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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 22 May 2023. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-15 are currently presented in the instant application. In light of a preliminary amendment, claims 1-15 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/31/2024, 6/18/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4 only shows two empty boxes with minimal description of what these flow charts are meant to represent. There is not enough information contained to entail one to recognize what step (i) and (ii) are, and at a very least a brief description of the steps are required. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pomernacki (Publication No.: GB 822636 A, herein known as D1, cited in and supplied with the IDS submitted on 1/31/2024; as the document is in English and submitted into the case file already, a copy will not be furnished with this Office Action).
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses a roll testing machine for roll testing toothings, the roll testing machine comprising:
a first spindle (spindle 28; Figs. 1 and 3);
a second spindle (mandrel 24; Fig. 1);
a first master wheel, which is arranged on the first spindle (master gear wheel 10; Figs. 1 and 3; all citations above are additionally disclosed on Page 1 lines 76-88),
D1 does not explicitly disclose or show a roll testing machine wherein a second master wheel is provided, which is arranged on the first spindle (all of the wheel testing elements are arranged on the first master wheel as seen in Fig. 3).
However, D1 further teaches that while each individual section of the gear wheel is shown and disclosed on a single master gear wheel, “these sections may be made separately form each other. In this event, the separate sections of the master gear wheel may be mounted one at a time on the gear wheel clicking apparatus or they may be mounted one a single spindle and positioned on the checking apparatus as a unit.” (Examiner’s emphasis, Page 2 lines 104-112).
It has been held that making integral and separable is an obvious variant over the prior art of record. In combination with the explicit teachings D1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the sections 34, 36, and 38 of the master wheel into individual and separate units that can be stacked and uniquely arranged on the spindle rather than requiring multiple integrated wheels to have those variations.
With respect to claim 2, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine wherein the first spindle has a first shaft, wherein the first master wheel and the second master wheel are arranged on the first shaft and are clamped (with the modification above the first and second master wheel are arranged on the first spindle, which is a shaft, which is shown in best in Figs. 1 and 3; there is a slide 26 which biases and holds the master wheel in place as described on page 1 line 86 – page 2 line 2, which can be considered a clamping effect).
With respect to claim 3, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine wherein the first shaft has a freely protruding end section, wherein the first master wheel and the second master wheel are arranged in the area of the freely protruding end section of the first shaft (Fig. 3, part of the shaft of the spindle is exposed above the integrated master wheel).
With respect to claim 4, D1 does not explicitly disclose a roll testing machine wherein a freely protruding length of the freely protruding end section is 20 cm or less, in particular is 10 cm or less (no size is described, but in the figure shows the freely protruding length of the end section to be small in Fig. 3).
However, it has been held that changes in shape and size is an obvious variant over the prior art of record. Miniaturization is a well-known reason to make an instrument smaller, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lot of free exposed length would cost more, and alternatively, making the entire machine of D1 smaller by having a smaller spindle and master wheels for smaller gear projects would have been obvious in order to be able to test gears of smaller sizes for smaller applications/workpieces.
With respect to claim 5, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine wherein the first spindle is associated with a first drive for rotationally driving the first spindle and/or the second spindle is associated with a second drive for rotationally driving the second spindle (the master gear 10 is adapted to be rolled with the workpiece gear wheel; page 2 lines 20-29, for a non-limiting example).
With respect to claim 6, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine wherein the roll testing machine has two or more controlled axes, wherein the controlled axes are configured in a first machine setting, to engage the first master wheel with a first gearwheel to be tested and in a second machine setting, to engage the second master wheel with a second gearwheel to be tested (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8, and page 2 lines 3-11; the gearwheels are adjusted in height to interact with each section of the master wheels for testing).
With respect to claim 7, D1 does not disclose a roll testing machine wherein the second spindle has a second shaft for accommodating two gearwheels to be tested (only a single shaft is shown).
However, it has been held that a duplication of parts, and like above, making integral and separable, is an obvious variant of the prior art of record. Similarly to the above, having multiple shafts/mandrels for multiple workpieces would allow for multiple testing points and workpiece testing simultaneously, especially when the master wheel is broken into individual sections as in the initial modification.
With respect to claim 8, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine wherein the first gearwheel to be tested and the second gearwheel to be tested are arranged on the second shaft and are clamped (see the modifications above, the shafts are clamped as seen in Fig. 1 by the pedestal 16 and adjustable head-stock 18).
With respect to claim 9, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine wherein the roll testing machine is configured to carry out a single-flank roll test and/or a double-flank roll test (roll test, page 2 lines 3-29).
With respect to claim 10, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine configured to carry out a method the method including the following steps:
roll testing a first gearwheel to be tested by rolling with a first master wheel using a roll testing machine;
roll testing a second gearwheel to be tested by rolling with a second master wheel using the roll testing machine;
wherein the first master wheel and the second master wheel are arranged on a first spindle of the roll testing machine and the first gearwheel to be tested and the second gearwheel to be tested are arranged on a second spindle of the roll testing machine (see the combination of claim 1, which claims the first and second master wheels and first and second spindles, and claim 6 for the two gearwheels to be tested).
With respect to claim 11, D1 further discloses a roll testing machine wherein the roll testing machine has two or more controlled axes; wherein the controlled axes are configured; in a first machine setting, to engage the first master wheel with a first gearwheel to be tested; and in a second machine setting, to engage the second master wheel with a second gearwheel to be tested; and the roll testing of the first gearwheel to be tested is carried out by using the first machine setting; and the roll testing of the second gearwheel to be tested is carried out using the second machine setting (see rejection of claim 6 above).
With respect to claim 12, D1 further discloses a master gearwheel arrangement having a first master wheel, having a second master wheel arranged adjacent to the first master wheel, wherein the first master wheel and the second master wheel are arranged on a first shaft (see rejection of claim 1 above which explains how D1 is modified to have two adjacent master gearwheels).
With respect to claim 13, D1 does not explicitly disclose a master gearwheel arrangement wherein the two master wheels are each helical toothings, and one of the two master wheels is left-handed, and one of the two master wheels is right-handed (the master gearwheels are helical as seen in the figures and described in page 2 lines 12-16, there is no information if the teeth are left or right-handed).
However, these are known gear types to be tested, and given the modularity of D1 as described and modified in D1 above, it would have been obvious, or alternatively obvious to try, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the means to test both left-handed and right-handed helical workpieces to be able to test a wider variety of workpieces.
With respect to claim 14, D1 discloses the method described (see rejection of claim 1 above which has the two master wheels, two spindles, and testing a workpiece on them).
With respect to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 6 above which claims the controlled axes for testing each gearwheel.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Landvogt (Publication No.: US 2020/0225027 A1)
Fischer (Publication No.: US 2013/0019674 A1)
Mullet (Patent No.: US 2,602,236 A)
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
12/13/2025
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852