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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 08/31/2023. The preliminary amendment submitted on 08/31/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are canceled. Claims 16 – 30 are new. Claims 16 - 30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to the 371 of international application PCT/EP2022/057260 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 03/19/2022, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP §608.01(p) I B: “For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date”;
MPEP 1893.03(b): “An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office”, and
MPEP 714.01(e): “A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11.” as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - “...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
The specification amendment filed 08/31/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to 371 of international application PCT/EP2022/057260
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A) “means of a hard fine machining tool in a hard fine machining machine” in claim 16.
B) “measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller” in claims 16 and 28.
C) “means of an additional measuring device” in claim 16.
D) “means of a machine's own gear measuring device” in claim 19.
E) “means of a machine's own sensor” in claim 20.
F) “means of a tactile measuring sensor” in claim 22.
G) means of a contactless sensor, in particular by means of an inductive, a capacitive or an optical sensor” in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 16-30 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.
Regarding claim 16 (New), the following limitations are indefinite:
A) the limitation “wherein during or after the machining of the workpiece in the hard fine machining machine at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” is indefinite because the limitation recites that the signal is measured by the sensor or controller, so the controller is not positively recited at this moment, and then it is stored in the controller, which is not yet positively recited and is therefore confusing. For purposes of examination and for further clarification of other limitations in the dependent claims the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein during or after the machining of the workpiece in the hard fine machining machine at least one signal is first measured by means of at least one sensor a machine controller”.
B) the limitation “wherein a comparison of the measured signal or at least one variable derived therefrom with stored reference data takes place in the machine controller in such a way that it is checked whether the measured signal or the at least one variable derived therefrom lies within a predefined tolerance” is indefinite because the term “it” is confusing as to what structure is exactly being referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein a comparison of the measured signal or at least one variable derived therefrom with stored reference data takes place in the machine controller in such a way that [[it]]the measured signal or at least one variable derived therefrom is checked whether the measured signal or the at least one variable derived therefrom lies within a predefined tolerance”.
C) the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece” is indefinite because it is unclear if this supposed to be a second measuring step or part of the first measuring step. Further dependent claims that rely upon the term “measuring” are unclear because of this lack of distinction. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “the workpiece is second measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”.
Claims 17-30 are rejected as being dependent on claim 16
Regarding claim 17 (New), the limitation “wherein the measuring is carried out on the additional measuring device within the hard finishing machine” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measuring” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measuring” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as the following:
“wherein the second measuring is carried out on the additional measuring device within the hard finishing machine”.
Claims 18-20 and 22-24 are rejected as being dependent on claim 17.
Regarding claim 18 (New), the limitation “wherein the measuring on the additional measuring device takes place in the state of the workpiece clamped on the workpiece spindle” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measuring” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measuring” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measuring on the additional measuring device takes place in the state of the workpiece clamped on the workpiece spindle”
Regarding claim 19 (New), the limitation “wherein the measuring is carried out by means of a machine's own gear measuring device” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measuring” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measuring” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measuring is carried out by means of a machine's own gear measuring device”.
Regarding claim 20 (New), the limitation “wherein the measuring is carried out by means of a machine's own sensor with which the alignment of the workpiece with respect to the toothing or profile to be machined is carried out” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measuring” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measuring” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measuring is carried out by means of a machine's own sensor with which the alignment of the workpiece with respect to the toothing or profile to be machined is carried out”.
Regarding claim 21 (New), the limitation “wherein the measuring is carried out on the additional measuring device outside the hard finishing machine” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measuring” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measuring” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measuring is carried out on the additional measuring device outside the hard finishing machine”.
Regarding claim 22 (New), the limitation “wherein the measurement is carried out by means of a tactile measuring sensor” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measurement” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measurement” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measurement is carried out by means of a tactile measuring sensor”.
Regarding claim 23 (New), the limitation “wherein the measurement is carried out by means of a contactless sensor, in particular by means of an inductive, a capacitive or an optical sensor” is indefinite for two reasons 1) because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measurement” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measurement” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? And 2) a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “means of a contactless sensor”, and the claim also recites “in particular by means of an inductive, a capacitive or an optical sensor” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measurement is carried out
Regarding claim 24 (New), the limitation “wherein the measuring is carried out on a single flank rolling measuring device” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measuring” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measuring” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measuring is carried out on a single flank rolling measuring device”.
Regarding claim 25 (New), the limitation “wherein the measuring is carried out on a gear measuring machine, wherein the measuring is carried out over one complete workpiece revolution” is indefinite because there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measuring” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measuring” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measuring is carried out on a gear measuring machine, wherein the second measuring is carried out over one complete workpiece revolution”.
Regarding claim 26 (New), the limitation “wherein the measurement is carried out on a transmission test bench, wherein in the same the vibration generation of the workpiece is recorded under operating conditions” is indefinite for two reasons: 1) there are two steps in claim 16 that recite “measured” by, first by the limitation “at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller” and second by the limitation “the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece”, the term “the measurement” is unclear because it is not recited to which measurement step is recited back to. Does “the measurement” refer back to the first “measured by” step or to the second “measured by additional means” step? 2) the limitation “in the same” is unclear as to which structure is exactly referred back to. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein the second measurement is carried out on a transmission test bench, wherein in the transmission test bench the vibration generation of the workpiece is recorded under operating conditions”.
Claim 27 is rejected as being dependent on claim 26.
Regarding claim 27 (New), the limitation “wherein a signal associated with vibration generation is detected in the transmission test rig” is indefinite because the term “the transmission test rig” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “wherein a signal associated with vibration generation is detected in the transmission test [[rig]]bench”.
Regarding claim 28 (New), the limitation “wherein an analysis is carried out for the signal recorded by means of the sensor or with the machine controller or for the signal recorded in the transmission test bench” is indefinite because the term “the transmission test bench” lacks proper antecedent basis from claim 16. The test bench is claimed in claim 26. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as wherein an analysis is carried out for the signal recorded by means of the sensor or with the machine controller or for the signal recorded in [[the]]a transmission test bench”.
Regarding claim 30 (New), a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “wherein the hard fine machining tool is a grinding tool”, and the claim also recites in particular a grinding worm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 16, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schweizer et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0141143), hereinafter referred to as Schweizer.
Regarding claim 16 (New), Schweizer discloses a method for the hard fine machining of a toothing or a profile of a workpiece by means of a hard fine machining tool in a hard fine machining machine [Schweizer, page 3, pp 0060, gear cutting machine 150], wherein the workpiece is clamped on a workpiece spindle and is machined by means of the hard fine machining tool [Schweizer, page 3, pp 0066, S1 the gear is machined], wherein during or after the machining of the workpiece in the hard fine machining machine at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller [Schweizer, page 3, pp 0067, S2, iM is tested after machining S1, and provides a test value Pw] and is stored in the machine controller [Schweizer, page 7, claim 11, the instructions are performed on software and within a controller],
wherein a comparison of the measured signal or at least one variable derived therefrom with stored reference data takes place in the machine controller in such a way that it is checked whether the measured signal or the at least one variable derived therefrom lies within a predefined tolerance [Schweizer, page 3, pp 0068, S3, Pw is compared with Vw, and page 7, claim 11, the instructions are performed on software and within a controller], and
wherein, in the event that the measured signal or the at least one variable derived therefrom lies at least partially outside the predefined tolerance [Schweizer, page 3, pp 0070], the workpiece is measured by means of an additional measuring device after the machining of the workpiece [Schweizer, page 3, pp’s 0071-0072, transferring to an offline measurement and performing the measurement in 20 giving value Mw].
Regarding claim 21 (New), Schweizer further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the measuring is carried out on the additional measuring device outside the hard finishing machine [Schweizer, page 3, pp’s 0071-0072, transferring to an offline measurement and performing the measurement in 20 giving value Mw].
Regarding claim 28 (New), Schweizer further discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein an analysis is carried out for the signal recorded by means of the sensor or with the machine controller [Schweizer, page 7, claim 11] or for the signal recorded in the transmission test bench, which analysis determines the amplitude of the signal, in particular of an oscillation, above order [Schweizer, page 5, pp’s 0104 and 0108].
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 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0141143) as applied to claims 16 and 21 above, and in further view of Dietz (US PGPUB No. 2022/0291669), hereinafter referred to as Schweizer and Dietz, respectively.
Regarding claim 25 (New), Schweizer further discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the measuring is carried out on a gear measuring machine [Schweizer, page 2, pp 0055].
However, Schweizer does not explicitly disclose wherein the measuring is carried out over one complete workpiece revolution.
Dietz teaches a method for the hard fine machining of a toothing or a profile of a workpiece [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, 23] by means of a hard fine machining tool in a hard fine machining machine [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090], wherein the workpiece is clamped on a workpiece spindle and is machined by means of the hard fine machining tool [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, spindle 15 carries 23], wherein during or after the machining of the workpiece in the hard fine machining machine at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller [Dietz, fig 12, and page 11, pp 0208, 121],
wherein a comparison of the measured signal or at least one variable derived therefrom with stored reference data takes place in the machine controller in such a way that it is checked whether the measured signal or the at least one variable derived therefrom lies within a predefined tolerance [Dietz, fig 12, and page 12, pp 0209 and steps 123 and 124], and
wherein the measuring is carried out on a gear measuring machine [Dietz, page 9, pp 0150], wherein the measuring is carried out over one complete workpiece revolution [Dietz, page 6, pp 0105].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring process of measuring on a gear measuring machine of Schweizer with the measuring process of Dietz to measure the workpiece over a complete revolution as taught by Dietz because the normalization of the measurement parameter of the workpiece can be a number of parameters, where the axial feed per revolution is one of many parameters to be measured, and in order to obtain this data for normalization, at least one revolution must be completed by the workpiece, where the normalization of the measurement allows the user to easily compare processing data, by even unexperienced operators [Dietz, page 6, pp 0105 and page 3, pp’s 0029, 0038 and 0043-0044, summarized].
Regarding claims 26 (New) and 27 (New), Schweizer further discloses the method according to claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement is carried out on a transmission test bench, wherein in the same the vibration generation of the workpiece is recorded under operating conditions, wherein a signal associated with vibration generation is detected in the transmission test bench.
Dietz teaches a method for the hard fine machining of a toothing or a profile of a workpiece [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, 23] by means of a hard fine machining tool in a hard fine machining machine [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090], wherein the workpiece is clamped on a workpiece spindle and is machined by means of the hard fine machining tool [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, spindle 15 carries 23], wherein during or after the machining of the workpiece in the hard fine machining machine at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller [Dietz, fig 12, and page 11, pp 0208, 121],
wherein a comparison of the measured signal or at least one variable derived therefrom with stored reference data takes place in the machine controller in such a way that it is checked whether the measured signal or the at least one variable derived therefrom lies within a predefined tolerance [Dietz, fig 12, and page 12, pp 0209 and steps 123 and 124], and
wherein the measurement is carried out on a transmission test bench [Dietz, page 5, pp 0085, acceleration measurement is made as an in-line measurement], wherein in the same the vibration generation of the workpiece is recorded under operating conditions [Dietz, page 5, pp 0085, measuring the acceleration during the grinding and is done as an in-line measurement], wherein a signal associated with vibration generation is detected in the transmission test bench [Dietz, page 5, pp 0085, acceleration measures the vibration of the spindle and the noise].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the measuring after the machining of the signal to determine if the workpiece is within tolerance in Schweizer to measure the acceleration as the signal to determine if the signal is within tolerance and to use the acceleration measurement procedure of Dietz because acceleration (and therefore vibration) are well known in the art, further the normalization of the measurement parameter of the workpiece can be a number of parameters, in the instant case the acceleration of a vibration measurement is one of many parameters to be measured, and in order to obtain this data for normalization, acceleration and vibration are measured to the workpiece, where the normalization of the measurement allows the user to easily compare processing data, by even unexperienced operators [Dietz, page 6, pp 0105 and page 3, pp’s 0029, 0038 and 0043-0044, summarized].
Regarding claim 29 (New), Schweizer further discloses the method according to claim 28, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the amplitude of the oscillation above order is determined by performing a Fast Fourier Transform.
Dietz teaches a method for the hard fine machining of a toothing or a profile of a workpiece [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, 23] by means of a hard fine machining tool in a hard fine machining machine [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090], wherein the workpiece is clamped on a workpiece spindle and is machined by means of the hard fine machining tool [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, spindle 15 carries 23], wherein during or after the machining of the workpiece in the hard fine machining machine at least one signal is measured by means of at least one sensor or a machine controller and is stored in the machine controller [Dietz, fig 12, and page 11, pp 0208, 121],
wherein a comparison of the measured signal or at least one variable derived therefrom with stored reference data takes place in the machine controller in such a way that it is checked whether the measured signal or the at least one variable derived therefrom lies within a predefined tolerance [Dietz, fig 12, and page 12, pp 0209 and steps 123 and 124], and
wherein an analysis is carried out for the signal recorded by means of the machine controller, which analysis determines the amplitude of the signal, in particular of an oscillation, above order [Dietz, fig 12, and page 11, pp 0208, step 122 is a normalization step of the measured signal], wherein the amplitude of the oscillation above order is determined by performing a Fast Fourier Transform [Dietz, page 7, pp 0122, the normalization of the variable, in the instant case, in step 122, is done by FFT or Fast Fourier Transform].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the analysis by the machine controller in determining amplitude in Schweizer to be done by FFT because performing an FFT analysis is useful in understanding the frequencies involved with the measured variable to obtain a value quickly, and allows the user to normalize the data more efficiently, where the normalization of the measurement allows the user to easily compare processing data, by even unexperienced operators [Dietz, page 6, pp 0105 and page 3, pp’s 0029, 0038 and 0043-0044, summarized].
Regarding claim 30 (New), Schweizer further discloses the method according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the hard fine machining tool is a grinding tool, in particular a grinding worm.
Dietz teaches a method for the hard fine machining of a toothing or a profile of a workpiece [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, 23] by means of a hard fine machining tool in a hard fine machining machine [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090], wherein the workpiece is clamped on a workpiece spindle and is machined by means of the hard fine machining tool [Dietz, page 6, pp 0090, spindle 15 carries 23], wherein the hard fine machining tool is a grinding tool, in particular a grinding worm [Dietz, page 4, pp 0077, 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the hard fine machining tool in the method of Schweizer to be applied to a method using a grinding worm as taught by Dietz because the grinding of gears using worms is difficult to monitor all of the measured variables at the same time [Dietz, page 1, pp 0013, summarized], where a second monitoring, and consequently also using the normalization of Dietz, of a grinding worm using the method of Schweizer allows for increase quality and by verifying in offline tests [Schweizer, page 2, pp 0050, summarized].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 and 22-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17 (New), Schweizer et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0141143) teaches the additional measuring is carried out on the additional measuring device outside the hard finishing machine [Schweizer, page 3, pp’s 0071-0072, transferring to an offline measurement and performing the measurement in 20 giving value Mw].
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the second measuring is carried out on the additional measuring device within the hard finishing machine” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art does not teach the second measuring within the hard finishing machine and to move the second measuring to be within the hard finishing machine would destroy the intended operation of the device of Schweizer.
Claims 18-20 and 22-24 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 17.
Conclusion
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