DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim(s) 1-17 are pending and are rejected.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendments filed on 03/06/2026.
Claims 1-2 and 14 are amended that are being fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 14 has overcome all the claim objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 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.
Applicant responds:
(a) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1:
Applicant's independent claims 1 (amended)…patentable over the proposed combination of Geiser, Landvogt, and Mies….the following limitations that are neither taught nor disclosed by the combination of references.
As such, claim 1 is amended to limit the determination of the corrected gear cutting process to the approach in which mathematical optimization is performed using region- dependent weightings assigned to different evaluation areas of the tooth flank. Moreover, claim 1 does not recite alternative embodiments relating to different permissible deviations. Instead, the claims are directed to a modification of the optimization criterion itself, namely the use of different weightings for deviations in different spatial regions of a tooth flank. This is neither taught nor disclosed by the proposed combination of Geiser, Landvogt, and Mies, taken alone or in combination.
Geiser:
There is no disclosure or suggestion of performing an optimization in which different spatial regions of a single tooth flank are assigned different mathematical weightings in an objective function.
Landvogt:
there is no teaching or suggestion of altering the optimization criterion itself or assigning different priorities to different regions of a flank when minimizing deviations. the document is concerned with reproducing a target geometry, not with region-dependent weighting of deviations within the flanks.
Mies:
Any functions determined in Mies are directed to analysis and compensation of measured deviations, not to a multi-criteria optimization prioritizing load- relevant regions.
Accordingly, none of the documents, taken alone or in combination teach or disclose Applicant's claimed weighting approach…This fundamentally changes the nature of the correction process and it does not appear in the combination of Geiser, Landvogt, and Mies.
Applicant respectfully asserts that the proposed combination of Geiser, Landvogt, and Mies does not teach Applicant's claimed method.
Applicant further and respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Geiser, Landvogt, and Mies and result in Applicant's claimed method.
(Pages: 9-14)
With respect to (a) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
A new grounds of rejections in view of Ribbeck’32 has been introduced in the current office action.
Combination of Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of independent claim 1 as described in the current office action.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, the arguments are moot; therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 in view of the references as presented in the current office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant responds:
(b) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's independent claims…15 are patentable over the proposed combination of Geiser, Landvogt, and Mies. The claims are directed to a method for machining and measuring workpieces and includes inter alia the following limitations that are neither taught nor disclosed by the combination of references:
"wherein
- the evaluation of the deviation has a specification
- that a first permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal
geometry is specified for a first evaluation area of the tooth flank,
- that a second permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal
geometry is specified for a second evaluation area of the tooth flank, and
that the first permissible deviation is smaller than the second permissible deviation" (claim 15)
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that prima facie obviousness does not exist regarding independent claims 1 and 15
(Page: 10, 14)
With respect to (b) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
Examiner notes that the arguments in pages 10-15 addresses the limitation, “wherein for mathematical optimization for the at least partial reduction of the deviation, a first weighting is specified for a deviation of the first evaluation area of the tooth flank and a second weighting is specified for a deviation of the second evaluation area of the tooth flank, wherein the first weighting is greater than the second weighting” that is not part of claim 15. Therefore, these arguments do not apply to claim 15.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, they are not persuasive; therefore, claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 in view of the references as presented in the previous office action.
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.
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 filling 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiser et al. (US20140256223A1) [hereinafter Geiser] in view of Landvogt et al. (EP3600744A1; for the mapping purpose, US20200332877A1 is used) [hereinafter Landvogt], and further in view of Ribbeck’32 et al. (US20170356732A1) [hereinafter Ribbeck’32].
Regarding claim 1 (amended):
Geiser discloses, A method for machining and measuring workpieces, the method includes: [¶16: “a method of manufacturing a workpiece in accordance with the description herein.”… ¶15: “method should therefore be provided for producing a noise-optimized gear with tooth flank modifications in the form of waviness on the tooth flanks, wherein the amplitude, frequency and phase position of the waviness is determined from the measurement of the rotational distance error of the transmission and serves as the input value for the gear-cutting machine.”];
machining a workpiece by a gear cutting process, wherein a tooth flank of the workpiece is produced or machined, [¶16: “a method of manufacturing a workpiece in accordance with the description herein.”… ¶32: “FIG. 1 shows a perspective view of a gear-cutting machine, in particular of a gear grinding and profile grinding machine for carrying out the methods in accordance with the invention for manufacturing a profile modification or profile waviness, in particular a periodic flank waviness, on a workpiece to be gear cut. The gear cutting machine in this respect has the degrees of freedom required for the machining and can in particular carry out the drawn movements A1, B1, B3, C2, C3, C5, V1, X1, Z1 and Z4.”];
measuring an actual geometry of the tooth flank of the workpiece generated by the gear cutting process using a measuring method, [¶33: “measuring device for measuring the tooth flanks within the gear-cutting machine” “could be arranged at the machining head 5 and could thus likewise also use the machine axis used in the machining process; they are in particular the axes Z1, V1, X1 and C2.”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Landvogt discloses, determining a deviation of the actual geometry of the tooth flank from a specified nominal geometry of the tooth flank, [¶18-¶20: “carrying out a measurement to ascertain the actual topography of the tooth flank, carrying out a computer-based comparison of the actual topography to the target topography, and, if the comparison shows that deviations exist between the actual topography and the target topography, carrying out correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of the gear wheel workpiece or, if multiple gear wheel workpieces are machined in series in the gear cutting machine, carrying out a correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of a subsequent gear wheel workpiece of the series.”];
determining a corrected gear cutting process to at least partially reduce the deviation, and [¶18-¶20: “carrying out a measurement to ascertain the actual topography of the tooth flank, carrying out a computer-based comparison of the actual topography to the target topography, and, if the comparison shows that deviations exist between the actual topography and the target topography, carrying out correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of the gear wheel workpiece or, if multiple gear wheel workpieces are machined in series in the gear cutting machine, carrying out a correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of a subsequent gear wheel workpiece of the series.”];
machining the workpiece and/or another workpiece by the corrected gear cutting process, [¶18-¶20: “carrying out a measurement to ascertain the actual topography of the tooth flank, carrying out a computer-based comparison of the actual topography to the target topography, and, if the comparison shows that deviations exist between the actual topography and the target topography, carrying out correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of the gear wheel workpiece or, if multiple gear wheel workpieces are machined in series in the gear cutting machine, carrying out a correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of a subsequent gear wheel workpiece of the series.”];
the determination of the corrected gear cutting process for the at least partial reduction of the deviation [¶18-¶20: “carrying out correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of the gear wheel workpiece or, if multiple gear wheel workpieces are machined in series in the gear cutting machine, carrying out a correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of a subsequent gear wheel workpiece of the series.”];
has a specification that a distinction is made between a first evaluation area of the tooth flank and a second evaluation area of the tooth flank, [¶93: “On the left, exemplary numeric values are applied adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5A. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thicker than the target value. The point (G, 1) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the base. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thinner (therefore −11.3 in FIG. 5A) than the target value. The point (G, 15) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the head.”… ¶94: “Correspondingly, exemplary numeric values are also applied on the left adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5B. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 4.7 μm thicker than the target value. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 13.9 μm thinner (therefore −13.9 in FIG. 5B) than the target value.”
Landvogt discloses, two distinct evaluation area, such as the first evaluation area as shown in figure 5a, and as a second evaluation are as shown in figure 5b];
wherein for mathematical optimization for the at least partial reduction of the deviation, [¶18-¶20: “if the comparison shows that deviations exist between the actual topography and the target topography, carrying out correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of the gear wheel workpiece or, if multiple gear wheel workpieces are machined in series in the gear cutting machine, carrying out a correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of a subsequent gear wheel workpiece of the series.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of determining a deviation of the actual geometry of the tooth flank from a specified nominal geometry of the tooth flank, determining a corrected gear cutting process to at least partially reduce the deviation, and machining the workpiece and/or another workpiece by the corrected gear cutting process; the determination of the corrected gear cutting process for the at least partial reduction of the deviation has a specification that a distinction is made between a first evaluation area of the tooth flank and a second evaluation area of the tooth flank to have improved approach for (fine) machining of bevel gears and in turn suppress unpleasant noise or reduce the influence thereof on the overall noise behavior of a gear wheel pair taught by Landvogt with the method taught by Geiser as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have improved approach for (fine) machining of bevel gears and in turn suppress unpleasant noise or reduce the influence thereof on the overall noise behavior of a gear wheel pair [Landvogt: (¶11) “improved approach for (fine) machining of bevel gears, which helps in this case to suppress the noises perceived as unpleasant or at least reduce the influence thereof on the overall noise behavior of a gear wheel pair.”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Ribbeck’32 discloses, a first weighting is specified for a deviation of the first evaluation area of the tooth flank [¶58: “actual measured values with a second resolution are provided for several locations of the tooth flanks 7.1”];
and a second weighting is specified for a deviation of the second evaluation area of the tooth flank, [¶57: “actual measured values with a first resolution are provided for several locations of the tooth flanks 7.1”];
wherein the first weighting is greater than the second weighting. [¶58: “wherein the second resolution is higher than the first resolution.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the techniques of specifying a first weighting for a deviation of the first evaluation area of the tooth flank and specifying a second weighting for a deviation of the second evaluation area of the tooth flank, wherein the first weighting is greater than the second weighting in order to perform rapid, precise and reproducible evaluations of different evaluation areas taught by Ribbeck’32 and incorporating it with the technique of perform optimization to reduce deviation taught by Landvogt with the method taught by Geiser and Landvogt as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to perform rapid, precise and reproducible evaluations of different evaluation areas [Ribbeck’32: (¶8) “allows measuring surface properties of tooth flanks in a rapid, precise and reproducible manner.”].
Regarding claim 2 (amended):
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Geiser further discloses, - wherein the first evaluation area has first one or more sections of the tooth flank, which are arranged contiguously and/or at least in regions spaced apart from one another, and/or
- the second evaluation area has second one or more sections of the tooth flank, which are arranged contiguously and/or in regions spaced apart from one another and/or
- wherein a first permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry is predetermined for the first evaluation area of the tooth flank, a second permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry is predetermined for the second evaluation area of the tooth flank, and the first permissible deviation is smaller than the second permissible deviation. [Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given the patentable weight.
As such Geiser discloses the limitation, “the first evaluation area has first one or more sections of the tooth flank, which are arranged contiguously and/or at least in regions spaced apart from one another.”
¶35: “FIGS. 2 a and 2 b show a three-dimensional representation of a possible tooth flank structure of a single tooth 1 of a toothed wheel. The periodic structure parallel to the flank direction arises in a hard-fine machining process such as is used in accordance with the invention. The amplitude, frequency and phase position is determined by the gear-cutting machine software in accordance with the demands from the rotational distance error measurement.”
Examiner notes that Geiser teaches, in first evaluation area sections of the tooth flanks are spaced apart, fig. 2a, 2b].
Regarding claim 5:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Landvogt further discloses, when the actual geometry of the tooth flank of the workpiece generated by the gear cutting process is measured by the measuring process, a measuring grid with measuring points is detected, [¶92: “The graphics of FIGS. 5A and 5B are based on a measurement which was carried out in the machine 20” “the actual topography of the tooth flanks was measured after the fine machining on 7×15 points. For this purpose, the flanks were divided into 7 columns A to G and into 15 lines 1-15. The actual values of the actual topography are plotted in each point of the 7×15 grid as the normal to the target plane.”];
when determining the deviation of the actual geometry of the tooth flank from the predetermined nominal geometry of the tooth flank, a respective deviation of the actual position of the respective measuring point from the nominal position of the respective measuring point is determined for each of the measuring points of the measuring grid, and [¶92: “The actual values of the actual topography are plotted in each point of the 7×15 grid as the normal to the target plane. The more strongly the actual value deviates from the target value (target topography of the flank having basic modification), the longer are these normals.”… ¶93: “On the left, exemplary numeric values are applied adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5A. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thicker than the target value. The point (G, 1) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the base. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thinner (therefore −11.3 in FIG. 5A) than the target value.”… ¶94: “Correspondingly, exemplary numeric values are also applied on the left adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5B. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 4.7 μm thicker than the target value. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 13.9 μm thinner (therefore −13.9 in FIG. 5B) than the target value.”];
a first group of the measuring points is assigned to the first evaluation area, and a second group of the measuring points is assigned to the second evaluation area. [¶92: “The actual values of the actual topography are plotted in each point of the 7×15 grid as the normal to the target plane. The more strongly the actual value deviates from the target value (target topography of the flank having basic modification), the longer are these normals.”… ¶93: “On the left, exemplary numeric values are applied adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5A. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thicker than the target value. The point (G, 1) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the base. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thinner (therefore −11.3 in FIG. 5A) than the target value. The point (G, 15) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the head.”
Also see Geiser figures 5A and 5B].
Regarding claim 6:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Landvogt further discloses, wherein, after machining of the workpiece and/or of a further workpiece by the corrected gear cutting process,
for the first evaluation area, an actual deviation of a tooth flank machined by the corrected gear cutting process is smaller than the first permissible deviation, and [¶92: “At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thinner (therefore −11.3 in FIG. 5A) than the target value. The point (G, 15) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the head.”
Examiner notes that the permissible deviation can be of any value.
Landvogt discloses, as shown in figure 5A, for the first evaluation area, an actual deviation of a tooth flank smaller than the first permissible deviation such that the actual deviation is - 11.3 um that is smaller than permissible deviation for example 0.];
wherein, after machining of the workpiece and/or of a further workpiece by the corrected gear cutting process,
for the second evaluation area, the actual deviation of the tooth flank machined by the corrected gear cutting process is smaller than the second permissible deviation. [¶92: “Correspondingly, exemplary numeric values are also applied on the left adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5B.” “At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 13.9 μm thinner (therefore −13.9 in FIG. 5B) than the target value.”
Examiner notes that the permissible deviation can be of any value.
Landvogt discloses, as shown in figure 5B, for the second evaluation area, the actual deviation of the tooth flank is smaller than the second permissible deviation such that the actual deviation is – 13.9 um that is smaller than permissible deviation for example 0.];
Regarding claim 8:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Geiser further disclose, wherein the corrected gear cutting process has modified process kinematics compared to the gear cutting process, and/or
the corrected gear cutting process has a modified tool geometry compared to the gear cutting process.[ Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given patentable weight.
As such Geiser discloses the limitation, “the corrected gear cutting process has modified process kinematics compared to the gear cutting process.”
¶15: “producing a noise-optimized gear with tooth flank modifications in the form of waviness on the tooth flanks,”… ¶18: “the rotational distance error produced by the gears is recorded. This rotational distance error is transferred to the control software of the gear-cutting machine. Irregularities in the measurement results are smoothed via a compensation calculation and the result is converted into at least one periodic function for describing the required waviness in the profile direction and in the flank direction.”… ¶19: “Using these functions (at least one per rolling partner), the control software of the gear-cutting machine now calculates waviness on the tooth flanks of the toothed wheel pairs involved in the meshing which result in a low-noise tooth meshing under the given meshing conditions and prepares a machining program therefrom with which the respective gears have to be hard-fine machined.”
Geiser teaches compensated gear cutting tool kinematics/movement compared to actual gear cutting process prior to the compensation].
Regarding claim 9:
Geiser, Landvogt and Mies disclose all the elements of claim(s) 8,
Geiser further disclose, before determining the corrected gear cutting process, the possibility of changing the tool geometry is enabled or disabled; and/or
before determining the corrected gear cutting process, the possibility of changing the process kinematics is enabled or disabled. [Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given patentable weight.
As such Geiser discloses the limitation, “before determining the corrected gear cutting process, the possibility of changing the process kinematics is enabled or disabled”
¶18: “the gears are measured while meshing under pressure meshing conditions on an external measuring device (measuring machine, transmission test bench, noise test bench, etc.) and the rotational distance error produced by the gears is recorded. This rotational distance error is transferred to the control software of the gear-cutting machine.”
Geiser teaches, before compensation, possibility of changing process kinematics is enabled/performed; gears are measured while meshing under pressure meshing conditions on an external measuring device].
Regarding claim 13:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Geiser further discloses, the gear cutting process comprises one or more of the following method steps:
machining the workpiece with a tool having a geometrically defined cutting edge;
machining the workpiece with a tool having a geometrically indeterminate cutting edge;
pre-cutting in the soft state of the workpiece;
hard machining of the workpiece in a hard state after hardening of the workpiece. [Examiner notes that “one or more of the following…” are considered as two possibilities (one or more than one). For the examination purpose, “one of the following” has been given patentable weight.
As such Geiser discloses the limitation, “machining the workpiece with a tool having a geometrically defined cutting edge”
¶23: “a machining of the tooth flanks using a worm grinding wheel in which only certain regions are active above the tooth height, with the position of these regions varying over the tool width with respect to the tooth height. The tool is then used in a diagonal grinding process and thus generates a direct, low-noise profile modification in the form of microwaviness. The raised regions on the grinding tool are used at different flank positions by repeated shifting and re-engagement of the grinding tool and thus generate the required waviness on the tooth flanks.”
Geiser discloses, machining the workpiece with a tool having a geometrically indeterminate cutting edge, such as grinding].
Regarding claim 14 (amended):
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Geiser further discloses, the plurality of tooth flanks of the gearwheel [¶33: “measuring the tooth flanks within the gear-cutting machine”];
the plurality of tooth flanks of the gearwheel of a toothed gearing are machined or produced during machining of the gear by the gear cutting process. [¶16: “a method of manufacturing a workpiece in accordance with the description herein.”… (¶23: “FIG. 1 shows a perspective view of a gear-cutting machine, in particular of a gear grinding and profile grinding machine for carrying out the methods in accordance with the invention for manufacturing a profile modification or profile waviness, in particular a periodic flank waviness, on a workpiece to be gear cut. The gear cutting machine in this respect has the degrees of freedom required for the machining and can in particular carry out the drawn movements A1, B1, B3, C2, C3, C5, V1, X1, Z1 and Z4.” (¶32)… “The raised regions on the grinding tool are used at different flank positions by repeated shifting and re-engagement of the grinding tool and thus generate the required waviness on the tooth flanks.”].
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32, and further in view of Wawro et al. (US20100261415A1) [hereinafter Wawro].
Regarding claim 3:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, but they do not explicitly disclose, and
Wawro discloses, wherein the first evaluation area is assigned a load-bearing area of the tooth flank which is at a distance from ends or edges of the tooth flank and/or
the second evaluation area is assigned an edge region which has ends or edges of the tooth flank or is adjacent thereto.
[Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given patentable weight.
As such Wawro discloses the limitation, “the first evaluation area is assigned a load-bearing area of the tooth flank which is at a distance from ends or edges of the tooth flank,”
¶9: “The tooth flank polishing tool is used to remove roughness peaks, i.e., the surface structure of the tools flanks is at least partially plastically deformed with very little material removal and hence smoothed. With the tooth flank polishing tool of the invention, a tooth flank can advantageously be polished so smoothly so that it has a very small surface roughness Ra of preferably=0.4 μm, in particular=0.2 μm. In this way, the percentage of the bearing support surface and hence the tooth load bearing capacity is increased and the sliding properties of the tooth gear are improved.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of assigning load-bearing area of the tooth flank to increase load bearing capacity and to improve the sliding properties of the tooth gear taught by Wawro with the method taught by Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to increase load bearing capacity and to improve the sliding properties of the tooth gear [Wawro: (¶9) “the percentage of the bearing support surface and hence the tooth load bearing capacity is increased and the sliding properties of the tooth gear are improved”].
Regarding claim 12:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Wawro further discloses, the first permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry for a respective measuring point or a section of the first evaluation area is selected from a range less than or equal to 10 μm, and
the second permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry for a respective measuring point or a section of the second evaluation area is selected from a range smaller than or equal to 15 μm. [¶9: “The tooth flank polishing tool is used to remove roughness peaks, i.e., the surface structure of the tools flanks is at least partially plastically deformed with very little material removal and hence smoothed. With the tooth flank polishing tool of the invention, a tooth flank can advantageously be polished so smoothly so that it has a very small surface roughness Ra of preferably=0.4 μm, in particular=0.2 μm.” (¶9)
Wawro discloses, permissible deviations are selected from a range less than 10um and 15um (e.g.; 0.2 μm):].
Claim(s) 4, 10-11, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiser in view of Landvogt and further in view of Mies (US20190368863A1) [hereinafter Mies].
Regarding claim 4:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1, and
Mies discloses, wherein the first evaluation area is assigned first one or more sections of the tooth flank which, in operation, have a contact with a mating flank; and/or
the first evaluation area is assigned the first one or more sections of the tooth flank for which a predetermined load threshold or a predetermined load criterion is exceeded during the operation; and/or
the second evaluation area is assigned second one or more sections of the tooth flank which have no contact with a mating flank during the operation; and/or
the second evaluation area is assigned the second one or more sections of the tooth flank for which the load falls below the predetermined load threshold or the predetermined load criterion during the operation. [Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given patentable weight.
As such Landvogt discloses the limitation, “the first evaluation area is assigned first one or more sections of the tooth flank which, in operation, have a contact with a mating flank;”
¶48: “the deviation of the respective tooth flank geometry from the setpoint geometry is measured along a measuring path M1 in the profile direction on each of the teeth 1, 4, 7, 10. Therefore, four teeth 1, 4, 7, 10 are measured in the present case in method step A).”… ¶50: “According to at least some embodiments, it can be provided that the measurement of the tooth flanks 102 of the teeth 1, 4, 7, 10 along the respective measuring paths M1 takes place with the aid of an optical sensor system.”
Mies discloses, in a gear mechanism tooth flank is in contact with mating flank such as in fig. 1, the area between tooth flank 9 and 10 can be in contact with any other tooth flank during operation, where evaluation area is assigned to sections of the tooth flank such as for tooth flank 9 M2, and for tooth flank 10 M1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the first evaluation area is assigned first one or more sections of the tooth flank which, in operation, have a contact with a mating flank to have improved compensation by performing precise evaluation with precise measurement of the sectionalized areas taught by Mies with the method taught by Geiser and Landvogt as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have improved compensation by performing precise evaluation with precise measurement of the sectionalized areas [Mies: (¶23) “A robust, precise measurement of the deviations can thus take place,”… (¶26) “The accuracy of the one or more compensation and/or interpolation functions to be determined can thus be improved.”].
Regarding claim 10:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Mies further discloses, wherein the determination of the corrected gear cutting process is performed by a nonlinear optimization. [¶51: “a deviation of the respective tooth flank geometry from the setpoint geometry of the gearwheel 100 is captured by touching a respective point P1 on the respective tooth flank 102 of the teeth 3, 6.”… ¶52: “For the teeth 9, 12 to be measured in method step B), in each case a deviation of the respective tooth flank geometry from the setpoint geometry is measured along at least one partial measuring path M2 in the profile direction. The length of the partial measuring path M2 is less than the length of the measuring path M1.”… ¶60: “In FIG. 2, the measured deviations of the individual tooth flanks 1-12 from the setpoint geometry are arrayed according to the rotational angle during the rolling. Therefore, the deviations (ordinate) are plotted over the rotational angle (abscissa) in the way in which they contribute in succession to the noise excitation during the rolling in the tooth engagement.”
See determination of the corrected gear cutting process is performed by a nonlinear optimization (e.g.; optimization process is not linear; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 11:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Mies further discloses, wherein the first permissible deviation is assigned first tolerances for one or more of the subsequent toothing deviations:
profile deviations;
flank line deviations;
pitch deviations;
and/or
the second permissible deviation is assigned second tolerances for one or more of the subsequent toothing deviations:
profile deviations;
flank line deviations;
pitch deviations;
flatness deviations;
warping/interleaving;
[Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given patentable weight. Further examiner notes that “one or more of the” is considered as two possibilities such or one or more than one. For the examination purpose, “one of the” has been given patentable weight.
As such Mies discloses the limitation, “wherein the first permissible deviation is assigned first tolerances for one or more of the subsequent toothing deviations: profile deviations;…”
¶35: “The order analysis in method step C) can be performed by a step-by-step determination of dominant frequencies, wherein the following method steps are carried out for a specified frequency range: determining compensation angle functions, wherein the compensation angle function having the greatest amplitude is defined as the first dominant frequency of the deviations plotted over the rotational angle; filtering the deviations plotted over the rotational angle of the first dominant frequency; determining compensation angle functions for the deviations, which are filtered of the first dominant frequency and plotted over the rotational angle, wherein the compensation angle function having the greatest amplitude is defined as the second dominant frequency of the deviations plotted over the rotational angle.” (¶35)
Mies teaches, first permissible deviation is assigned first tolerances (e.g.; compensation angle function) for subsequent toothing deviations such as for angle related deviations (claimed profile deviations)];
wherein the first tolerances at least partially deviate from or are identical to the second tolerances and/or wherein the toothing deviations associated with the first permissible deviation at least partially deviate from or are identical to the toothing deviations associated with the second permissible deviation. [Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given patentable weight.
As such Mies discloses the limitation, “the first tolerances at least partially deviate from…the second tolerances.”
¶35: “determining compensation angle functions, wherein the compensation angle function having the greatest amplitude is defined as the first dominant frequency of the deviations plotted over the rotational angle; filtering the deviations plotted over the rotational angle of the first dominant frequency; determining compensation angle functions for the deviations, which are filtered of the first dominant frequency and plotted over the rotational angle, wherein the compensation angle function having the greatest amplitude is defined as the second dominant frequency of the deviations plotted over the rotational angle.”
Examiner further notes that in broadest reasonable interpretation, the plain meaning of at least partially deviates is used such that at least partially deviates means any deviation/difference.].
Regarding claim 15:
Geiser discloses, A method for machining and measuring workpieces, the method including: [¶16: “a method of manufacturing a workpiece in accordance with the description herein.”… ¶15: “method should therefore be provided for producing a noise-optimized gear with tooth flank modifications in the form of waviness on the tooth flanks, wherein the amplitude, frequency and phase position of the waviness is determined from the measurement of the rotational distance error of the transmission and serves as the input value for the gear-cutting machine.”];
measuring an actual geometry of a tooth flank of a workpiece generated by a gear cutting process[¶33: “measuring device for measuring the tooth flanks within the gear-cutting machine” “could be arranged at the machining head 5 and could thus likewise also use the machine axis used in the machining process; they are in particular the axes Z1, V1, X1 and C2.”];
evaluating the deviation, [“This rotational distance error is transferred to the control software of the gear-cutting machine. Irregularities in the measurement results are smoothed via a compensation calculation and the result is converted into at least one periodic function for describing the required waviness in the profile direction and in the flank direction.” (¶18)], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
However, Landvogt discloses, determining a deviation of the actual geometry of the tooth flank from a specified nominal geometry of the tooth flank, [¶18-¶20: “carrying out a measurement to ascertain the actual topography of the tooth flank, carrying out a computer-based comparison of the actual topography to the target topography, and, if the comparison shows that deviations exist between the actual topography and the target topography, carrying out correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of the gear wheel workpiece or, if multiple gear wheel workpieces are machined in series in the gear cutting machine, carrying out a correction machining of at least a part of the tooth flanks of a subsequent gear wheel workpiece of the series.”];
wherein the evaluation of the deviation has a specification
that a first permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry is specified for a first evaluation area of the tooth flank,
that a second permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry is specified for a second evaluation area of the tooth flank, and
[¶93: “On the left, exemplary numeric values are applied adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5A. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thicker than the target value. The point (G, 1) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the base. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thinner (therefore −11.3 in FIG. 5A) than the target value. The point (G, 15) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the head.”… ¶94: “Correspondingly, exemplary numeric values are also applied on the left adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5B. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 4.7 μm thicker than the target value. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 13.9 μm thinner (therefore −13.9 in FIG. 5B) than the target value.”
Examiner notes that, in broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations, the evaluation of the deviation has a specification means that these first and second permissible deviations used are specified such that they can be any desired deviations.
Landvogt discloses, as shown in figure 5a, for the first evaluation area, the actual geometry deviates from specified nominal geometry by -11.3um) and as shown in figure 5b, for the second evaluation area, the actual geometry deviates from specified nominal geometry by -13.9 um],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the evaluation of the deviation has a specification that a first permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry is specified for a first evaluation area of the tooth flank, and that a second permissible deviation of the actual geometry from the nominal geometry is specified for a second evaluation area of the tooth flank to have improved approach for (fine) machining of bevel gears and in turn suppress unpleasant noise or reduce the influence thereof on the overall noise behavior of a gear wheel pair taught by Landvogt with the method taught by Geiser as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have improved approach for (fine) machining of bevel gears and in turn suppress unpleasant noise or reduce the influence thereof on the overall noise behavior of a gear wheel pair [Landvogt: (¶11) “improved approach for (fine) machining of bevel gears, which helps in this case to suppress the noises perceived as unpleasant or at least reduce the influence thereof on the overall noise behavior of a gear wheel pair.”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
However, Mies discloses, wherein the evaluation of the deviation has a specification
that the first permissible deviation is smaller than the second permissible deviation.[¶29: “a first measurement of the flank and at least one further measurement of the same flank take place, wherein a distance of a rotational axis of the gearwheel in relation to an optical sensor of the optical sensor system after the first measurement and before the second measurement is reduced.”… ¶11: “wherein the length of the partial measuring path is less than the length of the measuring path;”… ¶52: “The length of the partial measuring path M2 is less than the length of the measuring path M1.”… ¶30: “the optical sensor can be positioned for a first measurement of a tooth flank at a distance a1 in relation to a rotational axis of the gearwheel to detect a first measurement point. Subsequently, the optical sensor can be positioned for a second measurement of the tooth flank at a distance a2, which is different from the distance a1, in relation to the rotational axis of the gearwheel, to detect at least one second measurement point. It can be provided that a plurality of measurement points are captured continuously or step-by-step along the partial measuring path of the tooth flank.”
Mies discloses, for the first area, first predetermined permissible deviation and for second area, second permissible predetermined deviation where the first deviation can be smaller than the second deviation such as second deviation is reduced//less than the first deviation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the first permissible deviation is smaller than the second permissible deviation to have improved compensation by performing precise evaluation with precise measurement taught by Mies with the method taught by Geiser and Landvogt as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have improved compensation by performing precise evaluation with precise measurement [Mies: (¶23) “A robust, precise measurement of the deviations can thus take place,”… (¶26) “The accuracy of the one or more compensation and/or interpolation functions to be determined can thus be improved.”].
Regarding claim 17:
Geiser, Landvogt and Mies disclose all the elements of claim(s) 15,
Landvogt further discloses, when the actual geometry of the tooth flank of the workpiece generated by the gear cutting process is measured by the measuring process, a measuring grid with measuring points is detected, [¶92: “The graphics of FIGS. 5A and 5B are based on a measurement which was carried out in the machine 20” “the actual topography of the tooth flanks was measured after the fine machining on 7×15 points. For this purpose, the flanks were divided into 7 columns A to G and into 15 lines 1-15. The actual values of the actual topography are plotted in each point of the 7×15 grid as the normal to the target plane.”];
when determining the deviation of the actual geometry of the tooth flank from the predetermined nominal geometry of the tooth flank, a deviation of the actual position of the respective measuring point from the nominal position of the respective measuring point is determined for each of the measuring points of the measuring grid, and [¶92: “The actual values of the actual topography are plotted in each point of the 7×15 grid as the normal to the target plane. The more strongly the actual value deviates from the target value (target topography of the flank having basic modification), the longer are these normals.”… ¶93: “On the left, exemplary numeric values are applied adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5A. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thicker than the target value. The point (G, 1) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the base. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thinner (therefore −11.3 in FIG. 5A) than the target value.”… ¶94: “Correspondingly, exemplary numeric values are also applied on the left adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5B. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 4.7 μm thicker than the target value. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 13.9 μm thinner (therefore −13.9 in FIG. 5B) than the target value.”];
a first group of the measuring points is assigned to the first evaluation area and second group of the measuring points is assigned to the second evaluation area. [¶92: “The actual values of the actual topography are plotted in each point of the 7×15 grid as the normal to the target plane. The more strongly the actual value deviates from the target value (target topography of the flank having basic modification), the longer are these normals.”… ¶93: “On the left, exemplary numeric values are applied adjacent to the convex tooth of FIG. 5A. At the point (G, 1) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thicker than the target value. The point (G, 1) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the base. At the point (G, 15) of the grid, the corresponding tooth is 11.3 μm thinner (therefore −11.3 in FIG. 5A) than the target value. The point (G, 15) is located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 directly in the vicinity of the head.”
Also see Geiser figures 5A and 5B, first group of measuring points such as point (G, 1) and (G, 2) located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 closer to base and second group of measuring points such as point (G, 14) and (G, 15) located on the inside on the gear wheel workpiece 1 closer to the head].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32, and further in view of Stadtfeld et al. (US20080113592A1) [hereinafter Stadtfeld].
Regarding claim 7:
Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 disclose all the elements of claim(s) 1,
Geiser further discloses, wherein two or more tooth flanks of the workpiece are produced or machined during machining of the workpiece by the gear cutting process, [¶33: “measuring the tooth flanks within the gear-cutting machine”… ¶16: “a method of manufacturing a workpiece in accordance with the description herein.”… ¶32: “FIG. 1 shows a perspective view of a gear-cutting machine, in particular of a gear grinding and profile grinding machine for carrying out the methods in accordance with the invention for manufacturing a profile modification or profile waviness, in particular a periodic flank waviness, on a workpiece to be gear cut. The gear cutting machine in this respect has the degrees of freedom required for the machining and can in particular carry out the drawn movements A1, B1, B3, C2, C3, C5, V1, X1, Z1 and Z4.”… ¶23: “The raised regions on the grinding tool are used at different flank positions by repeated shifting and re-engagement of the grinding tool and thus generate the required waviness on the tooth flanks.”];
when measuring the actual geometry generated by the gear cutting process, two or more tooth flanks of the workpiece are measured by the measuring method; [¶33: “measuring device for measuring the tooth flanks within the gear-cutting machine is not shown in this Figure, but could be arranged at the machining head 5 and could thus likewise also use the machine axis used in the machining process; they are in particular the axes Z1, V1, X1 and C2.”… ¶18: “the gears are measured while meshing under pressure meshing conditions on an external measuring device (measuring machine, transmission test bench, noise test bench, etc.) and the rotational distance error produced by the gears is recorded. This rotational distance error is transferred to the control software of the gear-cutting machine. Irregularities in the measurement results are smoothed via a compensation calculation and the result is converted into at least one periodic function for describing the required waviness in the profile direction and in the flank direction.”… ¶23: “The raised regions on the grinding tool are used at different flank positions by repeated shifting and re-engagement of the grinding tool and thus generate the required waviness on the tooth flanks.”], but does not explicitly disclose, and
Stadtfeld discloses, when determining deviations of the actual geometry of the respectively measured tooth flanks from the predetermined nominal geometry, a mean deviation is determined from the deviations of the respectively measured tooth flanks; and
for all tooth flanks, the corrected gear cutting process for the at least partial reduction of the deviations is determined on the basis of the mean deviation. [¶37: “consolidating the average flank form deviations of pinion and ring gear flanks versus the nominal flank form;”… ¶38: “calculating incremental lapping times at discrete contact positions (from lap removal efficiency matrix) as lapping correction matrix;”… ¶39: “in the case of 2 a or 2 b, correcting the gear set by lapping corrections at discrete grid positions followed by the original lapping cycle;”
Stadtfeld teaches, perform gear cutting correction based on determined average deviation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of performing gear cutting correction based on determined average deviation to achieve a desired tooth surface taught by Stadtfeld with the method taught by Geiser, Landvogt and Ribbeck’32 as discussed above to have reasonable expectation of success such as to achieve a desired tooth surface [Stadtfeld: (¶30) “controllable lapping process whereby the lapping process may be modified in order to achieve a desired tooth surface”].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiser, Landvogt and Mies, and further in view of Wawro.
Regarding claim 16:
Geiser, Landvogt and Mies disclose all the elements of claim(s) 15,
Wawro further discloses, wherein the first evaluation area is assigned a tooth flank load-bearing area which is at a distance from ends or edges of the tooth flank and/or
the second evaluation area is assigned an edge region which has ends or edges of the tooth flank or is adjacent thereto. [Examiner notes that “and/or” are considered as three possibilities. For the examination purpose, “or” has been given patentable weight.
As such Wawro discloses the limitation, “the first evaluation area is assigned a tooth flank load-bearing area which is at a distance from ends or edges of the tooth flank”
¶9: “The tooth flank polishing tool is used to remove roughness peaks, i.e., the surface structure of the tools flanks is at least partially plastically deformed with very little material removal and hence smoothed. With the tooth flank polishing tool of the invention, a tooth flank can advantageously be polished so smoothly so that it has a very small surface roughness Ra of preferably=0.4 μm, in particular=0.2 μm. In this way, the percentage of the bearing support surface and hence the tooth load bearing capacity is increased and the sliding properties of the tooth gear are improved.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of assigning load-bearing area of the tooth flank to increase load bearing capacity and to improve the sliding properties of the tooth gear taught by Wawro with the method taught by Geiser, Landvogt and Mies as discussed above to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to increase load bearing capacity and to improve the sliding properties of the tooth gear [Wawro: (¶9) “the percentage of the bearing support surface and hence the tooth load bearing capacity is increased and the sliding properties of the tooth gear are improved”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document mailed with the previous office action dated 12/09/2024.
Wuerfel (US20170008108A1) - Method of producing a toothed workpiece having a modified surface geometry:
Producing a toothed workpiece having a modified surface geometry by a diagonal generating method by means of a modified tool. In a first variant at least two different modifications which can be produced by a modification of the dressing process of the tool and/or of the dresser used for dressing the tool and/or of the machining process of the workpiece are superposed for the production of the modification of the workpiece (¶5).
Kreschel (US20220331893A1) - Method for producing or machining, by cutting, an identical set of teeth on each of a plurality of workpieces, and machine group and control program therefor:
Grinding or regrinding is carried out to a modified step angle during the grinding process. This leads to an asymmetrical influence on one flank and the other flank of the workpiece gearing. If, for example, a profile angle on the left flank is increased by reducing the step angle, this would not be increased on the right flank side (in the two-flank method), but rather, reduced. Accordingly, an asymmetry portion of the profile error relative to the deviation on the left and right flank is preferably counteracted by modifying the step angle (¶16).
Ribbeck’55 et al. (US20090028655A1) - Device and method for machining bevel gears in the indexing method having complete indexing error compensation:
Method according to the invention can also include the dynamic corrections explained above as an additional countermeasure. It is therefore definitely intended that the countermeasure, in addition to changing the relative position of the rake faces, also includes a dynamic correction in the form of machine axis movements modified compared to the machine axis movements for the production/machining of the gear teeth or the originally intended production/machining of the gear teeth having the detected deviation or deviation to be detected (¶18).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights