Detailed Action1
Election/Restriction
Claims 25-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-12 and 30, in the reply filed on August 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant amended group III and asked for reconsideration of this group. However, there are no special technical features in common between claims 1 and 25 since claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103, as detailed below. The existence of references demonstrating that one or more generic claims lack novelty or inventive step establishes that the groups do not relate to a single inventive concept. Thus, the restriction between groups I and III is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a reference identification device operating without contact, and, a reference measuring device, in claim 1; and a position reference device in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus, the reference identification device is interpreted as an inductive, capacitive, or optical sensor configured to directly sense a mark on the first gearing without contacting the first gearing, or configured to directly sense tooth tips and grooves on the first gearing without contacting the first gearing. The reference measuring device is interpreted as a tactile or optical sensor configured to directly measure the tooth structure of the first gearing. The position reference device is interpreted as at least one laser distance sensor on a sensor carrier configured to determine a distance from a surface of a position reference target (i.e. structure to be sensed by the least one sensor) rigidly connected to the workpiece/gear carrier to determine at least the tangential position of the sensor carrier with respect to the workpiece/gear.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
America Invents Act 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 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claim 4 is 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites tooth structures of the first gearing in line 5, tooth structures of the second gearing in line 7, and tooth structures of the first gearing to tooth structures of the second gearing in lines 9-10. It is unclear if the tooth structures in lines 9-10 are referring to the tooth structures of lines 5 and 7, or if second tooth structures are being introduced.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2018/0236576 (“Tachikawa”) in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0232406 (“Predki”).
Regarding claim 1, Tachikawa teaches a method of machining a workpiece having first and second gearings (paras. [0010], [0018] & [0056]), the workpiece being mounted for rotation about a workpiece axis (fig. 1, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0033] & [0043]), the method comprising: measuring the at least one reference tooth structure with a reference measuring device (P) to determine a reference rotational angular position of the workpiece (figs. 5a-5c, paras. [0063]-[0068]); and machining the second gearing with a machining tool in such a way that the second gearing obtains a rotational angular position that is in a predetermined relationship to the determined reference rotational angular position (para. [0056], wherein the second processing can be cutting teeth in the second gear wherein the teeth of the first and second gears must have a specific phase relation).
Tachikawa fails to explicitly teach identifying at least one reference tooth structure of the first gearing with a reference identification device operating without contact. However, this would have been obvious in view of Predki.
Predki is directed to the automated positioning of toothed workpieces (para. [0002]). Predki teaches providing a machine readable and workpiece-specific marking 4 on each gear (fig. 1, para. [0060]). Unique markings help identify individual gears to track it along the value chain and to keep workpiece-specific data on each gear (paras. [0003]-[0004]). The marking 4 on the gear also allows each gear to be properly positioned in subsequent manufacturing steps by storing information regarding the distances of the marking from a first tooth gap (paras. [0063]-[0065]). Predki teaches an optical, capacitive, or inductive sensor to acquire the marking when the gear is on a spindle to determine the actual rotational position of the gear on the spindle with respect to a tactile sensor 14 to measure the tooth flanks of the first tooth gap (figs. 5-6, paras. [0066]-[0070]).
In this case, Tachikawa teaches to perform a first gear cutting process on a first gear (i.e. cutting teeth), and to subsequently perform a second process on the workpiece (fig. 1, paras. [0018] & [0044]). The second process can be cutting teeth in the second gear (para. [0056]). Prior to performing the second processing, the rotational position of the tooth grooves and tips created by the first cutting process are determined to provide a specific phase relation between tooth grooves of the two gears (para. [0049], [0052] & [0056]). While one embodiment of Tachikawa teaches to determine the position of the workpiece and teeth via calculation, Tachikawa teaches that calculations may not always be accurate and that the position of the teeth can also be measured via a tactile sensor to improve accuracy of the second process (paras. [0063] & [0070]). Predki teaches that providing a unique marking on the gear can help determine the rotational position of the gear for a subsequent tactile sensor, and provides other benefits such as track individual gears along the value chain and to keep workpiece-specific data on each gear during manufacturing. Tachikawa also teaches that it is known and predictable to increase efficiency of utilizing a tactile sensor by first using a non-contact sensor to determine a tooth tip or tooth groove, and then using the tactile sensor to detect a surface of a tooth groove (para. [0004]-[0006]). Thus, the for the advantages stated above (i.e. increasing efficiency of the tactile sensor step, tracking individual gears along the value chain, and keeping workpiece-specific data on each gear during manufacturing), it would be obvious to apply a unique marking to the first gear, wherein the distances between the marking and first tooth gap are known, and sensing the marking after the first cutting operation with an optical sensor so that the accuracy of the calculated position of the workpiece can be determined, and so the workpiece of Tachikawa can better positioned so the tactile sensor of Tachikawa can be more accurately inserted into the first tooth gap.
Claim 2 recites the workpiece comprises a marking, wherein the reference identification device comprises a marking detection device operating without contact, and wherein identifying the at least one reference tooth structure of the first gearing comprises: detecting the marking of the workpiece with the marking detection device; and identifying the at least one reference tooth structure of the first gearing by means of the detected marking. These limitations are taught by the rejection to claim 1, above. Specifically, Predki was used to provide a marking on the first gearing of Tachikawa, and a marking detection device is used to detect the marking in order to determine the position of a first tooth gap, i.e. reference tooth structure.
Regarding claim 5, Tachikawa further teaches the reference measuring device comprises a tactile sensor (fig. 5, para. [0064]-[0067]).
Claim 7 recites the second gearing is machined by a generating machining process. Tachikawa teaches to use skiving to create the gear teeth on the second gearing (para. [0056]). The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to create gear teeth via a generating skiving process, or other generating process such as hobbing. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to create the teeth on the second gear via a generating process such as skiving or hobbing.
Claim 7 further recites a rolling coupling angle for the generating machining process is determined using the previously determined reference rotational angle position of the workpiece. Tachikawa teaches using the determined rotational position of the workpiece to accurately position the gear and the tool therefore (which includes the rolling coupling angle) (paras. [paras. [0044]-[0049], [0054] & [0056]).
Claim 9 recites the reference measuring device is mounted on a sensor carrier, and wherein the method comprises moving the sensor carrier between a parking position and a measuring position. As illustrated in fig. 5A of Tachikawa, the reference measuring device is interpreted as the tip of the probe P. This tip/measuring device is on a rod, which is interpreted as the sensor carrier since the rod extends and retracts the probe tip (figs. 5A-5C of Tachikawa). As illustrated in figs. 5A-5C of Tachikawa, this rod/carrier retracts and extends from a position spaced from the gear, i.e. parking position, to a measuring position.
Claim 10 recites at least part of the reference identification device is attached to the sensor carrier. The probe tip (which contains the reference identification device) is attached to the rod/carrier (see fig. 5A of Tachikawa).
Regarding claim 12, Tachikawa further teaches the first gearing and the second gearing are external gearings; wherein the first gearing and the second gearing are internal gearings; wherein the first gearing is an internal gearing and the second gearing is an external gearing; or wherein the first gearing is an external gearing and the second gearing is an internal gearing (fig. 1, wherein the two gearings are external gearings).
Claims 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachikawa et al. as applied to claims 1 or 5, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2015/0071722 (“Milletari”).
Regarding claim 6, Tachikawa further teaches the tactile sensor comprises a probe tip (figs. 5A-5C). Tachikawa fails to explicitly teach the tactile sensor comprises a sensor base, and wherein the probe tip is extended relative to the sensor base to be brought into engagement with the first gearing along an insertion direction. However, this would have been obvious in view of Milletari.
