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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 28, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 28, 2025 has been entered.
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) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanase et al (US 20120184187 A1) in view of Minas et al (US 20220274193 A1), and in further view of Schieke (US 20150217389 A1).
In re claim 1, Yanase et al discloses a method of modifying tooth flanks of an internally-toothed workpiece (method for grinding tooth flanks of a workpiece (the work, Fig. 1: W) and for dressing a tool (screw-like grindstone, 11), see [0001]) comprising:
a) providing a machine tool (gear grinding machine, see [0038]), which comprises a workpiece spindle (work rotational drive source, M1), for rotating the workpiece about a workpiece rotational axis (the work, W, is mounted on the gear grinding machine, to be rotatably driven about a vertical axis of rotation C1, by a work rotational drive source, M1, see [0039]), a tool spindle (grindstone arbor, 12), for rotating the externally-toothed tool about a tool rotational axis (mounted on a grindstone main spindle, to be rotatable about a grindstone rotation axis, see [0040]),
b) dressing an externally-toothed tool (screw-like grindstone, 11), by arranging an internally-toothed dressing tool on the workpiece spindle at the position intended for the workpiece to be respectively honed and bringing the internally-toothed dressing tool into engagement with the externally-toothed tool (a dressing gear, Fig. 3: 14, is a machine capable of dressing the screw-like grindstone, 11, see [0038]),
wherein prior to carrying out work step b), the axis cross angle is set, at which the rotational axes of the workpiece and the externally-toothed tool are skewed relative to one another (prior to dressing the screw-like grindstone, 11 the rotation axis of the work, W and the screw-like grindstone, 11 change direction or position, see [0040]),
wherein during work step b), the axis cross angle is maintained unchanged and the shape deviations are produced on tooth flanks of the externally tooth tool exclusively by movements of the internally-toothed dressing tool along the workpiece longitudinal axis and the workpiece transverse axis (dressing tool is an internally toothed dressing gear and the screw-like tool being engaged with each other at the set angle of axis intersection, in a screw-like tool dressing method, see [0022]), and
Yanase et al does not disclose,
the workpiece is adjustable along a workpiece longitudinal axis aligned parallel to the workpiece rotational axis, and
the workpiece is adjustable along a workpiece transverse axis, which is aligned transverse to the workpiece longitudinal axis.
a dressing tool,
wherein a width of the teeth of the internally-toothed dressing tool coming into engagement with the externally-toothed tool is smaller than a width of the externally-toothed tool to such an extent that the dressing internally-toothed dressing tool, in order to pass over the width of the externally-toothed tool, must be moved by a length along the workpiece longitudinal axis which corresponds to a multiple of the width of the teeth of the internally-toothed dressing tool, and
a method comprising,
c ) after the externally-toothed tool is dressed, fine machining the internally-toothed workpiece using the externally-toothed tool, wherein during work step c), the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the externally-toothed tool are transferred to the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece producing the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece.
In regards to an actuating drive, Yanase et al discloses the linear movement of the grindstone arbor, 12, along the X, Y, and Z axes, see [0039] – [0040] but is silent about the linear movement of the workpiece on a machine tool.
However, Minas et al teaches a method for hard fine machining of toothings on a workpiece and gear cutting machine with a machine tool having,
the workpiece is adjustable along a workpiece longitudinal axis aligned parallel to the workpiece rotational axis (tooth honing machine, Fig. 3: 100 allows for linear travel along axis, Z2 (longitudinal axis) that is parallel to workpiece rotation axis, C1 of the workpiece spindle, see [0038]),
the workpiece is adjustable along a workpiece transverse axis, which is aligned transverse to the workpiece longitudinal axis (tooth honing machine, Fig. 3: 100 allows for linear travel along axis, X1 (transverse axis) that is perpendicular to workpiece rotation axis, C1 of the workpiece spindle, see [0038]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yanase et al. with the teachings of an actuating drive adjusting the workpiece along a workpiece longitudinal axis and a traverse axis as taught by Minas et al. because it is possible to hard finish, have hard finishing tools that can be resharpened/dressed, and have dressing tools that are provided to a satisfactory level of precision when using various dressing wheels as the wheels can be controlled by additional axial machine movements (Minas et al.: [0018]).
Lastly, Schieke teaches a method for modifying the flanks of a gear tooth with the aid of a tool,
wherein the width of the teeth of the dressing tool coming into engagement with the tool to be dressed is smaller than the width of the tool to be dressed to such an extent that the dressing tool, in order to pass over the width of the externally-toothed tool, must be moved by a length along the workpiece longitudinal axis which corresponds to a multiple of the width of the teeth of the internally-tooth dressing tool (the width of the teeth of the dressing wheel engaging with the tool to be dressed is much smaller than the width of the tool to be dressed so that, in order to cover the width of the tool to be dressed the dressing wheel has to be moved by a length in the Z direction that corresponds to a multiple of the width of the teeth of the dressing wheel, and b) precision machining of the gear wheel with the tool that has been dressed in this way, see [0009] – [00010]), and
a method comprising, work step c ) after the externally-toothed tool is dressed, fine machining the internally-toothed workpiece using the externally-toothed tool, (the precision machining of the gear wheel then takes place in the working step b, see [0012]), wherein during work step c), the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the externally-toothed tool are transferred to the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece producing the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece (In addition the dressing wheel is rotated about a radially outwardly aligned swivel axis (Y axis), so that the dressing machining of the respective tooth flank takes place with crossed axes angles changing in the width direction (Z direction) of the respective tooth and the modifications of the tooth flank topology necessary for the equalisation of twists or for the specific introduction of twists into the tooth flanks of the teeth of the workpiece to be respectively precision machined are formed on the respective tooth flank, see [0018]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yanase et al. as modified with the teachings of the width of the teeth of the dressing tool is smaller than the width of the tool to be dressed and the method of work step C and wherein during work step c), the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the externally-toothed tool are transferred to the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece producing the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece as taught by Schieke because it contributes to the removal performance of the hard-finishing process, which leads to more uniform wear and to improve the running properties of gear wheels (Schieke: [0004]).
In re claim 5. Yanase et al as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
Yanase et al as modified does not teach wherein the shape deviations produced on the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece are twists.
However, Schieke teaches a method for modifying the flanks of a gear tooth with the aid of a tool, wherein the shape deviations produced on the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece are twists (In a manner according to the invention changes of the profile over the toothing width of the tool, such as for example twists, can be incorporated into the tool to be dressed, see [0015]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yanase et al. as modified with the teachings of wherein the shape deviations produced on the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece are twists as taught by Schieke because it improves the running properties of gear wheels (Schieke: [0004]).
Claim(s) 2 - 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanase et al (US 20120184187 A1) in view of Minas et al (US 20220274193 A1), in view of Schieke (US 20150217389 A1) and in further view of Schieke et al (US 20200047269 A1).
In re claim 2, Yanase et al as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, having a width of the dressing internally-toothed tool (see Fig. 3).
Yanase et al as modified is silent about the dimensions of the width of the internally-toothed dressing tool, specifically, wherein the width of the internally-toothed dressing tool is at most 6 mm.
However, Schieke et al teaches a tool for cutting teeth for dressing of a fine machining tool, wherein the width of the dressing internally-toothed is at most 6 mm (wherein, [0019] suggests thicknesses of the ring element such as 5mm and 3.5mm, ie at most 6mm) .
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yanase et al as modified with the teachings of the width of the dressing tool is at most 6mm as taught by Schieke et al because it provides for movement in the Z direction and precision machining of the gear wheel with the tool (Schieke et al: [0008] and [0009]).
In re claim 3, Yanase et al as modified teaches the method according to claim 2, having a width of the dressing internally-toothed tool (see Fig. 3).
Yanase et al as modified is silent about the dimensions of the width of the internally-toothed dressing tool, specifically, wherein the width of the internally-toothed dressing tool is at most 2.5 mm.
However, Schieke et al teaches a tool for cutting teeth for dressing of a fine machining tool, wherein the width of the internally-toothed dressing tool is at most 2.5 mm (Schieke et al: wherein, [0019] suggests thicknesses of the ring element such as 5 mm and 3.5 mm).
In addition, Yanase et al as modified by Schieke et al does not explicitly teach the width is at most 2.5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of Yanase et al as modified from thicknesses of the ring element such as 5 mm and 3.5 mm to at most 2.5 mm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed widths/thicknesses overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed width/thickness (page 6 of 12) indicating the width of up to 6mm, in particular 4 mm, up to 2.5 m or up to 1.2 mm are specifically suitable).
In re claim 4, Yanase et al as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, having a width of the internally-toothed dressing tool (see Fig. 3).
Yanase et al, as modified is silent about the dimensions of the width of the dressing tool, specifically, wherein the width of the internally-toothed dressing tool is at least 0.5 mm.
However, Schieke et al teaches a tool for cutting teeth for dressing of a fine machining tool, wherein the width of the internally-toothed dressing tool is at least 0.5 mm (wherein, [0019] suggests thicknesses of the ring element such as 5 mm and 3.5 mm, ie at least 0.5 mm]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Yanase et al as modified with the teachings of the width of the dressing tool is at least 0.5mm as taught by Schieke et al because it provides for movement in the Z direction and precision machining of the gear wheel with the tool (Schieke et al: [0008] and [0009]).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112b rejections for claims 1 - 5, applicant’s amendment has overcome the
rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 112d rejection for claim 5, applicant’s amendment has overcome the
rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant has the following arguments in regards to claim 1 rejection under 35 USC 103 now with amended claim 1, limitations: Applicant argues that Yanase fails to disclose and Minas nor Schaferling discloses the amended claim features of: “step b), the axis cross angle is maintained unchanged, and the modification of shape deviations are produced on the tooth flanks is produced of the externally-toothed tool exclusively by movements of the internally- toothed dressing tool along the workpiece longitudinal axis and the workpiece transverse axis, and wherein during work step c), the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the externally-toothed tool are transferred to the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece producing the shape deviations on the tooth flanks of the internally-toothed workpiece.” In summary, by applicant the “shape deviations or twists are produced on the tooth flanks of the externally toothed tool exclusively by movements of the internally toothed dressing tool”. The examiner has reviewed the arguments and have modified the rejection in that, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Yanase et al (US 20120184187 A1) in view of Minas et al (US 20220274193 A1), and in further view of Schieke (US 20150217389 A1), in that Schieke teaches a tool for cutting teeth for dressing of a fine machining tool comprising a method of modifying flanks of a gear wheel with the aid of a tool and these modifications of the flanks produced may be twists, see rejection of the same above. Therefore, claims 1 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 2 –5 are not allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached on (571) 272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723