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
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous objection to the drawing, the previous objections to the claims, and the previous 112 rejections to claims 21, 22, 27 and 28 are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
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 20-23, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sulzer (US4850155A).
Regarding claim 20, Sulzer (US4850155A) discloses a gear manufacturing apparatus configured to grind a gear workpiece including teeth formed on an outer circumferential surface of the gear workpiece, by meshing and rotating the gear workpiece and a threaded tool including at least one spiral processing tooth on an outer circumferential surface of a base portion of the tool, (see Abstract and FIGS. 2 and 4: a gear manufacturing apparatus configured to grind helical gear wheel with teeth formed the outer circumferential surface of the gear workpiece by meshing and rotating the gearwheel and a threaded worm with spiral processing teeth on the outer circumferential surface of a base portion of the worm tool) comprising:
a control device (the movement between the tool worm and the work wheel is controlled via templates or by a program; see Sulzer Col. 4, Lines 19-35) configured to execute a corner portion grinding control in which one corner portion of four corners of each tooth surface of the gear workpiece is ground such that a termination, which is an edge of the processing tooth where the processing tooth discontinues in a tooth trace direction at an end face of the threaded tool, comes into contact with the gear workpiece,
(The Examiner notes that in light of ¶[0007] and [0013] of the specification, “corner portion grinding control” has been construed to be defined as a step of grinding one corner portion among four corners of each tooth surface of the gear workpiece with a termination. See Reference Pic. 1 below: corner portion C1 is ground such that termination T1, which is an edge of the processing tool shown by the solid line where the processing tooth discontinues in a tooth trace direction at an end face of the threaded tool, comes into contact with the gear workpiece shown by the hatched lines in FIG. 5c; see also Sulzer Col. 4, Line 66-Col. 5, Line 22)
utilizing only a termination tooth surface in a one side tooth surface of the processing tooth or another side tooth surface of the processing tooth, (see Reference Pic. 1 below: a surface of the tooth including the termination located on one side of the processing tooth, identified as TTS in Ref. Pic. 1, is used to grind the corner portion C1)
the termination tooth surface including part of the termination and being one closed region (see Ref. Pic. 1 below: the termination tooth surface TTS includes the termination T1 and is one closed region).
PNG
media_image1.png
892
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Pic. 1: Annotated Sulzer FIGS. 5a-c
Regarding claim 21, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 20 above, wherein Sulzer further discloses that the termination is located at one side end of the processing tooth in an axial direction of the tool, (see Ref. Pic. 1 above in the discussion of claim 20: the termination T1 is located at a one side end of the processing tooth in an axial direction of the tool)
and in the corner portion grinding control, the control device causes the corner portion on a tooth tip side of the gear workpiece to be ground utilizing only the termination tooth surface in the one side tooth surface of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool (see Ref. Pic. 2 below: in a step of grinding a corner portion C2 with the termination T2, the templates or program controlling the relative movement of the tool and the workwheel causes the corner portion C2, which is located on the tip of a tooth of the workwheel, to be ground utilizing only the termination tooth surface TTS2, which is located on the one side of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool; see also Sulzer Col. 4, Line 66-Col. 5, Line 22).
Regarding claim 22, Sulzer further discloses that the termination is at one side end of the processing tooth in an axial direction of the tool, (see Ref. Pic. 1 above in the discussion of claim 20: the termination T1 is located at a one side end of the processing tooth in an axial direction of the tool)
and in the corner portion grinding control, the control device causes the corner portion on a tooth root side of the gear workpiece to be ground utilizing only the termination tooth surface in the other side tooth surface of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool (see Ref. Pic. 2 below: the templates or program controlling the relative movement of the tool and the workwheel causes corner portion C2, which is located on the root side of a tooth on the workwheel, to be ground utilizing the tooth surface including the termination located on the other side tooth surface of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool—identified in Ref. Pic. 2 below; see also Sulzer Col. 4, Line 66-Col. 5, Line 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
730
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 2: Annotated Sulzer Figs. 5a-c
Regarding claim 23, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 20 above, wherein Sulzer further discloses that the control device is configured to execute a tooth surface grinding control in which the tooth surface of the gear workpiece is ground by the processing tooth by meshing and rotating the tool and the gear workpiece, before starting or after completing the corner portion grinding control without changing the tool.
(The Examiner reminds the Applicant that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111). A tooth surface grinding control has not been defined in the specification and has been interpreted as a step of grinding the surface of a tooth flank that is not the root or tip of the tooth.
Since the tooth of the tool traverses the corresponding workwheel tooth from the root to the tip, the step of grinding the surface between the root and the tip meets the construed definition of a tooth surface grinding control. Furthermore, this step occurs after completing the corner portion grinding control of corner portion C1 at the tip of the workwheel tooth using the same tool, meeting the limitations of the claim.)
Regarding claim 26, Sulzer discloses a gear manufacturing apparatus configured to grind a gear workpiece including teeth formed on an outer circumferential surface of the gear workpiece, by meshing and rotating the gear workpiece and a threaded tool including at least one spiral processing tooth on an outer circumferential surface of a base portion of the tool, (see Abstract and FIGS. 2 and 4: a gear manufacturing apparatus configured to grind helical gear wheel with teeth formed the outer circumferential surface of the gear workpiece by meshing and rotating the gearwheel and a threaded worm with spiral processing teeth on the outer circumferential surface of a base portion of the worm tool) comprising:
a control device configured to control a relative position and a relative angle of the tool with respect to the gear workpiece, (the movement between the tool worm and the work wheel is controlled via templates or by a program; see Sulzer Col. 4, Lines 19-35)
wherein the control device is configured to execute a corner portion grinding control in which meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece starts or ends by contact of a termination, which is an edge of the processing tooth where the processing tooth discontinues in a tooth trace direction at an end face of the threaded tool, and one corner portion of four corners of a tooth surface of the gear workpiece (The Examiner notes that in light of ¶[0007] and [0013] of the specification, “corner portion grinding control” has been construed to be defined as a step of grinding one corner portion among four corners of each tooth surface of the gear workpiece with a termination. See Reference Pic. 1 above in the discussion of claim 20: corner portion C1 is ground such that termination T1, which is an edge of the processing tool shown by the solid line where the processing tooth discontinues in a tooth trace direction at an end face of the threaded tool, comes into contact with the gear workpiece shown by the hatched lines in FIG. 5c; see also Sulzer Col. 4, Line 66-Col. 5, Line 22).
Regarding claim 29, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 26 above, wherein Sulzer further discloses that the control device is configured to execute a tooth surface grinding control in which the tooth surface of the gear workpiece is ground by the processing tooth by meshing and rotating the tool and the gear workpiece, before starting or after completing the corner portion grinding control without changing the tool.
(The Examiner reminds the Applicant that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111). A tooth surface grinding control has not been defined in the specification and has been interpreted as a step of grinding the surface of a tooth flank that is not the root or tip of the tooth.
Since the tooth of the tool traverses the corresponding workwheel tooth from the root to the tip, the step of grinding the surface between the root and the tip meets the construed definition of a tooth surface grinding control. Furthermore, this step occurs after completing the corner portion grinding control of corner portion C1 at the tip of the workwheel tooth using the same tool, meeting the limitations of 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.
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 24-25 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulzer (US4850155A) in view of Steinbach (DE102004020364B4).
Regarding claim 24, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 20 above, wherein Sulzer further discloses that the processing tooth includes: a first termination portion including a first termination that is one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (see Sulzer FIGS. 4 and 5a: area A on one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
a second termination portion including a second termination that is another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (area B at the another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
and a central portion between the first termination portion and the second termination portion (the region in the center between areas A and B).
Sulzer does not disclose a surface of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination is covered with a coating layer, and wherein a surface of the central portion is not covered with the coating layer.
However, Steinbach (DE102004020364B4), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to gear manufacturing apparatuses for grinding gear teeth, teaches a grinding tool in which one portion of the tool at a one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction has a coating layer, (a first region 1 at a one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction has ceramically bonded particles; see Steinbach Trans. ¶[0019]) and a surface of a central portion is not covered with the coating layer (a surface of a central portion, identified in the annotated FIG. 1 below, does not have the grain and bonding agent of region 1; see Steinbach Trans. ¶[0019]).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Steinbach Annotated FIG. 1
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 tool of Sulzer so that a surface of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination is covered with a coating layer, and wherein a surface of the central portion is not covered with the coating layer, as taught by Steinbach.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so “that a longer service life can be achieved and no tool change or special dressing operation is necessary” and different regions “can be optimized with respect to the machining type” (Steinbach Eng. Trans. ¶[0016] and [0019].
Regarding claim 25, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 20 above, wherein Sulzer further discloses that the processing tooth includes: a first termination portion including a first termination that is one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (see Sulzer FIGS. 4 and 5a: area A on one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
a second termination portion including a second termination that is another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (area B at the another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
and a central portion located-between the first termination portion and the second termination portion, (the region in the center between areas A and B).
Sulzer does not disclose that a material of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination portion is different from a material of the central portion.
However, Steinbach discloses a processing tooth wherein a material of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination portion is different from a material of the central portion (a material of the region 1 at a one side edge of the processing tooth in FIG. 1 has a different bonding agent of the central portion identified in the annotated FIG. 1 in claim 24 above; see Steinbach Trans. ¶[0019]).
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 tool of Sulzer so that a material of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination portion is different from a material of the central portion, as taught by Steinbach.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so “that a longer service life can be achieved and no tool change or special dressing operation is necessary” and different regions “can be optimized with respect to the machining type” (Steinbach Eng. Trans. ¶[0016] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 30, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 26 above, wherein Sulzer further discloses that the processing tooth includes: a first termination portion including a first termination that is one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (see Sulzer FIGS. 4 and 5a: area A on one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
a second termination portion including a second termination that is another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (area B at the another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
and a central portion located between the first termination portion and the second termination portion (the region in the center between areas A and B).
Sulzer does not disclose a surface of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination is covered with a coating layer, and wherein a surface of the central portion is not covered with the coating layer.
However, Steinbach (DE102004020364B4) teaches a grinding tool in which one portion of the tool at a one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction has a coating layer, (a first region 1 at a one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction has ceramically bonded particles; see Steinbach Trans. ¶[0019]) and a surface of a central portion is not covered with the coating layer (a surface of a central portion, identified in the annotated FIG. 1 in the discussion of claim 24, does not have the grain and bonding agent of region 1; see Steinbach Trans. ¶[0019]).
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 tool of Sulzer so that a surface of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination is covered with a coating layer, and wherein a surface of the central portion is not covered with the coating layer, as taught by Steinbach.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so “that a longer service life can be achieved and no tool change or special dressing operation is necessary” and different regions “can be optimized with respect to the machining type” (Steinbach Eng. Trans. ¶[0016] and [0019].
Regarding claim 31, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 26 above, wherein Sulzer further discloses that the processing tooth includes: a first termination portion including a first termination that is one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (see Sulzer FIGS. 4 and 5a: area A on one side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
a second termination portion including a second termination that is another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction; (area B at the another side edge of the processing tooth in the tooth trace direction)
and a central portion located-between the first termination portion and the second termination portion, (the region in the center between areas A and B).
Sulzer does not disclose that a material of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination portion is different from a material of the central portion.
However, Steinbach discloses a processing tooth wherein a material of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination portion is different from a material of the central portion (a material of the region 1 at a one side edge of the processing tooth in FIG. 1 has a different bonding agent of the central portion identified in the annotated FIG. 1 in claim 24 above; see Steinbach Trans. ¶[0019]).
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 tool of Sulzer so that a material of at least one of the first termination portion and the second termination portion is different from a material of the central portion, as taught by Steinbach.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so “that a longer service life can be achieved and no tool change or special dressing operation is necessary” and different regions “can be optimized with respect to the machining type” (Steinbach Eng. Trans. ¶[0016] and [0019]).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulzer (US4850155A) in view of Sakai (JPH1089442A).
Regarding claim 27, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 20 above, and discloses that the corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece starts by contact of the termination of the processing tooth and one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a [tooth root side] (FIGS. 4, 5a, and 6a: area A of the processing tool coming into contact with the termination of the processing tooth starts the corner portion grinding control discussed in claim 20 above, and the tool traverses from the root to the tip).
Sulzer does not disclose that the corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece starts by contact of the termination of the processing tooth and one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a tooth tip side.
However, Sakai (JP H1089442 A), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to gear manufacturing apparatuses for grinding gear teeth, teaches that a corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece starts by contact of one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a tooth tip side (see Sakai Trans. ¶[0039]-[0040] and the annotated FIG. 1a below: a step of grinding the corner portion C1 of the tooth of a gear workpiece starts at the tooth tip side start point Fs).
PNG
media_image4.png
559
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sakai Annotated FIG. 1a
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 corner portion grinding control of Sulzer so that the corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece starts by contact of the termination of the processing tooth and one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a tooth tip side, as taught by Sakai.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “the local stiffness change at the tooth end can be changed” and “power can be transmitted without being affected by the change in the local stiffness at the tooth end” (Sakai Trans. ¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 28, Sulzer discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 20 above, and discloses that the corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece ends by contact of the termination of the processing tooth and the one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a tooth [tip] side (FIGS. 4, 5a, and 6a: area A of the processing tool coming into contact with the termination of the processing tooth starts the corner portion grinding control discussed in claim 20 above, and the tool traverses from the root to the tip).
Sulzer does not disclose that the corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece ends by contact of the termination of the processing tooth and the one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a tooth root side.
However, Sakai teaches that a corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece ends by contact of one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a tooth root side (see Sakai Trans. ¶[0039]-[0040] and the annotated FIG. 1a below: a step of grinding the corner portion C1 of the tooth of a gear workpiece ends at the tooth root side end point Fe).
PNG
media_image5.png
559
584
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sakai Annotated Fig. 1a
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 corner portion grinding control of Sulzer so that the corner portion grinding control is set such that the meshing of the processing tooth and the tooth of the gear workpiece ends by contact of the termination of the processing tooth and one corner portion of the four corners of the tooth surface of the gear workpiece on a tooth root side, as taught by Sakai.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “the local stiffness change at the tooth end can be changed” and “power can be transmitted without being affected by the change in the local stiffness at the tooth end” (Sakai Trans. ¶[0040]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulstich (US 5765974 A) in view of Sulzer (US4850155A).
Regarding claim 32, Faulstich (US 5765974 A) teaches a gear manufacturing apparatus for grinding a gear workpiece including a plurality of teeth by meshing and rotating the gear workpiece (a gear manufacturing apparatus for grinding a gear workpiece 2 including a plurality of teeth by meshing and rotating the gear workpiece 2; shown in FIG. 6) and a tool for grinding or cutting that includes at least one spiral processing tooth on an outer circumferential surface of the tool, (and a tool 0 for grinding or cutting that includes one or more spiral processing teeth on an outer circumferential surface of the tool), the apparatus comprising:
a first spindle configured to hold the gear workpiece; (table 7 configured to hold the gear workpiece 2)
a first holding table rotatably holding the first spindle about an axis of the first spindle; (a machine bed 10 rotatably holding the table 7 about a first axis vertical in FIG. 6 that is an axis of the table 7)
a second spindle configured to hold the tool; (tool spindle 3 configured to hold the tool 0)
a second holding table rotatably holding the second spindle about an axis of the second spindle; (column 9 rotatably holding the tool spindle 3 about axis 11 that is an axis of the tool spindle 3)
a drive device configured to rotate the second spindle about the axis of the second spindle and move at least one of the first holding table and the second holding table; (a drive 1 configured to rotate the tool spindle 3 about the second axis and move at least one of the first holding table and the second holding table)
and a control device configured to control the drive device to adjust a relative position and a relative angle of the tool with respect to the gear workpiece, (see Faulstich Col. 5, Lines 57-65: “a simulation of the manufacturing process on a digital computer”)
wherein the control device is configured to execute, by controlling the drive device, a tooth surface grinding control in which the tool and the gear workpiece are meshed and rotated to grind each of the teeth of the gear workpiece in a predetermined shape over an entire circumference of the gear workpiece (see Faulstich Col. 9, Lines 3-9 and Col. 9, Line 50-Col. 10, Line 22).
Faulstich does not teach that the control device is configured to execute, by controlling the drive device, a tooth surface grinding control in which the tool and the gear workpiece are meshed and rotated to grind each of the teeth of the gear workpiece in a predetermined shape over an entire circumference of the gear workpiece using a central portion of the tool in an axial direction of the tool;
and a corner portion grinding control in which only one side tooth surface or another side tooth surface of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool at a portion located the nearest to one end of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool is brough into contact with the gear workpiece,
and the tool and the gear workpiece are meshed and rotated, to grind, over the entire circumference of the gear workpiece, one corner portion of four corners of a tooth surface of the gear workpiece which is an end portion of the tooth surface in a radial direction of the gear workpiece and a tooth trace direction, and
wherein the tooth surface grinding control and the corner portion grinding control are executed at different timings.
However, Sulzer (US4850155A) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to gear manufacturing apparatuses for grinding gear teeth, teaches that the control device is configured to execute a tooth surface grinding control in which the tool and the gear workpiece are meshed and rotated to grind each of the teeth of the gear workpiece in a predetermined shape over an entire circumference of the gear workpiece using a central portion of the tool in an axial direction of the tool; (The Examiner reminds the Applicant that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111). A tooth surface grinding control has not been defined in the specification and has been interpreted as a step of grinding the surface of a tooth flank that is not the root or tip of the tooth.
Since the tooth of the tool traverses the corresponding workwheel tooth from the root to the tip, the step of grinding the surface between the root and the tip meets the construed definition of a tooth surface grinding control.)
and a corner portion grinding control in which only one side tooth surface or another side tooth surface of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool at a portion located the nearest to one end of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool is brough into contact with the gear workpiece, (The Examiner notes that in light of ¶[0007] and [0013] of the specification, “corner portion grinding control” has been construed to be defined as a step of grinding one corner portion among four corners of each tooth surface of the gear workpiece with a termination. See Reference Pic. 1 above in the discussion of claim 20: corner portion C1 is ground such that termination T1, which is an edge of the processing tool shown by the solid line where the processing tooth discontinues in a tooth trace direction at an end face of the threaded tool, comes into contact with the gear workpiece shown by the hatched lines in FIG. 5c; see also Sulzer Col. 4, Line 66-Col. 5, Line 22)
and the tool and the gear workpiece are meshed and rotated, to grind, over the entire circumference of the gear workpiece, one corner portion of four corners of a tooth surface of the gear workpiece which is an end portion of the tooth surface in a radial direction of the gear workpiece and a tooth trace direction, and (see FIGS. 2 and 4: the tool worm and the work wheel are meshed and rotated over the entire circumference of the workwheel, grinding one corner portion C1 of four corners of a tooth surface of the work wheel which is an end portion of the tooth surface in a radial direction of the gear workpiece and a tooth trace direction; see Reference Pic. 1 above in the discussion of claim 20)
wherein the tooth surface grinding control and the corner portion grinding control are executed at different timings (Since the tooth of the tool traverses the corresponding workwheel tooth from the root to the tip, the step of grinding the tooth surface between the root and the tip occurs after completing the grinding of corner portion C1 of the workwheel tooth using the same tool, and thus at different timings.)
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 apparatus of Faulstich so that the control device is configured to execute, by controlling the drive device, a tooth surface grinding control in which the tool and the gear workpiece are meshed and rotated to grind each of the teeth of the gear workpiece in a predetermined shape over an entire circumference of the gear workpiece using a central portion of the tool in an axial direction of the tool; and a corner portion grinding control in which only one side tooth surface or another side tooth surface of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool at a portion located the nearest to one end of the processing tooth in the axial direction of the tool is brough into contact with the gear workpiece, and the tool and the gear workpiece are meshed and rotated, to grind, over the entire circumference of the gear workpiece, one corner portion of four corners of a tooth surface of the gear workpiece which is an end portion of the tooth surface in a radial direction of the gear workpiece and a tooth trace direction, and wherein the tooth surface grinding control and the corner portion grinding control are executed at different timings, as taught by Sulzer.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “optimize the noise, lifetime and load capacity of gear wheels” (Sulzer Col. 2, Lines 1-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 20-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights