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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “moving said tool and said work gear relative to one another in a generating motion along and/or about said plurality of axes”. As claimed, it is unclear what is meant by “in a generating motion along.. plurality of axes”.
Claim 1 recites: “a maximum flank form deviation amplitude for each tooth of the work gear”. As claimed, it is unclear what is specifically meant by “maximum flank form deviation amplitude”. For examination purposes, the limitation of “maximum flank form deviation amplitude” has been construed as the maximum allowed error amount which is allowed for each tooth of the work gear. Claim 5’s limitation of “maximum flank form deviation amplitude” has also been construed in the same manner.
Claim 5 recites: “removal of stock material from a work gear with a tool”, “providing a tool on said tool spindle” and “engaging said tool with said work gear, moving said tool and said work gear relative to one another”. As claimed, it is unclear if the first “a tool” is the same or different than the next “a tool”. Claim 15 also recites “said tool comprises a grinding wheel” and is also unclear which “tool” is being referred to. For examination purposes, both “a tool” have been construed as the same.
Claim 5 recites: “removal of stock material from a work gear” and “providing a workpiece on said work piece spindle”. As claimed, and with support from the specification, it is unclear if both the “work gear” and “workpiece” are referring to the same part. For examination purposes, the “work gear” and “workpiece” have been construed as the same part.
Claim 5 recites: “moving said tool and said work gear relative to one another in a generating motion comprising a generating roll along and/or about said plurality of axes”. As claimed, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation and it’s also unclear what is specifically being required.
Claim 12 recites: “the second level function has an amplitude of zero” and as claimed, it is unclear what amplitude is being referred to.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtfeld (U.S. Patent No. 5,580,298 A), Ribbeck (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0028655 A1), and Geiser (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0111505 A1).
Referring to claim 1: Stadtfeld teaches a method of producing a tooth flank surface on gear teeth by controlled removal of stock material from a work gear (“A method of producing flank surface modifications in gear teeth by controlled removal of stock material from a work gear with a tool” Abstract) with a tool (42 Fig. 2), said work gear and said tool being movable with respect to one another (“the tool and work gear being movable with respect to one another along and/or about a plurality of axes.” Abstract) along and/or about a plurality of axes (plurality of axes shown in Fig. 2), said method comprising: engaging said tool with said work gear, moving said tool and said work gear relative to one another in a generating motion (“In generating face hobbing processes, the tool and work gear rotate in a timed relationship and the tool is fed to depth thereby forming all tooth slots in a single plunge of the tool. After full depth is reached, the generating roll is commenced” Col. 1, lines 29-33) along and/or about said plurality of axes (plurality of axes shown in Fig. 2), removing stock material from the work gear to produce the tooth surface on said work gear, wherein the generating motion along and/or about said plurality of axes comprises motion (“the tool and work gear being movable with respect to one another along and/or about a plurality of axes.” Abstract) along and/or about at least one of the axes (plurality of axes shown in Fig. 2).
But is silent on said motion being defined by a function comprising a first level component and a second level component, said first level component defining a maximum flank form deviation amplitude for each tooth of the work gear, and said second level component defining a modification of the tooth surface of each tooth of the work gear.
Ribbeck teaches a software based function “The machine or control data is adapted in the closed loop. For this purpose, correction values (offset) or correction factors are transferred online to the device 20 and these are incorporated/applied therein to the machine tool or control data.”([0064]) and a maximum flank form deviation amplitude for each tooth of the work gear (“ascertaining the indexing error (for example, in a gear-cutting measurement center) of all teeth of the sample workpiece, ascertaining a suitable indexing error compensation per tooth, transmitting or providing correction values (offset for the indexing angle and/or the plunging depth of the tool),” [0017,0018, 0019]).
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 function of Stadtfeld as modified with the maximum allowed error amount as taught by Ribbeck for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the process while improving the accuracy of each gear tooth.
Geiser et al. in an analogous method of producing a tooth flank surface on gear teeth (Abstract) and teaches a function for generating a periodic flank modification [“a function for generating a desired modification of the workpiece by an eccentrically dressed tool, wherein the gear cutting machine advantageously has an input function via which a desired amplitude of the periodic flank modification” 0184, 0185] within a maximum flank form deviation amplitude (maximum allowed error amount) which is within the noise criteria (“It is currently being endeavored to optimize the excitation behavior with specific flank corrections in order thus to improve the noise behavior of certain types of transmission. With gears having critical noise, a waviness can in this respect be specifically desired on the tooth flank to reduce or to prevent the noise excitation behavior of the gear wheel pairing.” [0004-0005]).
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 method of producing a tooth flank of Stadtfeld with the modification function as taught by Geiser et al. for the purpose of having a function which the desired amplitude of the periodic flank modification can be predefined which determines its imbalance and/or eccentricity required. ([0159] of Geiser et al.)
Referring to claim 3: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the second level component is determined along the path of contact of each tooth of the work gear (“FIG. 5 shows a generation path-width diagram of a tooth flank which was machined with a hard finishing tool whose surface was modified during the dressing/profiling process with the object of generating periodic surface modifications on the tooth flank in accordance with the present disclosure” [0129] of Geiser et al.).
Referring to claim 4: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 3 wherein determination of the second level component includes tooth to tooth magnitudes (“The desired modification of the surface geometry of the workpiece on the gear flank can in particular have a constant value in the generation pattern at least locally in a first direction (G.sub.C2) of the workpiece and can be given by a function f(x) in a second direction of the workpiece which extends perpendicular to the first direction (G.sub.C2)” [0030] of Geiser) obtained from the first level component (maximum allowed error amount which is within the noise criteria) (“It is currently being endeavored to optimize the excitation behavior with specific flank corrections in order thus to improve the noise behavior of certain types of transmission. With gears having critical noise, a waviness can in this respect be specifically desired on the tooth flank to reduce or to prevent the noise excitation behavior of the gear wheel pairing.” [0004-0005] of Geiser et al.).
Referring to claim 5: Stadtfeld teaches a method of producing a tooth flank surface on gear teeth by controlled removal of stock material from a work gear (“A method of producing flank surface modifications in gear teeth by controlled removal of stock material from a work gear with a tool” Abstract) with a tool (42 Fig. 2), said method comprising:
providing a gear producing machine (shown in Fig. 2), said machine having plurality of axes (plurality of axes shown in Fig. 2) and comprising a work piece spindle (spindle of 34 Fig. 2) rotatable about a work axis A (WT Fig. 2) and a tool spindle (spindle of 32 Fig. 2) rotatable about a tool axis C (WG Fig. 2), said work piece spindle (spindle of 34 Fig. 2) and said tool spindle (spindle of 32 Fig. 2) being movable with respect to one another along at least one of linear axes X, Y and Z (AX, AY, and AZ Fig. 2) and about a pivot axis B (AP Fig. 2),
providing a workpiece (“Work gear 50 is mounted to work head 34” Col. 5, line 44) on said work piece spindle (spindle of 34 Fig. 2),
providing a tool (42 Fig. 2) on said tool spindle (spindle of 32 Fig. 2),
engaging said tool (42 Fig. 2) with said work gear (Work gear 50; Cols. 3-4, lines 67-1),
moving said tool and said work gear relative to one another in a generating motion comprising a generating roll (“In generating face hobbing processes, the tool and work gear rotate in a timed relationship and the tool is fed to depth thereby forming all tooth slots in a single plunge of the tool. After full depth is reached, the generating roll is commenced” Col. 1, lines 29-33) along and/or about said plurality of axes,
removing stock material from the work gear to produce the tooth surface on said work gear (“A method of producing flank surface modifications in gear teeth by controlled removal of stock material from a work gear with a tool” Abstract).
But is silent on wherein the generating motion along and/or about said plurality of axes comprises a modified motion along and/or about at least one of the axes, said modified motion being defined by a function comprising a first level component and a second level component, said first level component defining a maximum flank form deviation amplitude for each tooth of the work gear, and said second level component defining a modification of the tooth surface of each tooth of the work gear.
Ribbeck teaches a software based function “The machine or control data is adapted in the closed loop. For this purpose, correction values (offset) or correction factors are transferred online to the device 20 and these are incorporated/applied therein to the machine tool or control data.”([0064]) and a maximum flank form deviation amplitude for each tooth of the work gear (“ascertaining the indexing error (for example, in a gear-cutting measurement center) of all teeth of the sample workpiece, ascertaining a suitable indexing error compensation per tooth, transmitting or providing correction values (offset for the indexing angle and/or the plunging depth of the tool),” [0017,0018, 0019]).
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 function of Stadtfeld as modified with the maximum allowed error amount as taught by Ribbeck for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the process while improving the accuracy of each gear tooth.
Geiser et al. in an analogous method of producing a tooth flank surface on gear teeth (Abstract) and teaches a function for generating a periodic flank modification [“a function for generating a desired modification of the workpiece by an eccentrically dressed tool, wherein the gear cutting machine advantageously has an input function via which a desired amplitude of the periodic flank modification” 0184, 0185] within a maximum flank form deviation amplitude (maximum allowed error amount) which is within the noise criteria (“It is currently being endeavored to optimize the excitation behavior with specific flank corrections in order thus to improve the noise behavior of certain types of transmission. With gears having critical noise, a waviness can in this respect be specifically desired on the tooth flank to reduce or to prevent the noise excitation behavior of the gear wheel pairing.” [0004-0005]).
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 method of producing a tooth flank of Stadtfeld with the modification function as taught by Geiser et al. for the purpose of having a function which the desired amplitude of the periodic flank modification can be predefined which determines its imbalance and/or eccentricity required. ([0159] of Geiser et al.)
Referring to claim 6: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 5 wherein said modified motion comprises motion along and/or about at least one of: angular motion about workpiece axis A (WT Fig. 2), linear motion X (AZ Fig. 2) in the direction of workpiece axis A (WT Fig. 2), and linear motion Y (AY Fig. 2) in a direction parallel to pivot axis B (AP Fig. 2).
Referring to claim 7: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 6 wherein linear motion Y (AY Fig. 2) is in a vertical direction (shown in Fig. 2).
Referring to claim 9: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 5 wherein the second level component is determined along the path of contact of each tooth of the work gear (“FIG. 5 shows a generation path-width diagram of a tooth flank which was machined with a hard finishing tool whose surface was modified during the dressing/profiling process with the object of generating periodic surface modifications on the tooth flank in accordance with the present disclosure” [0129] of Geiser et al.).
Referring to claim 10: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 9 wherein determination of the second level component includes tooth to tooth magnitudes (“The desired modification of the surface geometry of the workpiece on the gear flank can in particular have a constant value in the generation pattern at least locally in a first direction (G.sub.C2) of the workpiece and can be given by a function f(x) in a second direction of the workpiece which extends perpendicular to the first direction (G.sub.C2)” [0030] of Geiser) obtained from the first level component (maximum allowed error amount which is within the noise criteria) (“It is currently being endeavored to optimize the excitation behavior with specific flank corrections in order thus to improve the noise behavior of certain types of transmission. With gears having critical noise, a waviness can in this respect be specifically desired on the tooth flank to reduce or to prevent the noise excitation behavior of the gear wheel pairing.” [0004-0005] of Geiser et al.).
Referring to claim 15: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 5 wherein said tool comprises a grinding wheel (“said tool is a grinding wheel” claim 18 of Stadtfeld).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtfeld (U.S. Patent No. 5,580,298 A), Geiser (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0111505 A1), and Ribbeck (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0028655 A1), as applied above in claim 10, and in further view of Strunk (US 20180126471 A1).
Referring to claim 11: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 10 but is silent on wherein the tooth to tooth magnitudes are applied to a tooth bound modification function comprising at least one of: a first order function, a sinusoidal function, and a third order function.
Strunk in an analogous method teaches wherein the tooth to tooth magnitudes (“The magnitude of one or more, preferably all, Roll Angle increments, ΔRP.sub.j, is varied which will result in an accompanying variation in the width of the respective flats. The overall pattern of flats on a tooth surface is changed from the pattern formed on an immediate preceding machined tooth surface” [0038]) are applied to a tooth bound modification function comprising at least one of: a first order function, a sinusoidal function, and a third order function (“This may be realized by changing Roll Angle increments, ΔRP.sub.j, (e.g. by linear, sinusoidal or higher order functions) between proceeding surface flats.” [0038]).
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the tooth bound modification function as taught by Strunk for the purpose of having a function for adjusting the intended parameters of the tooth flank.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtfeld (U.S. Patent No. 5,580,298 A), Geiser (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0111505 A1), and Ribbeck (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0028655 A1), as applied above in claims 1 and 5, and in further view of STOECKICHT (US 2982146 A) and Wuerfel (US 10018459 B2).
Referring to claim 2: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 1 but is silent on wherein the first level component comprises at least one of a cosine function and a normal distribution.
STOECKICHT in an analogous method teaches wherein the similar configuration first level component comprising a cosine function “Since the transverse pitch is fixed by the number of teeth and pitch diameter (maximum allowed error amount), the normal pitch is determined by the cosine of the inclination angle” (Col. 4, lines 13-16).
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the cosine function as taught by STOECKICHT for the purpose of having a function for adjusting the intended parameters of the tooth flank.
Wuerfel in an analogous method teaches wherein the similar configuration first level component comprises a normal distribution “The method at 910 may further include statistically evaluating the plurality of measurement repeats (e.g., evaluating the repeated or additional measurements) for reducing measuring inaccuracies (maximum allowed error amount). The method at 910 may further include one or more of performing an allowance analysis (maximum allowed error amount), a profile/flank measurement, a pitch measurement, and/or a tooth thickness measurement on the plurality of measurement repeats (e.g., on the additional or repeated measurements).”
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the cosine function as taught by Wuerfel for the purpose of having a function for adjusting the intended parameters of the tooth flank.
Referring to claim 8: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 5 but is silent on wherein the first level component comprises at least one of a cosine function and a normal distribution.
STOECKICHT in an analogous method teaches wherein the similar configuration first level component comprising a cosine function “Since the transverse pitch is fixed by the number of teeth and pitch diameter (maximum allowed error amount), the normal pitch is determined by the cosine of the inclination angle” (Col. 4, lines 13-16).
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the cosine function as taught by STOECKICHT for the purpose of having a function for adjusting the intended parameters of the tooth flank.
Wuerfel in an analogous method teaches wherein the similar configuration first level component comprises a normal distribution “The method at 910 may further include statistically evaluating the plurality of measurement repeats (e.g., evaluating the repeated or additional measurements) for reducing measuring inaccuracies (maximum allowed error amount). The method at 910 may further include one or more of performing an allowance analysis (maximum allowed error amount), a profile/flank measurement, a pitch measurement, and/or a tooth thickness measurement on the plurality of measurement repeats (e.g., on the additional or repeated measurements).”
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the cosine function as taught by Wuerfel for the purpose of having a function for adjusting the intended parameters of the tooth flank.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtfeld (U.S. Patent No. 5,580,298 A), Geiser (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0111505 A1), and Ribbeck (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0028655 A1), as applied above in claim 10, and in further view of Stadtfeld (WO 2018187820 A1), herein referred to as “Stadtfeld II”.
Referring to claim 12: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 5 but is silent on further comprising introducing a dwell section in the second level function, said dwell section being located at least at a center of roll position of the generating roll, wherein within said dwell section, the second level function has an amplitude of zero.
Stadtfeld II in an analogous method teaches a dwell section in the similar configuration second level function (modification of the tooth surface), said dwell section being located at least at a center of roll position of the generating roll (“a method of machining gears wherein the resulting gears exhibit rolling characteristics” [0001]), wherein within said dwell section (“The tooth 95 has on the flank surface a heel dwell section 80 with the unmodified flank surface. The following section 81 is modified with a UMC heel section. The center section 82 is modified with center UMC. Section 83 is modified with a UMC toe section. The last section 84 is the toe dwell section without any UMC modifications to the flank surface. The lower graph in Figure 8 shows the motion transmission graph which corresponds to the meshing of a tooth pair from entrance point 93 to exit point 94 along the path of contact 96. The motion graph begins with the heel dwell section 80, followed by the UMC heel section, the center UMC section, the UMC toe section and ends with the unmodified toe dwell section.” [0039]), the second level function has an amplitude of zero (112(b)).
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the dwell section method as taught by Stadtfeld II for the purpose of improving the meshing between the mating gears.
Referring to claim 13: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 12 wherein the dwell comprises at least one of a toe dwell section (84 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) and
a heel dwell section (80 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II),
with the toe dwell section (84 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) being located between the center of roll position (96 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) and a toe end (94 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) of a tooth (95 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) and
the heel dwell section (80 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) being located between the center of roll position (96 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) and a heel end (93 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II) of the tooth (95 Fig. 8 of Stadtfeld II).
Referring to claim 14: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 13 but is silent on wherein each of the toe dwell section and the heel dwell section extend between 0° and 4° of the generating roll.
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: each of the toe dwell section and the heel dwell section extend below 0°, between 0° and 4°, and over 4°; further, the prior art teaches the toe dwell section and the heel dwell section.
Therefore, modifying the method of Stadtfeld as modified to have the toe dwell section and the heel dwell section extend between 0° and 4°, can easily be made without any change in the method of producing a tooth flank surface of Stadtfeld as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
It would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Stadtfeld as modified by having the toe dwell section and the heel dwell section extend between 0° and 4°, for the purpose of improving the meshing between the mating gears.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadtfeld (U.S. Patent No. 5,580,298 A), Geiser (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0111505 A1), and Ribbeck (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0028655 A1), as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of STOECKICHT (US 2982146 A) and Stadtfeld (WO 2018187820 A1), herein referred to as “Stadtfeld II”.
Referring to claim 16: Stadtfeld as modified teaches the method of claim 5 but is silent on wherein the first level component comprises a normal distribution and the second level component comprises a sinusoidal function.
STOECKICHT in an analogous method teaches wherein the similar configuration first level component comprising a cosine function “Since the transverse pitch is fixed by the number of teeth and pitch diameter (maximum allowed error amount), the normal pitch is determined by the cosine of the inclination angle” (Col. 4, lines 13-16).
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the cosine function as taught by STOECKICHT for the purpose of having a function for adjusting the intended parameters of the tooth flank.
Stadtfeld II in an analogous method teaches similar configuration second level function (modification of the tooth surface) comprising a sinusoidal function (“a sinusoidal modification 103 of a straight or curved cutting (or grinding) edge 102, as shown in Figure 9” [0046]).
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 method of Stadtfeld as modified with the cosine function as taught by Stadtfeld II for the purpose of having a function for adjusting the intended parameters of the tooth flank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 at 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723