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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/05/2025. Claims 3-5 are canceled. Claims 9-12 are new. Claims 1-2 and 6-12 are currently pending and have been examined. The amendment to the claims has overcome the objection to the claims, as such the objections to the claims have been withdrawn. The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and the rejection(s) are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thyssen (US Patent No. 7,121,930), hereinafter referred to as Thyssen.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Thyssen discloses a method for dressing a multiple thread grinding worm [Thyssen, fig 3, 4] by means of a dressing tool [Thyssen, fig 3, 2], in which the abrasive surfaces of the individual threads of the grinding worm are successively profiled with the dressing tool [Thyssen, fig 3, 2 dresses the threads 9 of 4], wherein the dressing is carried out in at least two threads with different dressing parameters [Thyssen, fig 3, and col 3, line 65 – col 4, line5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2 have different dressing parameters] so that the profiling of the abrasive surfaces of the threads differ from each other [Thyssen, and col 3, line 65 – col 4, line5, 6, 7 and 8 are different such that the threads 9 have different parameters], wherein the dressing parameters are selected in such a way that the abrasive surfaces of at least two threads, viewed in the direction of the helix of the thread, differ from one another [Thyssen, and col 3, line 65 – col 4, line5, the parameters of 6 changes in either profile or in rough or fine grinding], in such a manner, [the office notes that the remaining limitations after the “in such a manner” term is interpreted such that only one of the following configurations is required by the claim and the other configurations are optional. The Office notes that each configuration is separated by the “or” and “and/or” statements. The Office further notes that in the last office action that one of these limitations was previously rejected and remains rejected in the current office action]
that the grinding worm rotates at a rotational speed during the dressing process, wherein the rotational speed of the grinding worm during dressing of the abrasive surfaces of a thread differs in at least two threads (the office notes that this configuration was not chosen and is therefore not required to be addressed)
or
that the dressing tool is a dressing roller rotating at a rotational speed during the dressing process, wherein the rotational speed of the dressing roller during dressing of the abrasive surfaces of a thread differs in at least two threads (the office notes that this configuration was not chosen and is therefore not required to be addressed)
or
that the grinding worm rotates at a rotational speed during the dressing process and the dressing tool is a dressing roller which rotates at a rotational speed during the dressing process, wherein a ratio of the rotational speeds is constant during dressing of the abrasive surfaces of a thread, but differs in at least two threads (the office notes that this configuration was not chosen and is therefore not required to be addressed),
and/or [the Office notes that the limitation that follows was rejected before and remains rejected as being the option from the four options available to choose from],
that the abrasive surfaces of the individual threads are profiled by topological dressing [Thyssen, fig 4, threads of 4 are profiled by 6, 7, and 8], wherein a plurality of linear dressing strokes are performed over the height of the abrasive surface [Thyssen, fig 3, a plurality of strokes and/or rotations are performed by 6,7, and 8 over 4], in which the dressing tool is guided in the radial direction of the grinding worm at predetermined distances [Thyssen, fig 4, each of 6, 7, and 8 is a fixed distance], wherein the distances are constant in each thread but differing in at least two threads [Thyssen, figs 3 and 4, 6 is at least different from 7 and/or 8].
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Thyssen further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the dressing is carried out each of the threads has a different dressing parameter [Thyssen, fig 3, each thread 9 is subjected to the grinding of 6, 7, or 8].
Regarding claims 6 (Currently Amended), 9 (New) and 10 (New), The office notes that because of the term “and/or” in claim 1, that claims 6 and 9-10 limit the portion of the claim 1 that is not required, therefore claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected as being not required by the claim.
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 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyssen (US Patent No. 7,121,930) as applied to claim 1 above, alone, hereinafter referred to as Thyssen.
Regarding claims 7 (Currently Amended), 11 (New), and 12 (New), Thyssen further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein there is a distance between at least two threads [Thyssen, col 5, lines 7-12].
However, Thyssen does not explicitly disclose the distances between at least two threads differ by at least 15% (the office notes that this covers claim 7, which is at “at least 5%” and claim 11, which is “at least 10%”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Thyssen to have the distances between the two threads be different by at least 15% since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the device of Thyssen would not operate differently with the claimed differences between the threads and since the threads are intended to engage the worm without the other threads colliding, the device would function appropriately having the claimed differences between the threads. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the difference “preferably” lies with the claimed ranges (specification page 6, lines 9-17).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyssen (US Patent No. 7,121,930) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Alois (German Patent Publication No. DE102018126259), as evidenced by the machine translation of Alois, hereinafter referred to as Thyssen and Alois, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Thyssen discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the grinding worm rotates at a rotational speed during the dressing process [Thyssen, col 3, lines 34-35, 4 rotates around axis 3], and the dressing tool is a dressing roller which rotates at a rotational speed during the dressing process [Thyssen, col 3, 52-58].
Thyssen does not explicitly disclose wherein the dressing is performed in one thread in synchronism of grinding worm and dressing roller and the dressing is performed in at least one other thread in counter-rotation of grinding worm and dressing roller.
Alois teaches a method for dressing a multiple thread grinding worm [Alois, fig 6, 20] by means of a dressing tool [Alios, fig 6, 40], in which the abrasive surfaces of the individual threads of the grinding worm are successively profiled with the dressing tool [Alois, fig 6, the threads of 20 are dressed with 20]; a method for dressing a multiple thread grinding worm [Alois, fig 6, 20] by means of a dressing tool [Alios, fig 6, 40], wherein the grinding worm rotates at a rotational speed during the dressing process [Alois, fig 6, ω1], wherein the dressing tool is a dressing roller rotating at a rotational speed during the dressing process [Alois, fig 6, ω2], wherein the dressing is performed in one thread in synchronism of grinding worm and dressing roller [Alois, fig 5A] and the dressing is performed in at least one other thread in counter-rotation of grinding worm and dressing roller [Alois, fig 5B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the rotation direction of the grinding worm to be either synchronous with the dresser or in counter-rotation because the direction influences the surface properties of the grinding worm [Alios, page 5, pp 0012, summarized] which is useful in achieving targeted variations/adjust of the flanks of the grinding worm to be made without affecting the topography of the grinding worm [Alois, page 8, pp 0024, summarized].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Starting on page 9, the applicant has argued that because the limitations of claims 3-5 are now within claim 1, that Thyssen no longer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. The Applicant further goes on to detail how these limitations are not taught by Thyssen. Respectfully the Office disagrees because the claims recites the term “or” and “and/or” which means that each of these configurations, is an alterative and that the office needs only address each one. In order to overcome this, each of these limitations must be positively recited by either A. choosing one configuration and only claiming that configuration or B. making all of the configurations required by removing the terms “or” and “and/or”. Because of the “or” and “and/or” limitations, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires only one configuration, which was previously rejected in the Office action dated 08/06/2025, even though at that time, that limitation was also not required. The Office notes that the examiner did try to call the applicant about a possible examiner’s amendment to amend claim 1 to only one of the configurations, which would have placed the application into conditions for allowance, however no agreement was made and a final rejection has instead been issued.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights