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 1-10 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.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-9, the phrases "in particular" and “preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 5 and 6 recite the broad recitations “at most 30 mm” and “at most 1.5” respectively, and the claims also recite “preferably at most 20 mm, in particular at most 15 mm, particularly preferably at most 10 mm, and/or at least 3 mm, preferably at least 5 mm, in particular at least 6 mm” and “preferably at most 1, in particular at most 0.5, particularly preferably at most 0.1” respectively which are the narrower statements of the ranges/limitations. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopenhaus et al. (US 20220274194, hereinafter ‘Lopenhaus’).
Regarding claim 1, in Fig. 6, Lopenhaus discloses a method for producing tooth flank modifications of at least one workpiece toothing of at least one workpiece 9 by means of a skiving tool 15. The workpiece is driven in a rotating manner n2 about a workpiece rotation axis 12 and the skiving tool is driven in a rotating manner n0 about a tool rotation axis 13 arranged at an axis cross angle Σ obliquely to the workpiece rotation axis. The skiving tool is brought into chipping engagement with the workpiece and is moved relative to the workpiece at least partially along a longitudinal axis at least substantially parallel to the workpiece or tool rotation axis (direction fa) and in order to produce the tooth flank modifications, the skiving tool is moved relative to the workpiece at least partially along at least one transverse axis at least substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (direction ae).
Regarding claim 2, Lopenhaus discloses the axis cross angle being maintained at least substantially unchanged during the production of the tooth flank modifications and the tooth flank modifications are produced at least substantially exclusively by the movement of the skiving tool relative to the workpiece along the longitudinal axis and transverse axis fa/ae (Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Lopenhaus discloses the transverse axis (ae as illustrated in Fig. 6) being arranged at least substantially parallel to a straight line running tangentially to the tool rotation axis 13 through a point of contact between the skiving tool 15 and the workpiece 9 at some point during the mutual rotations of the tool and workpiece.
Regarding claim 4, Lopenhaus discloses the skiving tool has tool teeth coming into chipping engagement with the workpiece, the tool teeth being external toothing (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Lopenhaus disclose the skiving tool being designed at least substantially disk-shaped or annular (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Lopenhaus discloses the workpiece toothing being produced by skiving by means of the skiving tool, and the production of the tooth flank modifications takes place at least partially during the production of the workpiece toothing (Fig. 4 discloses the gear toothing being produced by skiving and Fig. 6 discloses the modifications being produced by the same skiving).
Regarding claim 10, Lopenhaus inherently discloses the tooth flank modifications being produced successively on at least two workpieces with the skiving tool (e.g. the title of the invention referring to workpieces plural).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopenhaus et al. (US 20220274194).
Regarding claim 5, Lopenhaus does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the tool teeth, however, modifying the tooth width of the tool teeth to be at least 3mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing depending on the desired dimensions of the tool/workpiece toothing produced by the tool and to have a desired tooth strength by having sufficient material so that the tooth doesn’t break during manufacturing. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Regarding claim 6, Lopenhaus appears to disclose a tool which has a tooth width the same as that of the workpiece toothing in Fig. 6. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to produce the tool with the same with as the workpiece to ensure complete tooth flank machining during the mutual rotation of the tool and workpiece, such that a ratio of tooth width of the tool teeth to the tooth width of the workpiece teeth is at most 1.5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopenhaus et al. (US 20220274194) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stadtfeld et al. (US 20190201992, hereinafter ‘Stadtfeld’).
Regarding claim 8, Lopenhaus is silent as to the material(s) of the workpiece and/or tool.
Stadtfeld discloses that it is known to produce skiving tools from high speed steel (Fig. 4 & Paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to produce the skiving tool of Lopenhaus from high speed steel, as taught by Stadtfeld, in order to produce a tool using a known material in order that the tool might machine metal/hard workpieces and not be destroyed in the process. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722