Milletari also teaches sensors 31-34 for gears that are configured to contact the gear (figs. 1 & 3, paras. [0028]-[0029] & [0038]). The sensors 31-34 each comprise a tip 31A-34A that is attached to a base via a rod that extends and retracts with respect to the sensor base (figs. 1 & 3, paras. [0035] & [0037]-[0038]).
In this case, each of Tachikawa et al. and Milletari are directed to measuring gears by extending a sensor to contact the gear. While Tachikawa only shows the probe tip on a rod, it does not teach the rest of the sensor structure (see fig. 5A). Milletari teaches a known and predictable way of extending a probe tip to make contact with a gear (i.e. the rod with the probe tip being movably connected to a sensor base such that it can extend and retract with respect to the sensor base). Thus, it would be obvious to modify Tachikawa so that the rod illustrated in figs. 5A-5C was attached to a sensor base such that it can extend and retract with respect to the sensor base.
Claim 9 recites the reference measuring device is mounted on a sensor carrier, and wherein the method comprises moving the sensor carrier between a parking position and a measuring position. When modifying Tachikawa in view of Milletari for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 6 above, the rod that the probe tip is on is interpreted as the sensor carrier. As illustrated in figs. 1 & 3 of Milletari, this rod/carrier retracts and extends from a parking position to a measuring position.
Claim 10 recites at least part of the reference identification device is attached to the sensor carrier. The probe tip (which contains the reference identification device) is attached to the rod/carrier (see figs. 1 & 3 of Milletari; see also fig. 5A of Tachikawa).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachikawa et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2022/0274193 (“Minas”).
Regarding claim 8, Tachikawa et al. fail to explicitly teach testing the first gearing with a non-contact first meshing sensor while the workpiece rotates about the workpiece axis; and/or testing the second gearing with a non-contact second meshing sensor while the workpiece rotates about the workpiece axis. However, this would have been obvious in view of Minas.
Minas is directed finishing two different toothings on a workpiece (para. [0001]). When securing the workpiece on a finishing device, Minas determines the rotational positions of the tooth gaps of each toothing and of a marking 3 on one of the gears (figs. 1-2 & 4, paras. [0040]-[0041]). The finishing device comprises three non-contact sensors which respectively determine the rotational positions of the tooth gaps of the toothing 2, of the marking 3, and of the tooth gaps of the toothing 1. The sensors can be non-contact inductive sensors (para. [0040]), which reads on a non-contact meshing sensor.
In this case, Tachikawa et al. teach cutting the teeth on the first and second gears and providing a marking, wherein the positions of the teeth and marking are calculated/determined. One of skill in the art appreciates that numerous processing steps can occur after the initial cutting of teeth. Minas teaches that it is known to perform a hard finishing step on the gear teeth. Hard finishing is often a later processing step that can occur after other steps such as hardening and other machining steps (that can change the shape of the toothings). Minas teaches a hard finishing machine that is capable of determining the rotational positions of a marking and tooth gaps of each toothing. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Tachikawa et al. to form a hard finishing process on the workpiece whereby the hard finishing machine comprises three non-contact meshing sensors to determine the rotational positions of the toothings, along with the position of the marking. Determining the rotational positions will allow Tachikawa to check/test the previously determined rotational positions and to see if any changes occurred after processing steps before the hard finishing but after the initial cutting of teeth.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachikawa et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2004/0099056 (“Wirz”).
Regarding claim 30, Tachikawa fails to explicitly teach the reference measuring device comprises an optical sensor. However, this would be obvious in view of Wirz.
Wirz is also directed to aligning a workpiece with a gear processing tool (paras. [0001] & [0008]). Wirz teaches to determine the angular position of teeth via a non-contact sensor such as an optical sensor (para. [0004]).
In this case, each of Tachikawa and Wirz are directed to aligning a workpiece with a gear processing tool by sensing the location of at least one tooth location. While Tachikawa teaches using a tactile sensor, Wirz teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable to use an optical sensor. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute an optical sensor for the tactile sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”