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 Objections
Claims 9-10 are no longer objected to.
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 9-12 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stadtfeld (US20230278121A1).
Claim 9
Stadtfeld teaches a method for producing a gearwheel (¶0018 teaches the invention relates to production of tooth flank surfaces on a gear.), the method including the following steps: specifying a setpoint geometry of the gearwheel (Figure 2 shows the original (setpoint) tooth shape that is modified. ¶0042 teaches that modification amounts for each tooth are calculated, which means that there is a baseline shape that is modified using the method.), specifying a modification superimposed on the setpoint geometry the modification being a pitch and/or topography changing from tooth to tooth (Figure 5 and ¶0042 teach that the modifications vary from tooth to tooth. The modifications shown in Figure 5 include the pitch of the teeth. ¶0032-0033 teach that the modifications are specific to individual teeth.), and producing the gearwheel by means of a gear cutting machine (Figure 1 and ¶0034 teach a free-form bevel gear cutting machine that is used to perform the modifications.), wherein a variation of the pitch and/or topography specified by the modification, observed over a total number of teeth of the gearwheel, corresponds to a superposition of at least two harmonic functions which differ from one another in one parameter (Figure 3 shows multiple harmonic functions (First, Sine, 3rd) that are superimposed on one another and differ in at least one parameter (A). ¶0041 teaches this graph indicate the modified material removal of the tooth/teeth. This is a modification of the topography of the tooth/teeth.) or in multiple parameters, wherein the parameters are amplitude, frequency, or phase shift. (This part of the alternative presented in the claim is not selected for the rejection.)
Claim 10
This claim is interpreted as presented three alternatives. The chosen alternative is indicated by an underline in the reproduction of the claim below.
Stadtfeld teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the manufacturing of each gap of the gearwheel is carried out using gap-specific machine settings, in order to manufacture the setpoint geometry having the modification wherein the gearwheel is in particular a bevel gear that is produced in a single indexing method; or the gearwheel is a bevel gear that is produced in the single indexing method, wherein a design parameter of a virtual gear cutting machine, which are converted into manufacturing parameters of the gear cutting machine, is varied specifically by gap in order to manufacture the setpoint geometry having the modification; or a manufacturing parameter of the gear cutting machine, is varied specifically by gap in order to manufacture the setpoint geometry having the modification. (Figure 5 and ¶0042 teach that the modifications vary from tooth to tooth. Since the modifications are done using a machine (¶0034) by modifying the machine axis parameters (¶0037-0039), each tooth (and therefore tooth gap) has machine specific settings.).
Claim 12
Stadtfeld teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the variation of the pitch and/or topography specified by the modification, observed over the total number of teeth of the gearwheel, corresponds to a superposition of precisely three sine functions. (Figure 5 shows multiple sine functions used to determine the modifications of the gear teeth. There are three functions shown: First Order, Sine Function, and 3rd Order. ¶0032 teaches the first order modification can be a sine function. ¶0033 or ¶0096 teaches the second level function can be a sinusoidal function. Figure 3 shows the 3rd order function as a sine function.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: Stadtfeld’s Figure 3 functions are not superimposed on one another. Instead, the three functions are alternative options for Stadtfeld’s “second level” within-tooth modification.
It is respectfully asserted that ¶0041 describes Figure 3 as depicting a first order change. The paragraph further states that “In addition to…first order changes, one or more other more complex functions can be realized. For example, third order functions as well as sinusoidal functions may be applied….”. Figure 3 shows the first order change superimposed alongside the sinusoidal and third order functions that are described in ¶0041 as being used “in addition to”. Based on this interpretation of ¶0041 and Figure 3, it is asserted that Stadtfeld does teach the functions used in addition to one another, instead of being only alternative options.
Applicant argues that: there is no teaching or suggestion anywhere in Stadtfeld of adding these three functions together to define a tooth-to-tooth variation pattern across all teeth
It is respectfully asserted that ¶0041 describes Figure 3 as depicting a first order change. The paragraph further states that “In addition to…first order changes, one or more other more complex functions can be realized. For example, third order functions as well as sinusoidal functions may be applied….”. The three functions are shown together in Figure 3. Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite the term “addition” or “adding”. The term superposition is defined as overlapping of waves. Figure 3 shows the wave lines representing the added first order, third order, and sinusoidal changes are overlapped.
Applicant argues that: independent claim 9 requires the superposition to describe the variation “observed over a total number of teeth of the gearwheel”
It is respectfully asserted that the claim recites: “…a variation of the pitch and/or topography specified by the modification, observed over a total number of teeth of the gearwheel…”. Therefore, the claim requires that the variation (which is the tooth flank changes in Stadtfeld) be observed over the teeth of the gear wheel. Figure 5 shows the flank modifications across the teeth of the gearwheel as observed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the most relevant prior art found during the search and examination period for the application does not teach or obviate the limitations of Claim 11.
Claim 11 requires all of the limitations of Claim 9, as well as a specific formula/rule not found in the prior art. The most relevant prior art includes:
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20040088861A1
2003-04-22
Vinayak teaches a method of determining and carrying out Gear Tooth Topological (GTT) modifications (¶0041) and performing isotropic processing of the gear teeth (¶0041) in order to reduce noise and transmission error (¶0002).
Vinayak does not disclose at least two harmonic functions.
US20180314226A1
2016-11-03
Kienzle teaches a method for machining toothings on workpieces in rolling machining engagement (See Abs). The method includes modifying the setpoints (¶0004) periodically (¶0006). The setpoint modification can be designed harmonically (¶0007) based on a harmonic function (¶0008 or ¶0026). ¶0032 teaches the harmonic correction function is adapted by modifying the amplitude. ¶0018 teaches the instructions are executed on a toothing machine.
US20230278121A1
2021-08-31
Stadtfeld teaches a method of producing a tooth flank surface on a gear wheel (¶0018) in a bevel gearset (¶0031). The method includes a modification of a theoretical surface by introducing modifications (¶0010). The modification is dictated by a first order function (¶0032); a second/sine function (¶0033); and a third order function (Figure 3). The forming is performed on a bevel gear cutting or grinding machine (¶0034). Figure 3 teaches three functions (first order, sine, and third order function) used in the modification method. ¶0036-0039 teach that movement of the workpiece axis (A) is performed during the method.
US20050266774A1
2005-05-06
Baldeck teaches a machine for grinding helical gears (Figure 1 and ¶0018). The parameters of the machining are varied along the stroke length for each tooth (¶0024) based on a sinusoidal function (See Figures 2 and 5) in order to produce a surface modification of the tooth. ¶0026 teaches the sine waves (and therefore the functions) have different amplitudes in each segment (on each tooth). Figure 8 shows multiple different functions can be used for each section of tooth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights