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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “edge radius” of claims 10, 22 and 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4, 6-10, 16-24 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 in lines 1-14 variations of “a workpiece toothing”; “workpiece teeth”; “a workpiece tooth”. It is unclear if all these elements are the same or not. What is the difference between “workpiece toothing”, “workpiece teeth”, and “workpiece tooth”? Further clarification is needed. As an example, the claim recites “a workpiece toothing comprising a plurality of workpiece teeth”; which in other words means that there is a workpiece having “an arrangement, formation, or projection consisting of or containing teeth”; where that same workpiece that already has teeth, comprises “workpiece teeth”. How can a workpiece that already has a plurality of teeth, can further comprise a plurality of teeth? Further clarification is needed. The Examiner suggests simplifying this matter by setting forth that the workpiece comprises a plurality of teeth.
Claim 1, similarly, recites in lines 1-14 “tool teeth” and “tool toothing”. It is unclear if these elements are the same or not. What is the difference between “tool teeth” and “tool toothing”? Further clarification is needed. As an example, the claim recites “the cutting edges are formed by tool teeth of at least one tool toothing of the tool”; which in other words means the cutting edges are formed by a plurality of teeth of at least one tool “containing teeth of the tool”. How can a tool that already has a plurality of teeth, can further comprise a plurality of teeth? Further clarification is needed. The Examiner suggests simplifying this matter by setting forth that the tool comprises a plurality of cutting teeth each of the cutting teeth having cutting edges.
Claim 1 recites in lines 11-12 that “the tool toothing extends at least substantially in a plane perpendicular to the tool rotation axis”. It is unclear how exactly something can extend substantially in a plane perpendicular to the tool rotation axis. How is this plane defined? Where is this plane disposed at? And is the tool toothing within this plane or not? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 1 recites in lines 4-6 “the tool teeth each comprise two cutting edges, for deburring and/or chamfering of mutually opposite workpiece edges of the workpiece teeth”.
It is unclear if there is a set of teeth, where each of the set of teeth comprise two cutting edges, or if each tooth of the tool teeth the one that comprise two cutting edges. The Examiner suggests simplifying this matter by setting forth that “each of the tool teeth comprise two cutting edges”.
It is unclear what exactly is meant by “mutually opposite”. In what sense and in relation to what, are these considered as “mutually opposite”? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 3 recites in lines 3-4 “the tool teeth each extend”, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if there is a set of teeth, where each of the set of teeth extend, or if each of tooth of the tool teeth, the ones that extend radially. The Examiner suggests simplifying this matter by setting forth that “each of the tool teeth extend”. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recites in lines 4-6 “the cutting edges each extend between a tooth flank and a front side of a tool tooth, of the tool teeth”. In relation to what is this side, considered “front” side?
Claim 10 recites in lines 4-7 “the cutting edges have an edge radius” However, it is unclear exactly where this “edge radius” is defined.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ribbeck US 2020/0147706.
In regards to claim 1, Ribbeck discloses a tool (2) for chip-removing deburring and/or chamfering of a workpiece toothing comprising a plurality of workpiece teeth, having a plurality of cutting edges (6) for chip-removing deburring and/or chamfering of workpiece edges of the workpiece toothing, the cutting edges (6) arranged distributed around a tool rotation axis (R) of the tool (2) and each having an extension along the tool rotation axis (R), wherein the cutting edges (6) are formed by tool teeth (in the same way as presented by Applicant in Applicant’s Figure 2A, refer to all of 6 of Ribbeck) of at least one tool toothing (in the same way as presented by Applicant on Applicant’s Figure 2B, refer to all of 6 of Ribbeck) of the tool (2), wherein the cutting edges (6) are arranged at least substantially1 on2 a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis (note that since the shape of the tool is a cylinder, then the cutting edges are arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis, wherein the tool toothing (all of 6) extends at least substantially in a plane perpendicular to the tool rotation axis, and wherein the tool teeth (6) each comprise two cutting edges (10 and 14), capable of deburring and/or chamfering of mutually opposite workpiece edges of the workpiece teeth. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations”, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114. The tool of Ribbeck is configured so as to be capable of being used for deburring and/or chamfering of mutually opposite workpiece edges of the workpiece teeth, via cutting edges 10 and 14 within 6.
In regards to claim 3, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that the tool teeth (6) each extend at least substantially radially with respect to the tool rotation axis (R, see Figure 2).
In regards to claim 4, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that the cutting edges (6) each extend between a tooth flank (refer to any of the sides of 6) and a front side (refer to a front side, in a rotation direction) of a tool tooth (6) of the tool teeth.
In regards to claim 6, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that the tool teeth (6) each have an asymmetrical cross-section (see Figure 1 and note that the teeth 6 are asymmetrical) with respect to an axis parallel to the tool rotation axis.
In regards to claim 7, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that the tool (2) comprises two tool toothings (6) spaced apart from one another along the tool rotation axis (R), and the two tool toothings face one another (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 8, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that the tool teeth (6) each taper continuously from a tooth base to a tooth head (10) (see Figures 1 and 3).
In regards to claim 9, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that a carrier element (4) carrying the at least one tool toothing (6), along the tool rotation axis (R).
In regards to claim 16, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that the tool is capable of being used to machine the workpiece edges, the workpiece edges comprise front edges of the workpiece toothing, each front edge extending between a tooth flank and a front side of a workpiece tooth of the plurality of workpiece teeth. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations”, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114. The tool of Ribbeck is configured so as to be capable of being used to machine the workpiece edges, via any of the cutting edges within 6 such as 10 and 14.
In regards to claim 20, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 4, Ribbeck also discloses that the front side is arranged on a radially outside side of the tool tooth with respect to the tool rotation axis.
In regards to claim 21, Ribbeck discloses the tool according to claim 1, Ribbeck also discloses that the carrier element extends along the tool rotation axis (R).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 16-18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmermann US 2018/0036813.
In regards to claim 1, Zimmermann discloses a tool (2) for chip-removing deburring and/or chamfering of a workpiece toothing (Figures 1-3) comprising a plurality of workpiece teeth (Figures 1-3), having a plurality of cutting edges (cutting edges on cutting teeth 3) for chip-removing deburring and/or chamfering of workpiece edges of the workpiece toothing, the cutting edges (cutting edges on cutting teeth 3) arranged distributed around a tool rotation axis (5) of the tool (2) and each having an extension along the tool rotation axis (5), wherein the cutting edges (cutting edges on cutting teeth 3) are formed by tool teeth (as presented by Applicant in Figure 2A, refer to all of 3) of at least one tool toothing (as presented by Applicant in Figure 2B, refer to all of 3) of the tool (2), wherein the cutting edges (cutting edges on cutting teeth 3) are arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis (note that since the shape of the tool is a cylinder, then the cutting edges are arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis, wherein the tool toothing (all of 3) extends at least substantially in a plane perpendicular to the tool rotation axis, and wherein the tool teeth (3) each comprise two cutting edges (8 and 12), capable of deburring and/or chamfering of mutually opposite workpiece edges of the workpiece teeth.
In regards to claim 2, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 1, Zimmermann also discloses that the tool toothing comprises at least five, tool teeth (3) each forming at least one cutting edge.
In regards to claim 3, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 1, Zimmermann also discloses that the tool teeth (3) each extend at least substantially radially to the tool rotation axis (5, see Figure 7).
In regards to claim 4, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 1, Zimmermann also discloses that the cutting edges (cutting edges on cutting teeth 3) each extend between a tooth flank (refer to any of the sides of 6, 6’) and a front side (refer to the front side, in the same way as presented by Applicant) of a tool tooth (3) of the tool teeth.
In regards to claim 7, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 1, Zimmermann also discloses that the tool (2) comprises two tool toothings (3) spaced apart from one another along the tool rotation axis (5), and the two tool toothing face one another (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 8, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 1, Zimmermann also discloses that the tool teeth (3) each taper continuously from a tooth base to a tooth head (apex) (see Figure 7).
In regards to claim 16, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 1, Zimmermann also discloses that the workpiece edges comprises front edges of the workpiece toothing, each front edge extending between a tooth flank and a front side of a workpiece tooth of the plurality of workpiece teeth (see Figures 3 and 13).
In regards to claim 17, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 2, Zimmermann also discloses that the tool toothing comprises at least ten tool teeth (3).
In regards to claim 18, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 17, Zimmermann also discloses that the tool toothing comprises at least fifteen tool teeth (3).
In regards to claim 20, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 4, Zimmermann also discloses that the front side is arranged on a radially outside side of the tool tooth with respect to the tool rotation axis.
In regards to claim 21, Zimmermann discloses the tool according to claim 1, Zimmermann also discloses that the carrier element extends along the tool rotation axis (5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 16-22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 2406325 (hereafter—DE’325--) in view of Zimmermann US 2018/0036813.
A Machine Translation of DE’325 will be provided herein for prosecution purposes. Refer to the Machine Translation for details.
In regards to claim 1, DE’325 discloses a tool (26, 26a,b) for chip-removing deburring and/or chamfering of a workpiece toothing (Figure 1, 4 and 5) comprising a plurality of workpiece teeth (Figure 1, 4 and 5), having a plurality of cutting edges (36) for chip-removing deburring and/or chamfering of workpiece edges, in particular front edges, of the workpiece toothing each extending between a tooth flank and a front side of a workpiece tooth, the cutting edges (36) arranged distributed around a tool rotation axis (110a,b) of the tool (26) and each having an extension along the tool rotation axis (110a,b), characterized in that wherein the cutting edges (36) are formed by tool teeth (as presented by Applicant in Figure 2A, refer to all of 36) of at least one tool toothing (as presented by Applicant in Figure 2B, refer to all of 36) of the tool (26, 26a,b), wherein the cutting edges (36) are arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis (note that since the shape of the tool is a cylinder, then the cutting edges are arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant), wherein the tool toothing (all of 36) extends at least substantially in a plane perpendicular to the tool rotation axis, and wherein the tool teeth (36) each comprise a cutting edge (36a or 36b), capable of deburring and/or chamfering of mutually opposite workpiece edges of the workpiece teeth.
However, DE’325 fails to disclose that the tool teeth (36) each comprise two cutting edges.
Nevertheless, Zimmermann teaches that it is well known in the art of gear cutting, to have a single cutting tool that performs left/right cutting, by having each tool teeth comprise two cutting edges. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognize that combining left/right cutting edges into one single cutting tool reduces the number of cutting tools being used in a single machining operation and thus perform simultaneous left/right cutting on a same workpiece being machined.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to try and combine the two cutting edges on the two tools of DE’325 into one tool, based on the teachings of Zimmermann in order to reduce the number of cutting tools being used in a single machining operation, and thus perform simultaneous left/right chamfering on a workpiece being machined.
In regards to claim 2, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the tool toothing (all of 36) comprises at least five (note that 26 has 24 teeth), tool teeth (36) each forming at least one cutting edge (36a or 36b) and/or in that the cutting edges (36a or 36b) each have an extension in the circumferential direction with respect to the tool rotation axis (110a,b).
In regards to claim 3, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the tool teeth (all of 36) each extend at least substantially radially with respect to the tool rotation axis (110 a, b, see Figure 2).
In regards to claim 4, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the cutting edges (36a, b) each extend between a tooth flank (in the same way as presented by Applicant’s flank 24, 25, see Figure 2 of DE’325) and a front side (in the same way as presented by Applicant’s front side 26, 27, see Figure 2 of DE’325) of the tool teeth (36) (110 a, b, see Figure 2 and 5).
In regards to claim 6, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the tool teeth (36) each have an at least substantially asymmetrical cross-section with respect to an axis parallel to the tool rotation axis (see Figure 4 and note that the teeth 36 are asymmetrical).
In regards to claim 7, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the tool (26, 26a,b) comprises two tool toothings (36) spaced apart from one another along the tool rotation axis (110a,b), wherein the two tool toothings face one another (in the same way Applicant’s tool toothings face one another).
In regards to claim 8, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the tool teeth (36) each continously taper from a tool base to a tooth head (apex) (see Figure 4).
In regards to claim 9, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the tool comprises a carrier element (42a,b) carrying the at least one tool toothing (36a,b).
In regards to claims 10, 22, and 23, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claims 1 and 10 respectively, DE’325 also discloses that the cutting edges (36) have an edge radius (in the same way as presented by Applicant’s radius).
However, DE’325 fails to disclose that the edge radius is of at least 0.01 mm (claim 10); at least 0.02 mm (claim 22); at least 0.05 mm (claim 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide have the edge radius with a desired value such as of at least 0.01mm (claim 10); at least 0.02 mm (claim 22); or at least 0.05 mm (claim 23), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges/value of a result effective variable (variable that will depend on the size of the workpiece being machined) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 16, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the workpiece edges comprises front edges of the workpiece toothing, each front edge extending between a tooth flank and a front side of a workpiece tooth of the plurality of workpiece teeth (see Figures 1 and 4).
In regards to claim 17, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 2, DE’325 also discloses that the tool toothing comprises at least ten tool teeth (36).
In regards to claim 18, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 17, DE’325 also discloses that the tool toothing comprises at least fifteen tool teeth (36).
In regards to claim 19, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 18, DE’325 also discloses that the tool toothing comprises at least twenty tool teeth (36).
In regards to claim 20, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 4, DE’325 also discloses that the front side is arranged on a radially outside side of the tool tooth with respect to the tool rotation axis.
In regards to claim 21, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 1, DE’325 also discloses that the carrier element extends along the tool rotation axis (5).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 2406325 (hereafter—DE’325--) in view of Zimmermann US 2018/0036813 as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Kioka US 2018/0099464.
In regards to claim 24, DE’325 as modified discloses the tool according to claim 10, DE’325 also discloses the tool toothing; however, fails to disclose that the tool toothing has a hardness of at least 66 HRC.
Nevertheless, Kioka teaches that it is well known in the art, to have a tool be hardened to increase the life to the cutting edges. Sasaki provides an example of a hardness being ranging from 62-72 HRC ([0084]).
Accordingly, since the claimed hardness of at least 66 HRC lie inside range disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide have the hardness be as desired such as of at least 66 HRC, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable (variable that will depend on the desired lifespan of the cutting tool) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant's amendments, new 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 1-4,6-10 and 16-24 has been incorporated as aforementioned.
Rejections based on prior art
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/12/026 with respect to claims 1-10 have been carefully and fully considered, and in light of Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection under
35 USC § 102 over Ribbeck US 2020/0147706 claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 16, 20 and 21;
35 USC § 102 over Zimmermann US 2018/0036813 for claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 16-18, 20 and 21;
35 USC § 103 over of DE 2406325 (hereafter—DE’325--) in view of Zimmermann US 2018/0036813 for claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 16-22 and 23;
35 USC § 103 over of DE 2406325 (hereafter—DE’325--) in view of Zimmermann US 2018/0036813 as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Kioka US 2018/0099464 for claim 24;
have been incorporated as aforementioned.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026, pages 12-15 regarding the Ribbeck reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For clarification, the statement on Figures 2A, 2B and 5; it is noted that that the Examiner intended to reference a comparison between Applicant’s Figures 2A and 2B. As such, the same has been clarified above as “in the same way as presented by Applicant in Applicant’s Figure 2A, refer to all of 6 of Ribbeck”.
In response to applicant's argument that Ribbeck “does not teach of disclose that the main cutting edge (10) and secondary cutting edge (14) can be used to deburr and/or chamfer mutually opposite workpiece edges”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations”, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114. The tool of Ribbeck is configured so as to be capable of being used for deburring and/or chamfering of mutually opposite workpiece edges of the workpiece teeth, via cutting edges 10 and 14 within 6. Since Ribbeck does disclose all the structural limitations required in claim 1, then the Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded.
Applicant argues on page 15 that “Ribbeck fails to disclose at least that the cutting edges are arranged on a cylindrical surface…that the tool toothing extends at least substantially in a plane perpendicular to the tool rotation axis, and that the cutting teeth are designed as tool teeth as recited in amended independent claim 1”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, Ribbeck’s cutting edges (6) are arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis. Note that since the shape of the tool is a cylinder, then the cutting edges are arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell surface around the tool rotation axis. The tool toothing (all of 6) extends at least substantially in a plane perpendicular to the tool rotation axis. See annotated Figures 1 and 2 below for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
728
1394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
714
1447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The annotations above, represent two interpretations of what is believed to be “a cylinder shell” as claimed. Since the specific structure of what exactly is being defined as a cylinder shell, the Examiner’s interpretation of having the “cutting edges” “arranged at least substantially on a cylinder shell3” is not precluded.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Ribbeck fails to disclose at least that the cutting edges are arranged on a cylindrical surface” and “that the cutting teeth are designed as tool teeth”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 “being largely but not wholly that which is specified” SUBSTANTIAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with” ON Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
3 The claim sets forth option of 1) “cylinder shell surface” and/or 2) “cone shell surface”. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation is to option 1) “cylinder shell surface”.
Prosecution Insights