DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recite “The designing method defined in claims 2,” should read “The designing method defined in claim 2”.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim defines the variables u, u_e, u_f, a_i, q, and d. However, the variable x_n in the first equation is not defined anywhere in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis or definition for x_n in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 4 will be read as if x_n represents the x-component of the line segment, but the claim does not provide this definition, and the specification does not clearly define this variable. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 and 11 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 9-10 are directed to a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-11 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 and 11 recites the abstract idea of designing a gear skiving cutter using mathematical concepts (coordinate transformations, polynomial equations, and geometric calculations) and mental processes (visualizing imaginary constructs, making geometric comparisons, and determining design parameters in the human mind). The limitation of “constructing a cutter manufacturing tool and a base material for the gear skiving cutter, wherein the cutter manufacturing tool includes a plurality of tooth structures, a center of each tooth structure corresponds to a base plane and each tooth structure includes a first side portion and a second side portion opposite to the first side portion, the first side portion forms a first grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane and the second side portion forms a second grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane, wherein the first grinding allowance structure is different from the second grinding allowance structure, so that each tooth structure forms an asymmetrical structure based on the base plane” covers mentally comparing geometric shapes and selecting different parameters based on design requirements. The limitation of “simulating relative movements of the cutter manufacturing tool and the base material based on a relative motion coordinate system, so that the plurality of tooth structures of the cutter manufacturing tool contact the base material to perform a surface processing, so as to form a plurality of cut teeth on the base material, wherein each cut tooth includes an outer contour and a rake plane formed at an end of the outer contour, and each rake plane including a rake angle and a side edge angle” covers mentally performing coordinate transformations and mathematical calculations to model relative motion. Thus, claim 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. This limitation of “simulating relative movements of the cutter manufacturing tool and the base material based on a relative motion coordinate system” and “determining a planned grinding allowance of each tooth section of the gear workpiece; reversing to obtain a cutting edge profile of a rake plane of each cut tooth on the gear skiving cutter by the planned grinding allowance;” merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and does not improve the functioning of any computer, machine, or technology. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the limitation in claim 1 of “constructing a cutter manufacturing tool and a base material for the gear skiving cutter, wherein the cutter manufacturing tool includes a plurality of tooth structures, a center of each tooth structure corresponds to a base plane and each tooth structure includes a first side portion and a second side portion opposite to the first side portion, the first side portion forms a first grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane and the second side portion forms a second grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane, wherein the first grinding allowance structure is different from the second grinding allowance structure, so that each tooth structure forms an asymmetrical structure based on the base plane” covers mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 1 and 11 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation of “simulating relative movements of the cutter manufacturing tool and the base material based on a relative motion coordinate system” and “determining a planned grinding allowance of each tooth section of the gear workpiece; reversing to obtain a cutting edge profile of a rake plane of each cut tooth on the gear skiving cutter by the planned grinding allowance;” merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and does not improve the functioning of any computer, machine, or technology. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the limitation in claim 1 of “constructing a cutter manufacturing tool and a base material for the gear skiving cutter, wherein the cutter manufacturing tool includes a plurality of tooth structures, a center of each tooth structure corresponds to a base plane and each tooth structure includes a first side portion and a second side portion opposite to the first side portion, the first side portion forms a first grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane and the second side portion forms a second grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane, wherein the first grinding allowance structure is different from the second grinding allowance structure, so that each tooth structure forms an asymmetrical structure based on the base plane” covers mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, "[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception."
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining that at least one action surface is a plane or curved surface, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining that at least one action surface curves toward and the second curves away from the base plane, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining first and second line segments obtained by explicit mathematical equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining that a planned grinding allowance is determined in advance and a cutting edge profile is derived in reverse, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining constructing an imaginary helical gear and finding intersecting points to determine coefficients, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining mapping movements using a coordinate transformation matrix, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining that the tool moves linearly along a first axis and the material rotates around a non-parallel second axis, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining that the outer contour is tapered, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts.”
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.
Claim 1-3, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoang et al., “Rack Modification Method for Skiving Cutter Considering Grinding Allowance of Work Gear,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Mechanical Engineering, Automation, and Sustainable Development 2021, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, pp. 105-110 (2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Hoang anticipates the limitation of “a designing method of a gear skiving cutter, the gear skiving cutter is used to perform skiving process on a gear workpiece” Abstract, Therefore, a novel method for generating the conical skiving cutter with a pre-defined grinding allowance by modifying the normal rack is presented. A linear equation is adopted to correct an asymmetric rack profile, which is used to generate the skiving cutter profile. By the established mathematical model of cutting simulation, a tooth profile of an internal/external gear is obtained, and its normal deviation (grinding allowance) can be evaluated. [Pages 105-106]
The limitation of “constructing a cutter manufacturing tool and a base material for the gear skiving cutter, wherein the cutter manufacturing tool includes a plurality of tooth structures” Figure 1 shows the modified transverse rack used to generate the skiving cutter body. The modified rack is used to design the skiving cutter and that the cutter body is generated by positioning the transverse sections obtained from the rack/cutter meshing relationship [Pages 106-107]. Table 1 further identifies a “Teeth number (Z)” of 25 for the skiving tool. [Page 109]
The limitation of “a center of each tooth structure corresponds to a base plane and each tooth structure includes a first side portion and a second side portion opposite to the first side portion” Figure 1 shows the rack profile that corresponds to a base plane and the two opposed rack sides illustrated. The left arrow shows the first side portion, and the right arrow shows the second side portion. The middle arrow shows the base plane. [Pages 105-107]
PNG
media_image2.png
234
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitation of “the first side portion forms a first grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane and the second side portion forms a second grinding allowance structure raised toward the base plane, wherein the first grinding allowance structure is different from the second grinding allowance structure, so that each tooth structure forms an asymmetrical structure based on the base plane” “A linear equation is adopted to correct an asymmetric rack profile, which is used to generate the skiving cutter profile. The effect of polynomial coefficients on two sides of the rack on the gear profile deviation can be analyzed and collected to form sensitivity matrices.” [p. 105, Abstract]. Hoang further states that the required grinding allowance is used to obtain the coefficients “on two sides of the modified rack,” thereby teaching different grinding-allowance modifications on the opposed sides of an asymmetric rack.
The limitation of “simulating relative movements of the cutter manufacturing tool and the base material based on a relative motion coordinate system” Figure 1 has three independent coordinate systems and the base material for the gear skiving cutter based on transverse rack moves based on one of the coordinate systems.
The limitation of “so that the plurality of tooth structures of the cutter manufacturing tool contact the base material to perform a surface processing, so as to form a plurality of cut teeth on the base material, wherein each cut tooth includes an outer contour and a rake plane formed at an end of the outer contour, and each rake plane including a rake angle and a side edge angle.” Figure 2 shows the skiving cutter and the work gear (base material) to simulate and perform surface processing. The skiving cutter body is formed with a plurality of cut teeth [Pages 107-108]. “The cutting edge is determined as the intersecting between the cutter body and the rake plane” [Page 107]. Table 1 shows each rake-plane includes a rake angle and helix angle (side edge) [Page 109].
Regarding Claim 2, Hoang anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “wherein the first grinding allowance structure includes a first action surface and the second grinding allowance structure includes a second action surface, and at least one of the first action surface and the second action surface is a plane or a curved surface” “The segment on the normal rack corresponding with the involute part of the work gear is defined by linear equation based on the grinding allowance.” [p. 106, Section 1]. A rack segment defined by a linear equation provides a planar/straight action profile, while Hoang separately modifies the two rack sides according to the required grinding allowance.
Regarding Claim 3, Hoang anticipates the limitations of claims 1. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “wherein the first action surface is a curved surface that is curved toward a direction approaching the base plane, and the second action surface is a curved surface that is curved toward a direction away from the base plane” Figure 1 shows the transverse rack that demonstrates opposing surfaces on each tooth with different polynomial coefficients on the two sides of the rack, which results in different curvature directions for the opposing action surfaces. [Page 107]
Regarding Claim 5, Hoang anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “wherein a planned grinding allowance for each tooth section of the gear workpiece is determined in advance before constructing the cutter manufacturing tool and the base material for the gear skiving cutter” “Therefore, a novel method for generating the conical skiving cutter with a pre-defined grinding allowance by modifying the normal rack is presented.” [Page 105, Abstract].
The limitation of “thereby a cutting edge profile of the rake plane on each cut tooth can be derived in reverse from the planned grinding allowance and the first grinding allowance structure and the second grinding allowance structure of each tooth structure on the cutter manufacturing tool can be modified by the cutting edge profile” “The effects of coefficients of rack equation on normal errors in the gear tooth profile are calculated to construct sensitivity matrix. This matrix is used along with Levenberg-Marquardt (L-M) algorithm to obtain the modified rack which is used to design the skiving cutter for manufacturing both internal and external gear with required grinding allowance.” [Page 106]. Thus, Hoang uses the required grinding allowance and resulting profile error to solve for modified rack coefficients used to generate the skiving cutter profile.
Regarding Claim 6, Hoang anticipates the limitations of claim 5. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “wherein, by constructing an imaginary helical gear that is conjugated with the gear workpiece, a plurality of first intersecting points between the imaginary helical gear and the cutting edge profile are found, and a plurality of second intersecting points between a normal plane of the imaginary helical gear and a plurality of helix curves passing through the plurality of first intersecting points on the imaginary helical gear are found” Figure 1 shows a transverse rack as an imaginary helical gear that is being conjugated with the work gear, and the intersecting points between the rack-generated cutter body and the rake plane correspond to the first intersecting points. The helix curves and normal plane used to determine the second intersecting points. [Page 107]
The limitation of “and then a grinding allowance corresponding to the second intersecting points can be obtained to determine the variable coefficients a; corresponding to the first line segment and the second line segment for modifying the first grinding allowance structure and the second grinding allowance structure” “Therefore, this section presents a rack modification method to evaluate the polynomial coefficients of rack equations by using the sensitivity matrix, L-M algorithm, and the required grinding allowance. These variables can be solved after several closed-loop iterations.” The sensitivity matrix is constructed from the influence of the rack polynomial coefficients on the normal deviation of the skived gear, and that the variables are solved using the grinding allowance at points of the gear tooth surface. [Page 108]
Regarding Claim 7, Hoang anticipates the limitations of claim. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “wherein the relative motion coordinate system includes a first coordinate system and a second coordinate system” Figures 1 and 2 shows several coordinate systems for the transverse rack, skiving cutter, and work gear. [Pages 107-108]
The limitation of “the cutter manufacturing tool moves in the first coordinate system and the base material of the gear skiving cutter moves in the second coordinate system, and movements of the cutter manufacturing tool is mapped to movements of the base material by using coordinate transformation matrices” “Using the motional relationships between the rack and the cutter profile, the locus equations r(i)c and the unit normal vectors n(i)c for each section of skiving body can be determined in the coordinate system Ss, as follows:” [Page 106]. Equations (4)-(5) use transformation matrices to transform the rack position and normal vectors into the cutter coordinate system, thereby teaching the claimed mapping of motion between coordinate systems. [Page 106]
The limitation of “thereby motion trajectories and meshing states of the cutter manufacturing tool relative to the base material can be simulated to obtain the outer contour of the plurality of cut teeth” “The meshing angle ϕ can be obtained by solving the Eq. (6) after substituting the parameter of normal rack u and the position of transverse section of cutter profile li. The section profile of cutter is defined by substituting the set of parameters (u, ϕ, li) into Eq. (4). Subsequently, the cutter body of skiving are generated by positioning the transverse section as follows:” [Page 107]
Regarding Claim 8, Hoang anticipates the limitation of claim 6. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “wherein the cutter manufacturing tool is moving linearly along a first axis in the first coordinate system and the base material of the gear skiving cutter is rotating around a second axis in the second coordinate system, and the first axis is not parallel to the second axis” Figure 2 illustrates the general coordinate system for gear skiving, including coordinate system for the skiving cutter (cutter manufacturing tool) and for the work gear (base material). These coordinate systems involve the relative motion between cutter and the work gear where the cutter moves linearly, and the work gear rotates about its axis. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows the cross-axis angle between cutter axis and the work gear axis which shows that the axes are not parallel. [Page 108]
Regarding Claim 9, Hoang anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “A gear skiving cutter made by the designing method defined in claim 1, the gear skiving cutter corresponding to a center axis and comprising: a first side; a second side arranged correspondingly to the first side;” “A linear equation is adopted to correct an asymmetric rack profile, which is used to generate the skiving cutter profile.” [Page 105, Abstract].
The limitation of “a plurality of cut teeth, each cut tooth including a rake plane near the first side and an outer contour arranged between the first side and the second side; wherein the center axis is not perpendicular to the rake plane, so that the rake plane forms a rake angle and a side edge angle with respect to a cross-section plane perpendicular to the center axis, and the outer contour is not parallel to the center axis, so that the outer contour forms a relief angle and a side clearance angle with respect to the center axis.” “The cutting edge is determined as the intersection between the cutter body and the rake plane.” [Page 107]. Table 1 identifies a 25-tooth skiving tool and lists a rake angle of 5 degrees, a relief angle of 6 degrees, and a helix angle of 15 degrees for the skiving tool [Page 109].
Regarding Claim 10, Hoang anticipates the limitations of claim 9. Hoang also anticipates the limitation of “wherein the outer contour of each cut tooth is tapered as it extends away from the rake plane” “Therefore, a novel method for generating the conical skiving cutter with a pre-defined grinding allowance by modifying the normal rack is presented.” [Page 105, Abstract]. A conical skiving cutter having a nonzero relief angle, which has a tapered outer contour that narrows as it extends away from the rake plane.
Regarding Claim 11, Hoang anticipates the limitation of “A designing method of a gear skiving cutter, the gear skiving cutter is used to perform skiving process on a gear workpiece, the designing method comprising: determining a planned grinding allowance of each tooth section of the gear workpiece;” “Therefore, a novel method for generating the conical skiving cutter with a pre-defined grinding allowance by modifying the normal rack is presented.” [Page 105, Abstract].
The limitation of “reversing to obtain a cutting edge profile of a rake plane of each cut tooth on the gear skiving cutter by the planned grinding allowance;” “The effects of coefficients of rack equation on normal errors in the gear tooth profile are calculated to construct sensitivity matrix. This matrix is used along with Levenberg-Marquardt (L-M) algorithm to obtain the modified rack which is used to design the skiving cutter for manufacturing both internal and external gear with required grinding allowance.” [Page 106].
The limitation of “modifying a first grinding allowance structure and a second grinding allowance structure of each tooth structure of a cutter manufacturing tool based on the cutting edge profile; wherein the first grinding allowance structure is different from the second grinding allowance structure, so that each tooth structure forms an asymmetrical structure based on a base plane;” “A linear equation is adopted to correct an asymmetric rack profile, which is used to generate the skiving cutter profile. The effect of polynomial coefficients on two sides of the rack on the gear profile deviation can be analyzed and collected to form sensitivity matrices.” [Page 105, Abstract].
The limitation of “simulating relative movements between the cutter manufacturing tool and a base material of the gear skiving cutter based on a relative motion coordinate system, so that the plurality of tooth structures of the cutter manufacturing tool contact the base material to perform a surface process, so as to form a plurality of cut teeth on the base material;” “In this study, a general coordinate system for gear skiving was established to design and simulate the skiving process of a helical gear with a conical skiving cutter considering grinding allowance.” [Page 110, Conclusion]. Figure 2 shows the skiving cutter and the work gear (base material) to simulate and perform surface processing. The skiving cutter body is formed with a plurality of cut teeth [Pages 107-108].
The limitation of “wherein each cut tooth includes an outer contour and a rake plane arranged at an end of the outer contour, each rake plane including a rake angle and a side edge angle and the outer contour including a relief angle.” “The cutting edge is determined as the intersecting between the cutter body and the rake plane” [Page 107]. Table 1 shows each rake-plane includes a rake angle, helix angle (side edge), and a relief angle [Page 109].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 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:
Claim 4 would be allowable for disclosing a cross-section plane perpendicular to the base plane of each tooth structure forming a first line segment with the first action surface and a second line segment with the second action surface, wherein the first and second line segments are obtained by the equations:
PNG
media_image3.png
147
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hoang discloses a rack modification method for generating a conical skiving cutter, where the normal rack segments of the work gear are described by a linear equation (Page 106). Hoang also discloses that the polynomial coefficients on the two sides of the rack are modified based on a required grinding allowance (Page 106, Section 1). However, Hoang does not disclose the specific mathematical formulation of the claimed equations. Hoang’s disclosure is limited to a linear equation for the rack segments and does not teach the generalized polynomial equation with the specific variables and constraints recited in Claim 4.
While Hoang discloses modifying the rack profile using polynomial coefficients, the claimed equation with its specific structure, variable definitions, and parameter ranges is not taught by Hoang. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to adopt the specific mathematical formulation of Claim 4 from Hoang’s disclosure.
However, Claim 4 is currently indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the variable Xn is not defined in the claim or the specification. Additionally, Claim 4 is currently ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a mathematical concept without significantly more. Therefore, Claim 4 would be allowable if it were to overcome the § 112(b) and §101 rejections and be rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mathematical modelling of power skiving for general profile based on numerical enveloping (June 2021)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANNING TU whose telephone number is (571)270-7622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/Channing Tu/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights