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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 5-7 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP’332 (JP 2019-120332).
Regarding claim 1, JP’332 teaches a gear comprising teeth, wherein a hardness of a tooth tip edge part of all teeth is softened by tempering treatment and that the hardness of a tooth tip edge part in each tooth of the teeth is softer than a hardness of a tooth flank at a middle point of a tooth height of any tooth of the gear (Page 3-8; Fig. 17; Fig. 19), which meets the limitations recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, JP’332 discloses that the tooth tip edge part is softened by tempering with the tooth tip edge part as a specific target (Page 5), which meets the limitation recited in claim 4.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’332 (JP 2019-120332)
Regarding claims 2 and 3, JP’332 discloses that the tempering method applies to a spur gear (Page 3-5). JP’332 discloses subjecting a tempering heat treatment to a sample steel piece having Vicker’s hardness of about 650 Hv, which simulates the top edge portion of the gear (Page 6, 3rd Paragraph). JP’332 discloses that after tempering, the Vicker’s hardness at the edge portion which is 0.25 mm away from induction coil is 400 Hv and the Vicker’s hardness at a location which is 1.5 mm away from induction coil is 550 Hv (Page 6-8, Fig. 17). JP’332 also discloses that the Vicker’s hardness at a location 3 mm away from the induction heating coil is 625-650, which is close to the hardness before the tempering heat treatment (Page 7, 1st paragraph; Fig. 17). Since a spur gear with a tooth height greater than 3 mm is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, when a tempering heat treatment as disclosed in JP’332 is applied to a spur gear with tooth height greater than 3 mm, the Vicker’s hardness in the middle point of the tooth height is greater than 550 Hv and the Vicker’s hardness at dedendum is greater than 625 HV based on Fig. 17 of JP’332 (Fig. 17 shows that the harness increases with the distance from induction coil). Based on Fig. 17 of JP’332, the hardness of the tooth tip edge part is HV 150 softer than the tooth flank at the middle point of the tooth height (calculated by HV 550- HV 400= HV 150); and the hardness of the tooth tip edge part is HV 225 or more softer than a dedendum of any tooth in the gear (calculated by HV 625- HV 400= HV 225). Thus, the recited hardness differences in claims 2 and 3 are obvious over JP’332.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights