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 2-9 and 11-16 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.
Claim 2 recites “each skiving tooth defines at least one outlet” in Lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the at least one outlet recited in claim 2 is the same outlet recited in claim 1 or a different, additional outlet. In addition, the scope of each tooth defining at least one outlet is vague. In particular, it is unclear how each tooth defines the at least one outlet. The “defines” term is used throughout the claims. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “a skiving tool” in Line 8. Yet, claim 1 sets forth antecedent basis for a skiving tool limitation. As such, it is unclear whether the skiving tool recited in claim 4 is the same as or different from the previously recited skiving tool. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 5 and 13 each recite “each of the capillary outlets is open through a corresponding skiving tooth.” This recitation appears to conflict with the previous recitations in claims 1 and 4, respectively, that each capillary outlet is open adjacent to the skiving teeth. That is, it is unclear how each outlet is considered adjacent the teeth, but also being open through a respective tooth. Moreover, the scope of the outlets being open through a tooth is unclear. The outlet itself is open so being open through a tooth must mean something more but it is unclear what is required. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites “the outer sleeve defines an outer sleeve aperture that sequentially comes into and then out of fluid communication with each of the channels as the tool holder rotates relative to the outer sleeve.” It is unclear how the outer sleeve aperture sequentially comes into communication with each channel. In particular, it is unclear how the sequence with each channel occurs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of the capillary outlets” in Line 2. Again, it is unclear whether the plurality recited here includes the previously recited capillary outlet or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 11 recites “the sleeve . . . defines an aperture through the sleeve that sequentially comes into and then out of fluid communication with each channel as the tool holder is rotated relative to the sleeve.” It is unclear how the outer sleeve aperture sequentially comes into communication with each channel. In particular, it is unclear how the sequence with each channel occurs. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 11 recites “a skiving tool” in Line 6. Yet, claim 10 sets forth antecedent basis for a skiving tool limitation. As such, it is unclear whether the skiving tool recited in claim 11 is the same as or different from the previously recited skiving tool. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweiker et al. (US Patent No. 9,415,454 B2) in view of Birenbaum et al. (DE 102016218103 B3) or Ball et al. (US Patent No. 5,290,135).
(Claim 1) Schweiker et al. (“Schweiker”) discloses a method of forming a gear (2) from a workpiece using a gear forming tool (0) that comprises skiving teeth disposed about a rotational axis of the gear forming tool (Fig. 1). The method includes moving the gear forming tool, relative to the workpiece, in an axial direction of the rotational axis while rotating the skiving teeth, relative to the workpiece, in a first rotational direction about the rotational axis (Col. 4, Lines 51-65) and while rotating the workpiece about an axis of the workpiece in a second rotational direction that is opposite the first rotational direction, so that subsets of the skiving teeth sequentially come into and then out of contact with the workpiece and skive material from the workpiece (Fig. 1 showing opposite hands of rotation during the cutting operation). The Schweiker method does not explicitly disclose fluid delivery during the method.
Birenbaum et al. (“Birenbaum”) discloses flowing a fluid through interior pathways of the gear forming tool so that the fluid flows out of the gear forming tool and onto the skiving teeth that are in contact with the workpiece, but not onto the skiving teeth that are on a diametrically opposite side of the gear forming tool (Figs. 1a-4 showing feed the intersects only a subset of inlets; Translation ¶¶ 0033, 0040 disclosing that feed is limited to coolant channels/outlets at teeth engaged with the workpiece). The gear forming tool includes a skiving tool1 rotatable about the rotational axis and defining the skiving teeth; the skiving tool defines a plurality of capillaries, each capillary having a capillary inlet and a capillary outlet located radially outward relative to the capillary inlet, each capillary outlet being open to an exterior of the skiving tool adjacent the skiving teeth (Fig. 4). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to provide the method disclosed in Schweiker with the fluid delivery taught by Birenbaum in order to introduce coolant and “reduce temperatures in the area of the tool cutting edges” and control the amount of coolant delivered (Translation ¶¶ 0002, 0039).
Ball et al. (“Ball”) discloses flowing a fluid through interior pathways of the gear forming tool so that the fluid flows out of the gear forming tool and onto the skiving teeth that are in contact with the workpiece, but not onto the skiving teeth that are on a diametrically opposite side of the gear forming tool (Fig. 6 showing delivery to only a portion of the tool inlets; Col. 6, Lines 51-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-17). The gear forming tool includes a skiving tool rotatable about the rotational axis and defining the skiving teeth, which skiving tool defines a plurality of capillaries with each having an inlet and an outlet. Each capillary outlet being open to an exterior of the skiving tool adjacent the skiving teeth. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to provide the method disclosed in Schweiker with the fluid delivery taught by Ball in order to introduce coolant to “the contact area between the tool and workpiece” and “assist in the removal of metal chips” (Col. 7, Lines 10-16). However, each capillary does not explicitly include a capillary outlet located radially outward relative to the capillary inlet. It is worth noting that the cutting teeth in the Ball reference are not on the periphery as the teeth disclosed in Schweiker. It would seem implausible for one of ordinary skill to orient the capillary to run radially inwards from inlet-to-outlet instead of the reverse. Thus, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cutting tool disclosed in the method of Schweiker with the capillary running radially outwards from inlet-to-outlet as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions (inward, outward, neutral) - leading to the predictable result of feeding coolant to the peripherally located cutting edges.2 See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claims 2 and 3) The Schweiker reference does not explicitly disclose each skiving tooth defining at least one outlet in fluid communication with the interior pathways open in a direction that faces axially away from the skiving tool.
Ball discloses each skiving tooth defining at least one outlet (54, 59) in fluid communication with the interior pathways open in a direction that faces axially away from the skiving tool (Figs. 3-7). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to provide the method disclosed in Schweiker with the fluid delivery taught by Ball in order to introduce coolant to “the contact area between the tool and workpiece” and “assist in the removal of metal chips” (Col. 7, Lines 10-16).
(Claim 4) The Schweiker reference does not explicitly disclose the tool holder, but the modified tool includes capillaries leading to the outlets.
Ball discloses a gear forming tool that includes a tool holder (2) that defines a plurality of channels (65) spaced apart from one another in a circumferential direction about the rotational axis (Fig. 6), each channel of the plurality of channels having a channel inlet open to an exterior of the tool holder and a channel outlet open to the exterior of the tool holder (Figs 6, 7), each channel extending from its channel inlet to its channel outlet independently of each other channel (Figs. 6, 7); and a skiving tool (34) that is coupled to the tool holder for common rotation about the rotational axis and defines the skiving teeth (Fig. 7), wherein the skiving tool defines a plurality of capillaries (68), each capillary having a capillary inlet and a capillary outlet, each capillary outlet being open to an exterior of the skiving tool proximate the skiving teeth (Fig. 7), wherein each channel is in fluid communication with one or more of the capillary inlets (Fig. 7). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to provide the method disclosed in Schweiker with the fluid delivery taught by Ball in order to introduce coolant to “the contact area between the tool and workpiece” and “assist in the removal of metal chips” (Col. 7, Lines 10-16).
(Claim 5) Each of the capillary outlets is open through a corresponding skiving tooth (Ball Fig. 7).
(Claim 6) As best understood, the modified method of Schweiker includes each channel outlet being coupled to a plurality of the capillary inlets such that the flowing the fluid through the interior pathways includes sequentially providing and then inhibiting fluid flow through the interior pathways so that fluid is permitted to flow through the interior pathways that are in fluid communication with the capillary outlets of the skiving teeth in contact with the workpiece and is inhibited from flowing through the interior pathways that are in fluid communication with the capillary outlets of the skiving teeth out of contact with the workpiece (Birenbaum Figs. 1a-4; Ball Fig. 6).
(Claim 7) The gear forming tool includes an outer sleeve (Ball 60) disposed about the tool holder such that the tool holder rotates relative to the outer sleeve (Ball Fig. 6); the outer sleeve defines an outer sleeve aperture that sequentially comes into and then out of fluid communication with each of the channels as the tool holder rotates relative to the outer sleeve (Ball Fig. 6 showing delivery to only a portion of the tool inlets; Col. 6, Lines 51-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-17).
(Claim 9) Each skiving tooth defines a plurality of the capillary outlets (Ball Figs. 4, 7-9).
(Claim 10) Schweiker discloses a method of forming a gear from a workpiece (2) using a gear forming tool (0) that includes skiving teeth disposed about a rotational axis of the gear forming tool (Fig. 1). The method includes skiving, with the skiving teeth, material from the workpiece by simultaneously moving the gear forming tool, relative to the workpiece, in an axial direction of the rotational axis (Col. 4, Lines 51-65), and rotating the skiving teeth, relative to the workpiece, in a first rotational direction about the rotational axis; and rotating the workpiece about an axis of the workpiece in a second rotational direction that is opposite the first rotational direction (Fig. 1 showing opposite hands of rotation during the cutting operation). The Schweiker method does not explicitly disclose fluid delivery during the method.
Birenbaum discloses flowing a fluid through interior pathways of the gear forming tool so that the fluid flows out of the gear forming tool and onto the skiving teeth that are in contact with the workpiece, but not onto the skiving teeth that are on a diametrically opposite side of the gear forming tool (Figs. 1a-4 showing feed the intersects only a subset of inlets; Translation ¶¶ 0033, 0040 disclosing that feed is limited to coolant channels/outlets at teeth engaged with the workpiece). The gear forming tool includes a skiving tool3 rotatable about the rotational axis and defining the skiving teeth; the skiving tool defines a plurality of capillaries, each capillary having a capillary inlet and a capillary outlet located radially outward relative to the capillary inlet, each capillary outlet being open to an exterior of the skiving tool adjacent the skiving teeth (Fig. 4). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to provide the method disclosed in Schweiker with the fluid delivery taught by Birenbaum in order to introduce coolant and “reduce temperatures in the area of the tool cutting edges” and control the amount of coolant delivered (Translation ¶¶ 0002, 0039).
Ball discloses flowing a fluid through interior pathways of the gear forming tool so that the fluid flows out of the gear forming tool and onto the skiving teeth that are in contact with the workpiece, but not onto the skiving teeth that are on a diametrically opposite side of the gear forming tool (Fig. 6 showing delivery to only a portion of the tool inlets; Col. 6, Lines 51-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-17). The gear forming tool includes a skiving tool rotatable about the rotational axis and defining the skiving teeth, which skiving tool defines a plurality of capillaries with each having an inlet and an outlet. Each capillary outlet being open to an exterior of the skiving tool adjacent the skiving teeth. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to provide the method disclosed in Schweiker with the fluid delivery taught by Ball in order to introduce coolant to “the contact area between the tool and workpiece” and “assist in the removal of metal chips” (Col. 7, Lines 10-16). However, each capillary does not explicitly include a capillary outlet located radially outward relative to the capillary inlet. It is worth noting that the cutting teeth in the Ball reference are not on the periphery as the teeth disclosed in Schweiker. It would seem implausible for one of ordinary skill to orient the capillary to run radially inwards from inlet-to-outlet instead of the reverse. Thus, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the cutting tool disclosed in the method of Schweiker with the capillary running radially outwards from inlet-to-outlet as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions (inward, outward, neutral) - leading to the predictable result of feeding coolant to the peripherally located cutting edges.4 See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claim 11) The method includes rotating the skiving teeth on a skiving tool, rotating a tool holder (inherent) about the rotational axis in the first rotational direction (Schweiker Fig. 1), relative to a sleeve of the gear forming tool (Ball Fig. 6; 60). Schweiker does not explicitly disclose the tool holder including channels and a sleeve as claimed.
Ball discloses the tool holder (2) defines a plurality of channels arranged about the rotational axis, the tool holder being coupled to a tool (34) for common rotation. The sleeve (60) is disposed about the tool holder and defines an aperture through the sleeve that sequentially comes into and then out of fluid communication with each channel as the tool holder is rotated relative to the sleeve (Col. 4, Lines 51-65). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to provide the method disclosed in Schweiker with the fluid delivery taught by Ball in order to introduce coolant to “the contact area between the tool and workpiece” and “assist in the removal of metal chips” (Col. 7, Lines 10-16).
(Claim 12) The skiving tool defines a plurality of capillaries (Ball 68), each capillary having a capillary inlet and a capillary outlet (Ball Figs. 4, 6-9), each capillary outlet being open to an exterior of the skiving tool proximate the skiving teeth (Ball Figs. 4, 6-9), wherein each channel (66) is in fluid communication with one or more of the capillary inlets (Ball Figs. 4, 6-9).
(Claim 13) Each of the capillary outlets is open through a corresponding skiving tooth (Ball Figs. 4, 7-9).
(Claim 14) A channel outlet of each channel is coupled to a plurality of the capillary inlets (Ball Fig. 6).
(Claim 15) The skiving teeth extend in a radially outward pattern relative to the rotational axis and each capillary outlet is open in a direction that faces axially away from the skiving tool (Schweiker Fig. 1).
(Claim 16) Each skiving tooth defines a plurality of the capillary outlets (Ball Figs. 4, 7-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a method of skiving with the tool holder, skiving tool, inner sleeve and outer sleeve as per claims 8 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 7 is definite. Additionally, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a capillary outlet radially outward of a respective capillary inlet.5 Examiner disagrees.
The scope of claim 7 remains indefinite due to the “sequential” limitation. Applicant, in the remarks, explains how the invention works without explaining the requirement of the sequence. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Turning to the Ball reference, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the capillary running radially outwards from inlet-to-outlet. Yet, as indicated in the Interview Summary (April 8, 2026), a modification of the Schweiker method as obvious to try is indeed obvious. The reversal of the inclination would be obvious to one having ordinary skill especially given the tool configuration disclosed in Schweiker. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Marchetti (WO 2016/020796 A1) (disclosing a skiving tool with nozzles that are capable of being positioned to target only the cutting edges in contact with workpiece).
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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 The gear forming tool is required to have skiving teeth, which would cause one of ordinary skill to consider the gear forming tool to be a gear skiving tool. The additional inclusion of skiving tool appears to be tantamount to a cutting portion of the tool.
2 See Berger (DE 4239893 A1) (Fig. 2) (disclosing deliver of coolant from a source radially outward-to-inward and then the capillary running radially outward-to-inward from inlet-to-outlet).
3 The gear forming tool is required to have skiving teeth, which would cause one of ordinary skill to consider the gear forming tool to be a gear skiving tool. The additional inclusion of skiving tool appears to be tantamount to a cutting portion of the tool.
4 See Berger (DE 4239893 A1) (Fig. 2) (disclosing deliver of coolant from a source radially outward-to-inward and then the capillary running radially outward-to-inward from inlet-to-outlet).
5 It is worth noting that Applicant does not argue against the Birenbaum reference.
Prosecution Insights