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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkeldey (US20200298362) “Finkeldey”, in view of Winkel (DE102016006957) “Winkel”.
Regarding claim 1, Finkeldey discloses a method, having the method steps of:
- providing a component (2), wherein the component (2) has a gearing (4),
- carrying out an optical measurement (8) of the gearing (4) of the component (2),
- wherein a course of a measuring path ([0041]) for the optical measurement and/or wherein positions of measuring points ([0041]) for the optical measurement are defined.
Finkeldey does not disclose machining marks, wherein the machining marks have been produced by a continuous chip-removing gear cutting process using a tool with geometrically defined cutting edges, such as hobbing, skiving or the like
- wherein the machining marks form a respective surface profile with peaks and valleys on each of the tooth flanks, which has in each case been produced on the respective tooth flanks by the periodic engagement of the cutting edges during the continuous chip-removing gear cutting process,
- wherein a respective position of peaks and valleys of the machining marks in the tooth width direction is flank-specific,
- wherein the peaks and valleys of adjacent tooth flanks have an offset relative to one another with respect to their flank-specific position in the tooth width direction, and wherein the offset has been produced as a result of an axial advance of the tool in the tooth width direction during the continuous chip-removing gear cutting process;
- determining at least one geometric feature of the machining marks, such as the flank-specific positions of the peaks and valleys, the offset or the like;
Winkel teaches machining marks (12a and 12b), wherein the machining marks have been produced by a continuous chip-removing gear cutting process (“gear cutting”) using a tool (“hob”) with geometrically defined cutting edges (“edge of hob”), such as hobbing, skiving or the like,
- wherein the machining marks form a respective surface profile with peaks (“high points”) and valleys (“milling valley”) on each of the tooth flanks (“LF”, “RF”), which has in each case been produced on the respective tooth flanks by the periodic engagement of the cutting edges during the continuous chip-removing gear cutting process,
- wherein a respective position of peaks and valleys of the machining marks in the tooth width direction is flank-specific (“different regions of the feed mark are consequently measured for individual teeth with the same tooth width position”),
- wherein the peaks and valleys of adjacent tooth flanks have an offset relative to one another (“feed spiral”) with respect to their flank-specific position in the tooth width direction, and wherein the offset has been produced as a result of an axial advance (“axial feed”) of the tool in the tooth width direction during the continuous chip-removing gear cutting process;
- determining at least one geometric feature (“The measuring device searches for the high points of the feed mark by means of a measurement along the tooth flank”) of the machining marks, such as the flank-specific positions of the peaks and valleys, the offset or the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Winkel’s machining marks as additional geometric input in Finkeldey’s optical measurement path, providing more accurate gear measurements.
Regarding claim 2, Finkeldey discloses the method according to claim 1, in that the performance of the optical measurement comprises the specification of the measuring path ([0041]), wherein the measuring path ([0041]) is defined at least in sections as a measuring spiral ([0078]; “helical line”) winding around the gearing, wherein the measuring spiral has an orientation ([0038]) and a gradient ([0038]).
Finkeldey does not disclose the offset of the flank-specific position of the peaks and valleys of adjacent tooth flanks results in a spiral arrangement of the machining marks when viewed over the entire circumference, in that the determination of the at least one geometric feature of the machining marks comprises the determination of a gradient and an orientation of the spiral arrangement of the machining marks.
Winkel teaches the offset of the flank-specific position of the peaks and valleys of adjacent tooth flanks results in a spiral arrangement (“feed spiral”) of the machining marks when viewed over the entire circumference (“helically on the workpiece”), in that the determination of the at least one geometric feature of the machining marks comprises the determination of a gradient (“feed size”) and an orientation (“direction”) of the spiral arrangement of the machining marks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perfectly align Finkeldey’s measuring spiral with Winkel’s machining mark gradient and orientation, ensuring measured values are acquired at a uniform height, and preventing machining marks from altering measurement values.
Regarding claim 3, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 2. Additionally, Winkel teaches the gradient and orientation of the spiral arrangement of the machining marks are determined by calculation “correction calculation” using an evaluation of production parameters (“axial feed amount” and “direction”) of the chip-removing gear cutting process and/or in that the gradient and orientation of the spiral arrangement of the machining marks are determined by measurement using an evaluation of measurement data (“the measuring device searches for the high points of the feed mark”) and/or in that the gradient and orientation of the spiral arrangement of the machining marks are determined by calculation using an evaluation of production parameters of a chip-removing gear cutting process of comparable components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to align Finkeldey’s measuring spiral with Winkel’s machining mark gradient and orientation, ensuring measured values are acquired at a uniform height, and preventing machining marks from altering measurement values.
Regarding claim 4, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 2. Additionally, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the gradient of the measuring spiral (Finkeldey; [0078]; “helical line”) corresponds at least in sections to more than twice ([0024]) the gradient of the spiral arrangement of the machining marks (Winkel; “feed mark”), or in that the gradient of the measuring spiral (Finkeldey; [0078]) corresponds, at least in sections, to less than half ([0024]) the gradient of the spiral arrangement of the machining marks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to define the gradient of Finkeldey’s measuring spiral at more than twice or less than half the gradient of Winkel’s spiral machining marks, to more accurately collect measurement points of gears.
Regarding claim 5, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 2. Additionally, Finkeldey discloses the measuring spiral (Finkeldey; [0078]) covers an angular range of 1080° or less ([0064]) in relation to an axis of rotation ([0070]) of the gearing, in particular that the measuring spiral covers an angular range of 720° or less ([0064]) in relation to an axis of rotation of the gearing and/or - in that the measuring spiral covers 50% or more ([0067] and Fig. 3) of the tooth width of the gearing in relation to a tooth width of the gearing, in particular covers 75% or more of the tooth width of the gearing.
Regarding claim 6, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 1, in that the peaks and valleys have a height difference (Winkel; “ lowest and highest point of the feed marking”) relative to one another, wherein the height difference is measured in a direction normal to a nominal geometry (“involute curve”) of the tooth flank to be produced in the chip-removing gear cutting process, and that the evaluation (Winkel; “predefined evaluation range”) of measuring points from tooth flank to tooth flank is carried out along the height difference of the machining marks as viewed for each of the machining marks at the same height position of a respective machining mark of the respective tooth flank and/or in that the detection (“in which the measuring point is always held approximately in the milling valley. The probe is guided from tooth to tooth and additionally tracked in the axial direction…”) of measuring points from tooth flank to tooth flank is carried out along the height difference of the machining marks, as viewed for each of the machining marks at the same height position of a respective machining mark of the respective tooth flank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for Finkeldey’s optical measurement to detect measuring points on each tooth flank valley at the same height position on Winkel’s machining mark, to better remove machining mark depth from flank to flank measurement.
Regarding claim 7, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 6, in that the determination of the at least one geometric feature of the machining marks comprises the determination of the height difference of the peaks and valleys (Winkel; “the mathematical correction calculation are the deviations of the tooth flank from the flank line measurement or profile measurement or topography measurement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the difference of peaks and valleys, as taught by Winkel in Finkeldey’s optical measurement path to better determine measurement error.
Regarding claim 8, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 1, in that the determination of the at least one geometric feature of the machining marks is carried out by calculation (Winkel; “correction calculation”) on the basis of an evaluation of production parameters (“feed size” and “direction”) of the chip-removing gear cutting process and/or the determination of the at least one geometric feature of the machining marks is carried out metrologically (“topography measurement”) using an evaluation of measurement data and/or the determination of the at least one geometric feature of the machining marks is carried out by calculation on the basis of an evaluation of production parameters of a chip-removing gear cutting process of comparable components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine Winkel’s geometric features of machining marks metrologically in Finkeldey’s optical measurement path to better determine measurement error.
Regarding claim 9, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 1. Additionally, Finkeldey discloses an optical distance sensor (Finkeldey; 18) is used for optical distance measurement, wherein the optical distance sensor is a point sensor ([0060]), such as a confocal chromatic distance sensor ([0060]) or the like.
Regarding claim 10, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 1. Additionally, Finkeldey discloses profile lines (14) of the tooth flanks are detected by means of the optical measurement (18) and a pitch (“pitch deviation”) of the gearing is determined using the profile lines (14).
Regarding claim 11, Finkeldey and Winkel disclose the method according to claim 1. Additionally, Finkeldey discloses the gear cutting process is a soft machining process ([0106]) and/or the optical measurement (18) of the gearing of the component takes place before hardening ([0106]) and/or before hard finishing of the gearing and/or in that the gearing is helical gearing (Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights