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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a machining apparatus having at least one machining device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites a machining apparatus having at least one machining device is a milling element or a grinding wheel and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadele (DE 10 2015 224 133 A1) as provide by (DE 10 2015 224 133 A1) as a English language equivalent in view of Weixler et al. (US 10,994,352 B2).
Claim 1:
Stadele discloses at least one corrugating roller (abstract) comprising, wherein the corrugating roller (12) comprises corrugating roller helical toothing (37) including a plurality of individual helical teeth (37), each extending continuously between opposite ends of the corrugating roller (12), wherein the plurality of individual helical teeth (37) run parallel to one another and are evenly spaced over the circumference of the corrugating roller (12) ([0053] – [0056]).
Stadele fails to disclose a method for producing the corrugating roller.
Weixler discloses a method for gear manufacturing machining of a workpiece (abstract), comprising the steps of:
providing a corrugating roller blank which has a corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (figs. 6-10, col. 10, lines 55-60 and col. 15, lines 1-6), and
machining the corrugating roller blank with a machining apparatus having at least one machining device (13), with a relative displacement between the corrugating roller blank and the at least one machining device to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing (figs. 6-10, col. 12, lines 39-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to produce the at least one corrugating roller of Stadele by hobbing machining and gear skiving as taught by Weixler in order to produce the at least one corrugating roller in the same gear cutting machine in order to save costs and time in the manufacture of the at least one corrugating roller. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized by
aligning the corrugating roller blank and the at least one machining device relative to one another according to a target offset (axial cross angle) of the corrugating roller helical toothing with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (Weixler, col. 13, lines 33-38), and
displacing the corrugating roller blank and the at least one machining device (13) relative to one another, wherein the at least one machining device engages the corrugating roller blank in a machining manner to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing (Weixler, col. 9, lines 30-33 and col. 13, lines 33-38).
Claim 3:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized by radially displacing the at least one machining device (13) and the corrugating roller blank relative to one another with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (Weixler, col. 3, lines 20-24 and col. 11, lines 15-18).
Claim 5:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized by aligning the at least one machining device and the corrugating roller blank such that the at least one machining device is perpendicular to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis and at least one zone of attack of the at least one machining device on the corrugating roller blank is perpendicular to a respective machining device rotation axis of the at least one machining device (Weixler, fig. 3, col. 7, lines 46-50).
Claim 8:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one machining device (13) is a machining device for machining the corrugating roller blank (Weixler, figs. 1-5, col. 10, lines 37-41).
Claim 9:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 8, characterized in that the at least one machining device (13) is a grinding device for grinding the corrugating roller blank (Weixler, figs. 1-5, col. 10, lines 37-41).
Claim 10:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one machining device is a milling device for milling the corrugating roller blank (Weixler, figs. 1-5, col. 10, lines 37-41).
Claim 11:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 10, characterized in that the milling device is a simultaneous milling device (Weixler, figs. 1-5, col. 10, lines 37-41).
Claim 12:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 10, characterized in that the milling device is a hobbing device (13) (Weixler, figs. 1-5, col. 10, lines 37-41).
Claim 28:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of individual helical teeth forms a 0.5° to 8° helix angle with the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (Stadele, [0056]).
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadele in view of Weixler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wirz (US 5,954,568).
Claim 4:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, and Stadele in view of Weixler fails to disclose for undercut compensation, at least one zone of attack of the at least one machining device on the corrugating roller blank is inclined with respect to each of the machining device rotation axes of the at least one machining device. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses an axial cross angle between the axis of rotation B1 and the axis of rotation B2 substantially corresponds in the gear hobbing machining to the lead angle of the first gearing or to 90° minus the helix angle of the first gearing, with the lead angle of the tool additionally having to be taken into account which results in the at least one machining device on the corrugating roller blank inclined with respect to each of the machining device rotation axes of the at least one machining device as reflected in figure 7 (figs. 6-8 col. 13, lines 33-37).
Wirz discloses a method of producing a grinding worm (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 55-59); wherein at least one zone of attack (12) of at least one machining device (10) on the corrugating roller blank (2) is inclined with respect to the machining device rotation axis (26) of the at least one machining device (10) (fig. 13, col. 4, lines 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the gear manufacturing machining of Stadele in view of Weixler by providing the at least one zone of attack of the at least one machining device on the corrugating roller blank is inclined with respect to each of the machining device rotation axes of the at least one machining device as taught by Wirz in order for the flank direction of the profiling tool to approximately concur with that of the roller blank in order to produce flawless contact conditions between the at least one attack zone and the roller blank profile (Wirz, col. 4, lines 50-60).
Claim 6:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1 including displacing the at least one machining device along the corrugating roller blank, wherein the at least one machining device engages the corrugating roller blank in a machining manner.
Stadele in view of Weixler fails to disclose inclining the corrugating roller blank according to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing relative to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses an axial cross angle between the axis of rotation B1 and the axis of rotation B2 substantially corresponds in the gear hobbing machining to the lead angle of the first gearing or to 90° minus the helix angle of the first gearing, with the lead angle of the tool additionally having to be taken into account which results in the at least one machining device on the corrugating roller blank inclined with respect to each of the machining device rotation axes of the at least one machining device as reflected in figure 7 (figs. 6-8 col. 13, lines 33-37).
Wirz discloses a method of producing a grinding worm (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 55-59); wherein the grinding worm blank is inclined according to a target offset of the corrugating gearing worm helical toothing (1) relative to the corrugating grinding worm blank central longitudinal axis (7) (figs. 12-13, col. 3, lines 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the gear manufacturing machining of Stadele in view of Weixler by inclining the corrugating roller blank according to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing relative to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis as taught by Wirz in order for the flank direction of the profiling tool to approximately concur with that of the roller blank in order to produce flawless contact conditions between the at least one attack zone and the roller blank profile (Wirz, col. 4, lines 50-60).
Claim 7:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1 including displacing the at least one machining device along the corrugating roller blank to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing, wherein the at least one machining device engages the corrugating roller blank in a machining manner.
Stadele in view of Weixler fails to disclose inclining the at least one machining device according to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses an axial cross angle between the axis of rotation B1 and the axis of rotation B2 substantially corresponds in the gear hobbing machining to the lead angle of the first gearing or to 90° minus the helix angle of the first gearing, with the lead angle of the tool additionally having to be taken into account which results in the at least one machining device on the corrugating roller blank inclined with respect to each of the machining device rotation axes of the at least one machining device as reflected in figure 7 (figs. 6-8 col. 13, lines 33-37).
Wirz discloses a method of producing a grinding worm (fig. 1, col. 1, lines 55-59); comprising inclining the at least one machining device (10) according to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing (1) with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (7). (figs. 12-13, col. 4, lines 50-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the gear manufacturing machining of Stadele in view of Weixler by inclining the at least one machining device according to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis as taught by Wirz in order for the flank direction of the profiling tool to approximately concur with that of the roller blank in order to produce flawless contact conditions between the at least one attack zone and the roller blank profile (Wirz, col. 4, lines 50-60).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadele in view of Weixler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stadtfeld (WO 2017/095785 A1).
Claim 13:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Stadele in view of Weixler fails to disclose the at least one machining device is a laser application device, which applies material to the corrugating roller blank for producing the corrugating roller helical toothing. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the machining device is a hobbing machining device which removes material from the corrugating roller blank to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing.
Stadtfeld discloses a method of manufacturing gear teeth by additive manufacturing (abstract), comprising providing a laser application device, which applies material to the corrugating roller blank for producing the corrugating roller helical toothing ([0035]).
Stadtfeld further teaches a commonly used subtractive hobbing or shaping process may be used for gear toothing and there are applications better suited for additive tooth manufacturing processes in order to create a toothed section (col. 6, [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the hobbing device of Stadele in view of Weixler for the laser cladding device of Staffeldt since it was known that hobbing tools and laser cladding tools are analogues for fabricating gear toothing (Staffeldt, col. 6, [0035]). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadele in view of Weixler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spurgeon et al. (US 5,435,816).
Claim 14:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Stadele in view of Weixler fails to disclose the machining device is a laser removal device which removes material from the corrugating roller blank to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the machining device is a hobbing machining device which removes material from the corrugating roller blank to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing.
Spurgeon discloses a method of making a thermoplastic production tool (col 9, lines 24-25), further comprising providing a metal master tool and machining an inverse pattern of a desired pattern on the metal master tool (col. 9, lines 25-33); wherein the master tool is fabricated from laser machining (col. 9, lines 25-33).
Spurgeon further teaches a metal master tool may be fabricated from any conventional technique such as engraving, hobbing, knurling, electroforming, diamond turning, laser machining, etc. (col 9, lines 27-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the hobbing device of Stadele in view of Weixler for the laser removal device of Spurgeon since it was known that engraving tools, hobbing tools, knurling tools, electroforming tools, diamond turning tools, and laser machining tools are analogues for removing material from a workpiece (Spurgeon, col 9, lines 27-30). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadele in view of Weixler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bihn (US 2015/0028139 A1).
Claim 15:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1; and, Stadele in view of Weixler fails to disclose wherein the machining comprises eroding at least a portion of the corrugating roller blank to form the corrugating roller. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses a corrugating roller blank hobbing process for forming the corrugating roller.
Bihn discloses manufacturing first and second grain crushing rollers using electric discharge machining ([0066]). Bihn further discloses rollers may be manufactured using a variety of techniques including, but not limited to, broaching, hobbing, and/or electric discharge machining (eroding) ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the hobbing process of Stadele in view of Weixler for the electric discharge machining (eroding) of Bihn since it was known that hobbing and electric discharge machining (eroding) are analogues for manufacturing a cylindrical roller (Bihn, [0066]). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadele in view of Weixler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2008/0022800 A1).
Claim 27:
Stadele in view of Weixler renders obvious the method according to claim 1, and Stadele in view of Weixler fails to disclose the machining apparatus comprises an inclination drive configured to tilt the corrugating roller blank relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses an inclination drive configured to tilt (pivot) the tool holder relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus (figs. 7-10, col. 9, lines 39-51).
Kobayashi discloses a method of generating a gear by a gear hobbing machine ([0022]), wherein the machining apparatus comprises an inclination drive configured to tilt a workpiece relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus (figs 8-9, [0047]). Kobayashi further discloses the workpiece may be manufactured without inclination of the workpiece (figs. 8-9, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have swapped the non-inclination workpiece drive of Stadele in view of Weixler for an inclination workpiece drive as taught by Kobayashi since it was known that non-inclination workpiece drives and inclination workpiece drives are analogues for workpiece drives for hobbing machines (Kobayashi, figs. 8-9 [0047]-[0048]). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weixler et al. (US 10,994,352 B2) in view of Kobayashi (US 2008/0022800 A1).
Claim 29:
Weixler discloses a method for gear manufacturing machining of a workpiece (abstract), comprising the steps of:
providing a corrugating roller blank which has a corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (fig. 1, col. 10, lines 55-60 and col. 15, lines 1-6), and
machining the corrugating roller blank by means of a machining apparatus having at least one machining device (13), with a relative displacement between the corrugating roller blank and the at least one machining device to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing (figs. 1-2, col. 10, lines 34-41). Weixler fails to disclose the machining apparatus comprises an inclination drive configured to incline the corrugating roller blank relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus. Instead, Stadele in view of Weixler discloses an inclination drive configured to incline (pivot) the tool holder relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus (figs. 7-10, col. 9, lines 39-51).
Kobayashi discloses a method of generating a gear by a gear hobbing machine ([0022]), wherein the machining apparatus comprises an inclination drive configured to incline a workpiece relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus (figs 8-9, [0047]). Kobayashi further discloses the workpiece may be manufactured without inclination of the workpiece (figs. 8-9, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have swapped the non-inclination workpiece drive of Weixler for an inclination workpiece drive as taught by Kobayashi since it was known that non-inclination workpiece drives and inclination workpiece drives are analogues for workpiece drives for hobbing machines (Kobayashi, figs. 8-9 [0047]-[0048]). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weixler et al. (US 10,994,352 B2) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2020/0309234 A1).
Claim 30:
Weixler discloses a method for producing a corrugating roller having a plurality of helical corrugating teeth (figs. 6-10, col. 12, lines 39-44), the method comprising:
providing a corrugating roller blank having a first end, a second end, and a central longitudinal axis extending between the first and second ends (figs. 6-10, col. 10, lines 55-61 and col. 15, lines 1-6); and,
machining the corrugating roller blank with a machining apparatus having at least one machining device (13’) (figs. 6-10, col. 13, lines 14-22),
wherein the machining includes forming at least one of the plurality of helical teeth by moving the machining device lengthwise along the corrugating roller blank from the first end to the second end while simultaneously swiveling the corrugated roller blank on the central longitudinal axis through a helix angle (figs. 6-10, col 13, lines 14-29 and col. 13, lines 33-38),
(ii) subsequent to step (i), swiveling the corrugated roller blank on the central longitudinal axis (col. 2, lines 49-51 and col. 4, lines 21-27), and,
subsequent to step (ii) forming at least one other of the plurality of helical teeth by moving the machining device lengthwise along the corrugating roller blank from one of the first and second ends to the other of the first and second ends while swiveling the corrugated roller blank on the central longitudinal axis through a helix angle (figs. 6-10, col 13, lines 14-29 and col. 13, lines 33-38),
Weixler fails to disclose a helix angle of 0.5° to 8°. Instead, Weixler teaches performing hobbing operations with an axial cross angle between the tool and the workpiece in the range of ±5° to ±40°. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known the angular relationship between the tool and workpiece determines the helix geometry of the generated teeth and would have recognized the claim limitation “…a helix angle of 0.5° to 8°…” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of controlling smoothness and overall noise emission as evidenced by Bauer (Bauer, [0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to limit the helix angle of Weixler to the range of between 0.5° to 8° since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of a helix angle between 0.5° to 8° because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 31:
Weixler in view of Bauer renders obvious the method according to claim 30, wherein step (ii) includes returning the machining device from the second end to the first end, wherein step (iii) includes moving the machine device from the first end to the second end (col. 11, lines 43-49 and col. 13, lines 26-29). Examiner note: Performing multiple machining strokes along the workpiece necessarily requires returning the machining tool to a starting position and performing another machining pass along the workpiece.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weixler in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 2020/0309234 A1).
Claim 32:
Weixler in view of Kobayashi renders obvious the method according to claim 29, wherein the machining comprises forming the corrugating roller helical toothing by moving the machining device lengthwise along the corrugating roller blank while swiveling the corrugated roller blank on the central longitudinal axis through a helix angle (figs. 6-10, col 13, lines 14-29 and col. 13, lines 33-38),
Weixler fails to disclose a helix angle of 0.5° to 8°. Instead, Weixler teaches performing hobbing operations with an axial cross angle between the tool and the workpiece in the range of ±5° to ±40°. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known the angular relationship between the tool and workpiece determines the helix geometry of the generated teeth and would have recognized the claim limitation “…a helix angle of 0.5° to 8°…” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of controlling smoothness and overall noise emission as evidenced by Bauer (Bauer, [0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to limit the helix angle of Weixler to the range of between 0.5° to 8° since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of a helix angle between 0.5° to 8° because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 19 December 2025, with respect to the interpretations under 35 U.S.C 112(f) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation has been maintained. The claim limitation machining apparatus meets the three-prong test as explained in MPEP 2181: the claim limitation uses apparatus which is a term used as a substitute for means; the term apparatus is modified by the term machining; and, the term apparatus is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim limitation machining apparatus is properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as recited above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 19 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8-12 and 28 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Weixler’s Method Could Not Produce the Corrugating Rollers of Stadele or the Present Claims
On page 7 bridging page 8, Applicant argues examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is improper because Weixler discloses a gear manufacturing apparatus that utilizes hobbing machining followed by skiving to produce a worm gear. Examiner disagrees. As recited above Weixler also renders obvious the method steps of: providing a corrugating roller blank which has a corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (fig. 1, col. 10, lines 55-60 and col. 15, lines 1-6), and machining the corrugating roller blank with a machining apparatus having at least one machining device (13), with a relative displacement between the corrugating roller blank and the at least one machining device to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing (figs. 1-2, col. 10, lines 34-41) as required of applicant’s claimed invention. In addition, Applicant’s arguments are drawn to an embodiment of Weixler (figs. 2-5) wherein Weixler discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (15) having worm geometry. Weixler further discloses a second embodiment (figs. 6-10) which renders obvious a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece.
No Reasonable Expectation of Success with Weixler’s System and Process
On page 9 bridging page 10, Applicant argues examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is improper because Weixler’s worm gear production system could not be readily and easily modified with a reasonable expectation of success to create the corrugating rollers of Stadele or the corrugating roller of the present claims. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to an embodiment of Weixler (figs. 2-5) wherein Weixler discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (15) having worm geometry. Weixler further discloses a second embodiment (figs. 6-10) which renders obvious a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to produce the at least one corrugating roller of Stadele by hobbing machining and gear skiving as taught by Weixler with a reasonable expectation of success since Weixler explicitly discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece as reflected in figures 6 through 10 of Weixler.
Weixler Teaches Away from the Proposed Combination
On page 10, Applicant further argues examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is improper because Weixler’s complex, high precision worm gear production system is solving a different technical problem that involves work gears. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to an embodiment of Weixler (figs. 2-5) wherein Weixler discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (15) having worm geometry. Weixler further discloses a second embodiment (figs. 6-10) which renders obvious a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece.
Weixler Teaches Away from the Proposed Combination
On page 10 bridging page 11, Applicant further argues examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is improper because Stadele teaches a corrugating roller for use in a corrugated cardboard plant and Weixler teaches a system and process for producing worm gears and Examiner’s proposed combination of Stadele and Weixler would render the resulting corrugating roller in Stadele unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to an embodiment of Weixler (figs. 2-5) wherein Weixler discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (15) having worm geometry. Weixler further discloses a second embodiment (figs. 6-10) which renders obvious a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to produce the at least one corrugating roller of Stadele by hobbing machining and gear skiving as taught by Weixler with a reasonable expectation of success since Weixler explicitly discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece as reflected in figures 6 through 10 of Weixler.
Weixler Teaches Away from the Proposed Combination
On page 11, Applicant further argues examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is improper because Stadele teaches a corrugating roller for use in a corrugated cardboard plant and Weixler teaches a system and process for producing worm gears and Examiner’s proposed combination of Stadele and Weixler would produce a worm gear that has a thread geometry completely different form that of the corrugating roller of Stadele. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to an embodiment of Weixler (figs. 2-5) wherein Weixler discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (15) having worm geometry. Weixler further discloses a second embodiment (figs. 6-10) which renders obvious a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to produce the at least one corrugating roller of Stadele by hobbing machining and gear skiving as taught by Weixler with a reasonable expectation of success since Weixler explicitly discloses a method and device for producing a workpiece (16) having a plurality of individual helical teeth, each extending continuously between opposite ends of the workpiece as reflected in figures 6 through 10 of Weixler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takahashi (US 2017/0182572 A1) discloses a machining apparatus for gear machining or splined shaft machining.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726