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.
Claim 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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). The workpiece toothing is produced on the workpiece by skiving by means of the skiving tool and production of the tooth flank modifications takes place at least substantially during the production of the workpiece toothing (Paragraphs [0005-0008, 0016-0017, 0051-0052 & 0074-0075]).
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, 6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopenhaus et al. (US 20220274194).
Regarding claims 5 and 11-13, 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, 5mm and/or 6mm 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 claims 6 and 14, 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.
Claims 8 and 17 are 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 claims 8 and 17, 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, specifically case-hardened steel (Fig. 4 & Paragraphs [0009 & 0054]).
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, specifically case-hardened 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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopenhaus et al. (US 20220274194) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Schieke et al. (US 20210187642, hereinafter ‘Schieke’).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Lopenhaus does not explicitly disclose the ratio of tooth width of the tool teeth to the tooth width of the workpiece teeth.
Schieke discloses a similar manufacturing method, wherein the ratio of tooth width of the tool teeth to the tooth width of the workpiece teeth of the workpiece toothing is a range of 0.05 or greater (Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify ratio of tooth width of the tool teeth to the tooth width of the workpiece teeth to be at most 0.1, as taught by Schieke, in order to have the tool be able to bear the loads imposed on it during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Lopenhaus does not disclose the workpiece toothing being produced by skiving by means of the skiving tool or the tooth flank modifications taking place during production of the workpiece toothing. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
As cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 01/20/2026 and again above, Lopenhaus explicitly discloses that workpiece toothing can be produced on the workpiece in the invention of Lopenhaus by skiving (Paragraphs [0051-0052]). Additionally, the limitation ‘in which the production of the tooth flank modifications takes place at least substantially during the production of the workpiece toothing’ is so broad, that ‘production of the workpiece toothing’ could encompass any point between loading the blank workpiece into the machine and removing the finished workpiece at the end of all operations. Additionally, ‘workpiece toothing is produced on the workpiece by skiving’ is also broad enough to encompass the claimed tooth flank modifications, as these modifications are part of producing the workpiece toothing.
Accordingly, the rejection(s) are maintained, and the new rejections of claims 11-17 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights