to Thurman et al. (hereinafter, “Thurman”).
It is noted that Eger teaches several different embodiments. It is noted that just because an embodiment of Eger is not specifically discussed below, it does not necessarily mean that the non-discussed embodiment is not applicable.
Eger teaches a method for hard finishing (paragraphs 0003, 0097) two different “toothings” (such as, for example, two different teeth on 62) provided on a workpiece (60) (Figures 5-6, 2-4, 8-12, 14-19, 22-36 paragraphs 0097-0099, 103, 106-108, for example), said workpiece being removably held on a rotatable workpiece spindle (50) (Figure 1, Figures 2-3, paragraphs 0097-0099, 0102, for example) of a gear hard finishing machine (paragraph 0097, paragraphs 0002-0003, for example) with said workpiece spindle (50) being rotatable about a workpiece spindle axis (C1) (paragraphs 0098-0099, Figures 1-3 and 5-6, for example), said two different toothings comprising a first toothing (one of the teeth of 62) and a second toothing (another of the teeth of 62; see Figures 2-6, for example, as well as at least paragraph 0103 which teaches that the gearing of both 61, 62 extend completely around the workpiece axis C1) and wherein prior to the machining of the two toothings of gearing 62, to “enable” “tool engagement” for carrying out the machining process, a first relative rotational angle position of a first rotational position reference of the first toothing is determined relative to a rotational axis position of the workpiece spindle (50) holding and clamping the workpiece (60) clamped for the first machining process, and a second relative rotational angle position of a second rotational position reference of the second toothing is determined relative to a rotational axis position of the workpiece spindle holding (50) and clamping the workpiece (60) clamped for the second machining process, (see, for example, Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0103-0107, noting the discussion of the sensing of portions of the gearings 61, 62 via sensors 121, 122, respectively; see also paragraph 0106 which expressly says that the sensors 121, 121 determine the position of “all tooth gaps” while the workpiece 60 rotates)
characterized in that the machining processes on both the (aforedescribed) first and second toothings are carried out “on said workpiece spindle” (50) of said gear hard finishing machine with no workpiece clamping “change” occurring between said first and second machining processes (see Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0102-0107, for example), and with the difference between the first and second rotational position references “defining” (as broadly claimed) the relative rotational position of the first toothing with respect to the rotational position of the second toothing for the machining processes of the first and second toothing (see Figures 2-3, paragraphs 0103-0107).
However, while Eger does teach that the finishing machine for hard finishing of gears comprises a tool spindle (30) on which a rotatable grinding worm (31) is clamped (see paragraphs 0097-0099 and Figure 1, for example), and does teach that the gear 62 (and the various “toothings”/teeth thereof) are machined via the grinding worm 31 (paragraphs 0110-0115 and Figures 7 and 1, for example), it is noted that Eger does not teach that each of the first and second toothings (i.e., different teeth of 62) are machined via a respective hard finishing tool, as set forth in independent claim 1.
However, attention is directed to Thurman. Thurman teaches a method and machine 10 for fine machining gear teeth (“toothings”) of a gear 18 that is supported on a clamping “means” (to use the verbiage of Thurman) 20. See Figure 1 and col. 2, lines 4-15 and col. 1, lines 8-22 and 35-41, for example. The machining of gear 18 is carried out via an apparatus 24 comprising a composite grinding and finishing worm 28 that includes a first end portion/tool 34 adapted for grinding the teeth of the gear 18, and that includes a second end portion/tool 36 adapted for finishing the teeth of the gear 18. See Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 9-41 and col. 1, lines 54-57, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the specific composite grinding and finishing worm 28 (which comprises two tools, i.e., grinding tool/portion 34 and finishing tool/portion 36) taught by Thurman for the grinding worm 31 taught by Eger, for the purpose of expanding the functionality of Eger’s machining arrangement by allowing the machine to perform both grinding and finishing operations, as opposed to just grinding, as would be a readily understood advantage of providing a tool that can carry out additional operations, and furthermore, to provide such a composite tooling arrangement that allows for both grinding and finishing in a “highly accurate” manner, that eliminates tool misalignment during operation, and that “has short machining times with economical processing cost”, as taught by Thurman. See particularly col. 1, lines 8-45, and particularly lines 35-41; see also col. 2, lines 54-65, all of Thurman. Resultantly, Eger as so modified in view of Thurman results in the teaching of a method of hard machining both the aforedescribed first and second toothings (teeth) of gear 62 (of Eger) by both a first hard finishing tool (such as 34 of Thurman) and a second hard finishing tool (such as 36 of Thurman), i.e., machining all of the teeth of the gear 62 of Eger with both of the tools 34, 36 of Thurman, and prior to the first and second machining processes with the tools 34, 36, utilizing the sensors 121, 122 of Eger in the manner described by Eger to determine the various rotational references/rotational angle positions of all the teeth, as taught by Eger (as described above, and in paragraphs 0103-0107 and particularly 0103 of Eger).
Regarding claim 2, the first and second rotational positional references consists of a rotational angle difference between the first and second rotational position references, said rotational angle different being within a tolerance with respect to a prespecified rotational angle, as such is best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112. See, for example, Figure 7 and paragraphs 0110-0116 of Eger, particularly noting that paragraph 0113 teaches that a check is made to see whether a tooth structure is aligned with the reference tooth structure within acceptable tolerances.
Regarding claim 3, the first and second rotational position references are “assigned to” a prespecified reference comprising a selected reference tooth of a toothing. See, for example, paragraphs 0102-0107 of Eger, and particularly paragraph 0106 which discusses alignment with respect to a tooth tip or tooth gap.
Regarding claim 4, the selected reference tooth is determined by a marking (63) which is arranged on the workpiece (60) itself. See paragraphs 0104 and 0107-0109 and 0112-0113 and Figures 2-4 and 7 of Eger, for example.
Regarding claim 5 and 8, see paragraphs 0113, 0030-0031, 0036 of Eger, which teach that the checks occur pre-machining, and thus, for the first workpiece. The first and/or second relative rotational angle position is/are determined via sensor-detected contact between the first and/or second workpiece toothing (i.e., a tooth of 62) and the respective first and/or second hard finishing tool, wherein the first and second rotational position references for engagement with the first and/or second hard finishing tool are determined from the first workpiece. Figures 2-4, 7, and paragraphs 0101-0115.
Regarding claim 6-7, see paragraphs 0106-0107 of Eger, noting the teaching of the inductive (i.e., non-contact) sensors 121, 122. Note that such checks would apply to whatever workpieces are machined.
Regarding claim 16, Eger teaches a sensor arrangement for a centering operation during the (aforedescribed) hard finishing of workpieces (60/62) with said first toothing and said second toothing (two different teeth of the workpiece 62 or such as two different teeth of workpiece 60), having a first contactless sensor (121, which Eger teaches can be an inductive and thus contactless sensor; see Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0106-0107) for detecting a tooth gap of a first of the toothings, a second contactless sensor (122, which Eger teaches can be an inductive and thus contactless sensor; see Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0106-0107) for detecting a tooth gap of the second toothing (a tooth of 62) (see paragraphs 0101-0115), and a third sensor (130/131) for detecting a marking (63) on the workpiece (60) (see paragraph 0107, for example), said marking serving as a reference for “determining” a difference in rotational position references of the first and second toothings. See Figures 1-3, 7, and paragraphs 0104, 0107-0109, 0111-0115, 0016-0021, for example.
Regarding claim 17, two or three of the sensors (121, 122, 130/131 of Eger) are arranged on a common support arm (112) (see Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0105-0107 of Eger, for example).
Regarding claim 18, the support arm (112 of Eger) is “retractable”. See Figures 2-3 and paragraphs 0105-0107 of Eger, for example, noting that, for example, the swiveling of arm 112 from the position shown in Figure 3 to the position shown in Figure 2 is a “retraction” of arm 112 relative to, for example, the top of the spindle 50. Alternatively, see, for example, Figures 10-12 and paragraphs 0120-0121 which teaches linear retraction of arm 112, for example.
Claim 9, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0046784 to Eger et al. (hereinafter “Eger”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,379,554 to Thurman et al. (hereinafter, “Thurman”) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,857,896 to Stollberg (hereinafter, “Stollberg”).
Eger teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, regarding claim 9, while Eger in view of Thurman does teach that the first (34) and second (36) tools are part of a grinding and finishing worm (see col. 2, lines 32-41 of Thurman, for example), Eger does not teach the claimed dressing tools.
However, attention is directed to Stollberg.
Stollberg teaches a gear machining method and apparatus, in which a grinding worm 10 is mounted on a grinding spindle 9 (Figure 1 and col. 1, lines 47-57, for example) so as to machine a gear wheel (workpiece) 26 mounted on a workpiece spindle 3. See Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 17-22, for example. Dressing tools (27, 28) (for dressing the grinding worm 10), in the form of diamond dressing wheels having toothings (see Figure 2 and col. 2, lines 17-48, for example), are arranged fixed relative to each other (on the same spindle 3) and are also arranged on the same workpiece spindle (3) as the workpiece (26). See Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 17-48, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the diamond dressing wheels 27, 28 (that are on the same spindle 3 as the workpiece 26), as taught by Stollberg, to the workpiece spindle 50 taught by Eger, for the purpose of facilitating easy dressing of Eger in view of Thurman’s composite grinding/finishing worm to maintain the sharpness of Eger in view of Thurman’s grinding worm (as is a known purpose of dressing tools, in general), and for the purpose of increasing dressing precision and minimizing wear on the dressing tools, as expressly taught by Stollberg (col. 2, lines 38-44, for example).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejection(s) claim(s) based on U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0046784 to Eger et al. (hereinafter, “Eger”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Note that the Thurman reference (U.S. Pat. No. 5,379,554) has been provided above in order to address the new limitations re the “first hard finishing tool” and “second hard finishing tool”.
As a side note, it is noted that Applicant mentioned on page 13 of the 10/13/2025 reply that Eger teaches the machining of only the second gearing 62, and does not teach the machining of gearing 61 in the same clamping on the same workpiece spindle as set forth in amended claim 1. However, it is noted that the recitations of the “two different toothings” that comprise “a first toothing” and “a second toothing” are sufficiently broad as to encompass, for example, two different teeth of gearing 62.
Regarding the previous art rejections of the dependent claims, Applicant indicates (pages 13-14 of the 10/13/2025 reply) that the same reasoning/argument(s) (as for the independent claim 1) is applicable to the dependent claims. However, likewise, the same responses to those arguments re claim 1 likewise apply re the dependent claims.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a), Applicant indicates that the claims have been amended in an effort to address the concerns. However, attention is directed to the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) for any issues with respect thereto that either remain, or that newly arose via the amendment filed 10/13/2025.
Conclusion
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.
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 ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
February 17, 2026