DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) and species (a) (illustrated in Figures 4-8 in the reply filed on January 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 8 and 10-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species,1 there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 “the thread includes: a first region on one side in a spiral direction; and a reference region located on another side in the spiral direction with respect to the first region” in Lines 6-10. It is unclear what one side and another side relate to and how the spiral direction sets these sides. If the thread means to set forth a spiral or helical development of teeth in the thread, it may be clearer to use terminology such as “first tooth” or “roughing tooth” (at one end of the helix) and “final tooth” or “finishing tooth” (at the opposite end of the helix). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “on another side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 14-15. It is unclear whether this direction is opposite the direction recited in Line 13. It is also vague as to what the other side relates to in the claim. The recitation to a region does not lend itself to particular structure of the thread. If Applicant means to set forth a first tooth of the thread, then it would be clearer to set it forth as a tooth as opposed to a region of a thread. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “on one side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 17-18. The recitation of “one side in the tool axial direction” already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. If different, it is unclear how the one side differs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “on another side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 19-20. The recitation of “another side in the tool axial direction” already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. If different, it is unclear how the other side differs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “on another side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 19-20. It is unclear whether this direction is opposite the direction recited in Line 13. It is also vague as to what the other side relates to in the claim. The recitation to a region does not lend itself to particular structure of the thread. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “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” in Lines 23-27. The angle is indefinite because the inner region and an outer region lack clear boundaries. That is, the regions appear to be arbitrary. It is unclear what is considered a tool axis side. Likewise, it is unclear what is considered “in a direction farther from the tool axis than the inner region and an outer surface of the tool body.” Specifically, it is unclear how a direction is considered farther from the tool axis and an outer surface of the tool body. Moreover, antecedent basis for “an outer surface” has already been set forth. As such, it is unclear whether the recitation in Line 26 is the same as, or different than, the previous recitation to “an outer surface.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the other-side” in Line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the another-side” in Line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “on one side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 5-6. The recitation of “one side in the tool axial direction” already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. If different, it is unclear how the one side differs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “on another side in the tool axial direction” in Lines 7-8. The recitation of “another side in the tool axial direction” already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. If different, it is unclear how the other side differs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “in a case where . . . .” The wording creates a lack of clarity as to whether claim 3 even needs to be met if it is not a case where the claimed condition exists. 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 “a tooth profile of the reference region” in Lines 2-3. Yet, claim 1 already sets forth antecedent basis for this limitation. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “on another side” in Line 5. The recitation of “another side” already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. If different, it is unclear how the other side differs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “an relieved portion on another side” in Lines 4-5 and 8, respectively. It is unclear whether a limitation is missing due to the “an” term before the word “relieved.” In addition, the recitation of “another side” already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. If different, it is unclear how the other side differs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 also recites to differences in shape of tooth profiles in claim 3 as “relieved portion on another side” in Lines 4-5 and 8, respectively. It is unclear how both differences are defined as the same thing. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 further recites “an end on the tool axis side of the relieved portion on the other side in the first region 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 region.” This limitation is vague as to what is required such that one of ordinary skill would not understand the scope of the claim. 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 “a tooth profile of the reference region” in Lines 3-4. Yet, claim 1 already sets forth antecedent basis for this limitation. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “on another side” in Line 5. The recitation of “another side” already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear if the limitation is the same as, or different from, the previous recitation. If different, it is unclear how the other side differs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 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 5 recites “a radially outer end with reference to the tool axis in the tooth profile of the first region 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 reference region.” The limitation is convoluted/vague to the point that one of ordinary skill would not understand the scope. 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 region (Fig. 8 - first roughing tooth) located on one side in a spiral direction; and a reference region (Fig. 12 - finishing tooth) located on another side in the spiral direction with respect to the first region. The first region 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 another-side tooth flank (flank that leader line of detail 13 touches in Fig. 8) that is a surface on another side in the tool axial direction. The reference region includes: a one-side tooth flank (18) that is a surface on one side in the tool axial direction; and another-side tooth flank (19) that is a surface on another side in the tool axial direction. The other-side tooth flank in the first region is recessed more than the another-side tooth flank in the reference region (Figs. 8, 12). 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.
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_image1.png
362
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 2) The thread includes a second region (Fig. 9) located between the first region (Fig. 8) and the reference region (Fig. 12) in the spiral direction (Figs. 6, 7). The second region 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 region is recessed more than the another-side tooth flank in the reference region Fig. 9 vs Fig. 12); and the another-side tooth flank in the first region is recessed more than the another-side tooth flank in the second region (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 region and a tooth profile of the reference region 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 region and the tooth profile of the reference region 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 region 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 region (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 region and a tooth profile of the reference region are overlapped is defined as a relieved portion on another side: an entirety of the relieved portion on the another side of the first region is included in the tooth profile of the reference region when the tooth profile of the first region and the tooth profile of the reference region are overlapped (Fig. 8 vs Fig. 12).
(Claim 5) As best understood, when the tooth profile of the first region 9Fig., 8) and the tooth profile of the reference region (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 region 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 reference region (Figs. 8, 12).
(Claim 6) A shape of the one-side tooth flank in a tooth profile of the first region coincides with a shape of the one-side tooth flank in the tooth profile of the reference region (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.
Conclusion
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
1 Claims 7 and 8 are directed to an unelected species, which has both flanks recessed. The elected embodiment only has recessed flanks on the other/another side.