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 .
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 1-6 and 9 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, relative to the first tooth, “a surface on one side in a tool axial direction; and . . . a surface on an opposite side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 11-13. The claim further recites, relative to the finishing tooth, “a surface on the one side in the tool axial direction; and . . . a surface on the opposite side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 15-18. It is vague as to what the one side and the other side relate to in the claim. It does not appear that the one side and opposite side are merely opposing sides of the tooth as one would expect. Instead, because the finishing tooth refers back to “the one side” and “the opposite side” referenced relative to the first tooth, the respective sides provide a different meaning, the scope of which is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “an angle between an inner portion located closer to the tool axis and the outer surface of the tool body is smaller than an angle between an outer portion located in a direction farther from the tool axis than the inner portion and the outer surface of the tool body” in Lines 21-24. The angle is indefinite because an inner portion and an outer portion lack clear boundaries. That is, the portions appear to be arbitrary. The recitation “closer to the tool axis” lacks any feature providing reference position (i.e., closer than what). Likewise, it is unclear what feature provides reference for the direction farther from the tool axis. The scope of “in a direction farther from the tool axis than the inner region and an outer surface of the tool body” remains unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how a direction is considered farther from the tool axis and an outer surface of the tool body. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “the first region” in Line 11. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites the term “when,” which creates a lack of clarity. The term “when” creates a vagueness as to whether the limitations are required if the “when” conditions do not occur. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “the region” in Line 3. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “on other side” in Lines 4 and 7, respectively. It is unclear as to what the other side in this context references and to which claimed feature it applies. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “the tool axis side” in Line 8. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 further recites “an end on the tool axis side of the first relieved portion in the first tooth is located closer to the tool axis than an end on the tool axis side of the second relieved portion in the second tooth.” This limitation is vague as to what is required such that one of ordinary skill would not understand the scope of the claim. The limitation refers to the tool axis side, which is unclear as to its boundaries. Furthermore, the limitation refers to the relieved portions as being in distinct teeth as opposed to being the compared region between the first/second tooth and the finishing tooth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites the term “when,” which creates a lack of clarity. The term “when” creates a vagueness as to whether the limitations are required if the “when” conditions do not occur. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “defines a relieved portion the other side” in Line 4. It is unclear what this limitation means. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “an entirety of the relieved portion on the another side of the first tooth is included in the tooth profile of the finishing tooth when the tooth profile of the first tooth and the tooth profile of the finishing tooth are overlapped.” The scope of the limitation is unclear. The relieved portion is a difference between the first tooth and the finishing tooth. It is therefore unclear how it is considered of the first tooth and being included in the tooth profile of the finishing tooth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites the phrase “in a state in which,” which creates a lack of clarity. The phrase gives rise to doubt over whether the claim limitations are required. Specifically, the phrase gives rise to the inference that there may not be a state in which the limitations of the claim are not present. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “the tool axis side” in Line 3. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “a radially outer end . . . of the first tooth” in Lines 5-6. There is already antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1. As such it is unclear whether this is a different outer end or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “a radially outer end with reference to the tool axis in the tooth profile of the first tooth respectively coincide with an end on the tool axis side of the one-side tooth flank of the finishing tooth, an end on the tool axis side of the another-side tooth flank of the finishing tooth, and a radially outer end with reference to the tool axis in the tooth profile of the finishing tooth.” The limitation is convoluted/vague to the point that one of ordinary skill would not understand the scope. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “the tooth profile of the first tooth” in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons (US Patent No. 1,873,158) in view of Jarno (US Patent No. 2,698,477).
(Claim 1) Simmons discloses a tool (Figs. 1-12) including a tool body extending along a tool axis; and a thread protruding in a direction away from the tool axis on an outer surface of the tool body and provided in a spiral shape about the tool axis (Figs. 1-5). The thread includes a first tooth (Fig. 8 - first roughing tooth) located at a first position in a spiral direction; and a finishing tooth (Fig. 12 - finishing tooth) located at a second position in the spiral direction with respect to the first region. The first tooth includes: a one-side tooth flank (flank opposite that in which leader line of detail 13 touches in Fig. 8) that is a surface on one side in a tool axial direction; and an another-side tooth flank (flank that leader line of detail 13 touches in Fig. 8) that is a surface on an opposite side in the tool axial direction. The finishing tooth includes: a one-side tooth flank (18) that is a surface on one side in the tool axial direction; and an another-side tooth flank (19) that is a surface on the opposite side in the tool axial direction. The another-side tooth flank in the first region is recessed more than the another-side tooth flank in the reference region (Figs. 8, 12). In a radial direction extending from the tool axis, a length from a radially inner end to a radially outer end of the first tooth is equal to a length from a radially inner end to a radially outer end of the finishing tooth. That is, the inner end and outer ends are not specifically identified and they may simply be arbitrarily identified. For example, the distance in Figure 8 meeting the tooth flank may be the same distance that interests “an end” of the tooth flank in the radial direction of claim 12. See, e.g., annotated Fig. 12 (illustrating, by double-arrows, how the radial distance to an end, without more, may be met by the prior art). Simmons does not explicitly disclose in at least one of the one-side tooth flank and the another-side tooth flank in a tooth profile of the reference region, an angle between an inner region located on a tool axis side and the outer surface of the tool body is smaller than an angle between an outer region located in a direction farther from the tool axis than the inner region and an outer surface of the tool body.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jarno discloses in at least one of the one-side tooth flank and the another-side tooth flank in a tooth profile of the reference region, an angle between an inner region located on a tool axis side and the outer surface of the tool body is smaller than an angle between an outer region located in a direction farther from the tool axis than the inner region and an outer surface of the tool body (Fig. 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference region in the tool disclosed in Simmons with a tooth having the angular relationship as taught by Jarno in order to “relieve interference points of the gear teeth flanks by means of elongated recesses instead of the semicircular recesses formed by the bulb-type protuberances.” (Col. 2, Lines 42-44).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Claim 2) The thread includes a second tooth (Fig. 9) located between the first tooth (Fig. 8) and the finishing tooth (Fig. 12) in the spiral direction (Figs. 6, 7). The second tooth includes: a one-side tooth flank (flank that leader line of detail 13 touches in Fig. 9) that is a surface on one side in the tool axial direction; another-side tooth flank (flank that leader line of detail 14 touches in Fig. 9) that is a surface on another side in the tool axial direction; and the another-side tooth flank in the second tooth is recessed more than the another-side tooth flank in the finishing tooth Fig. 9 vs Fig. 12); and the another-side tooth flank in the first tooth is recessed more than the another-side tooth flank in the second tooth (Fig. 8 vs Fig. 9).
(Claim 3) As best understood, in a case where a difference in shape of the another-side tooth flank when a tooth profile of the first tooth and a tooth profile of the finishing tooth are overlapped is defined as a relieved portion on another side and a difference in shape of the another-side tooth flank when a tooth profile of the second tooth and the tooth profile of the finishing tooth are overlapped is defined as an relieved portion on another side: an end on the tool axis side of the relieved portion on the other side in the first tooth is located closer to the tool axis side than an end on the tool axis side of the relieved portion on the other side in the second tooth (Fig. 8 vs Fig. 9).
(Claim 4) As best understood, where a difference in shape of the another-side tooth flank when a tooth profile of the first tooth and a tooth profile of the finishing tooth are overlapped is defined as a relieved portion on another side: an entirety of the relieved portion on the another side of the first tooth is included in the tooth profile of the finishing tooth when the tooth profile of the first tooth and the tooth profile of the finishing tooth are overlapped (Fig. 8 vs Fig. 12).
(Claim 5) As best understood, when the tooth profile of the first tooth (Fig., 8) and the tooth profile of the finishing tooth (Fig. 12) are overlapped, an end on the tool axis side of the one-side tooth flank, an end on the tool axis side of the another-side tooth flank, and a radially outer end with reference to the tool axis in the tooth profile of the first tooth respectively coincide with the end on the tool axis side of the one-side tooth flank, the end on the tool axis side of the another-side tooth flank, and a radially outer end with reference to the tool axis in the tooth profile of the finishing tooth (Figs. 8, 12).
(Claim 6) A shape of the one-side tooth flank in a tooth profile of the first tooth coincides with a shape of the one-side tooth flank in the tooth profile of the finishing tooth (Fig. 8 vs Fig. 12).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons (US Patent No. 1,873,158) in view of Jarno (US Patent No. 2,698,477) further in view of Philippin et al. (US Patent No. 8,769,820 B2).
(Claim 9) Simmons does not explicitly disclose a machining device.
Philippin et al. (“Philippin”) discloses a machining device (Fig. 1) for machining a gear. The machining device includes a tool (21); a tool driver (19) that rotates the tool about the tool axis (20); and a gear driver (Col. 3, Lines 43-49) that rotates the gear (2) about a gear axis (3) disposed non-parallel to the tool axis (Fig. 1). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the tool disclosed in Simmons with a machining device as taught by Philippin in order to perform a gear cutting operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the new clause limitations define over the prior art of record. Examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection, the distance is not defined in a manner as suggested in the argument. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The difference in maximum height measured in the radial direction of each tooth is not explicitly claimed. Thus, the prior art reads upon the claims.
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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights