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.
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 claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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, 8 and 10-11 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) machine translation as an English language equivalent in view of Strong (GB 2232).
Claim 1:
Stadele discloses at least one corrugating roller (abstract) comprising, a corrugating roller helical toothing (37) including a plurality of individual helical teeth (37), each extending from the first end to the second end 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) (¶¶53–56).
Stadele fails to disclose a method for producing the corrugating roller.
Strong discloses a method for manufacturing machining of a workpiece (p1, ll3-9), comprising the steps of:
providing a corrugating roller blank (H) which has a corrugating roller blank (H) central longitudinal axis extending between a first end and a second end (figs. 2-3, p3, ll29-35), and
machining the corrugating roller blank (H) with a machining apparatus having at least one machining device (D1), with a relative displacement between the corrugating roller blank (H) and the at least one machining device (D1) to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing (figs. 2-3, p3, ll50-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture the at least one corrugating roller of Stadele using the helical milling technique taught by Strong, with the cutter profile, helical pitch, indexing positions, and cutting length selected to produce Stadele’s disclosed corrugating tooth geometry, in order to accurately generate the desired helical tooth spaces and consistently position successive tooth spaces around the circumference of the roller (Strong, p3, l50 bridging p4, l2). 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 Strong discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized by
aligning the corrugating roller blank (H) and the at least one machining device (D1) relative to one another according to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing with respect to the corrugating roller blank (H) central longitudinal axis (Strong, p3, ll4-14 and ll36-57), and
displacing the corrugating roller blank (H) and the at least one machining device (D1) relative to one another, wherein the at least one machining device (D1) engages the corrugating roller blank (H) in a machining manner to produce the corrugating roller helical toothing (Strong, p3, ll50-57).
Claim 3:
Stadele in view of Strong discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized by radially displacing the at least one machining device (D1) and the corrugating roller blank (H) relative to one another with respect to the corrugating roller blank (H) central longitudinal axis (Strong, figs. 1-3, p3, ll15-16 and p4, ll13-24).
Claim 8:
Stadele in view of Strong discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one machining device (D1) is a machining device (D1) for machining the corrugating roller blank (H) (Strong, figs. 1-3, p3, ll4-10 and ll50-57).
Claim 10:
Stadele in view of Strong discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one machining device (D1) is a milling device for milling the corrugating roller blank (H) (Strong, figs. 1-3, p3, ll4-10 and ll50-57).
Claim 11:
Stadele in view of Strong discloses the method according to claim 10, characterized in that the milling device is a simultaneous milling device (Strong coordinates feed and rotation during milling and therefore is a simultaneous milling device as required of claim 11) (Strong, figs. 1-3, p3, ll50-57).
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 an English language equivalent in view of Weixler et al. (US 10,994,352 B2).
Claim 1:
Stadele discloses a corrugating roller (abstract) comprising, a corrugating roller helical toothing (37) including a plurality of individual helical teeth (37), each extending from the first end to the second end 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) (¶¶53–56).
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 extending between a first end and a second end, (figs. 6-10, c10, ll55-60 and c15, ll1-6), 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, c12, ll39-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture Stadele’s corrugating roller using Weixler’s known helical hobbing technique because applying that technique to the roller blank would predictably produce Stadele’s disclosed helical tooth spaces, with the machining elements performing their established functions. In doing so, the combination applies Weixler’s helical machining technique to Stadele’s roller, whose required geometry comes from Stadele. 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 is a machine setting selected according to the desired tooth helix and tool lead) of the corrugating roller helical toothing with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (Weixler, c13, ll33-38), and
displacing the corrugating roller blank and the at least one machining device (Weixler, 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, c9, ll30-33 and c13, ll33-38).
Claim 3:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized by radially displacing the at least one machining device (Weixler, 13) and the corrugating roller blank relative to one another with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (Weixler, c3, ll20-24 and c11, ll15-18).
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, c7, ll46-50).
Claim 8:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one machining device (Weixler, 13) is a machining device for machining the corrugating roller blank (Weixler, figs. 1-5, c10, ll37-41).
Claim 9:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 8, characterized in that the at least one machining device includes a grinding device for grinding the corrugating roller blank (Weixler, figs. 1-5, c1, ll38-46 and c10, ll37-41).
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, c10, ll37-41).
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 coordinates feed and rotation during operation and therefore renders obvious a simultaneous milling device as required of claim 11) (Weixler, figs. 1-5, c2, ll49-51 and c10, ll29-36).
Claim 12:
Stadele in view of Weixler discloses the method according to claim 10, characterized in that the milling device is a hobbing device (Weixler, 13) (Weixler, figs. 1-5, c10, ll37-41).
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, ¶56).
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 c13, ll33-37).
Wirz discloses a method of producing a grinding worm (fig. 1, c1, ll55-59); 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, c4, ll50-53).
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, c4, ll50-60).
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 c13, ll33-37).
Wirz discloses a method of producing a grinding worm (fig. 1, c1, ll55-59); 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, c3, ll50-53).
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, c4, ll50-60).
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 c13, ll33-37).
Wirz discloses a method of producing a grinding worm (fig. 1, c1, ll55-59); 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, c4, ll50-53).
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, c4, ll50-60).
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 (¶35).
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 (c6, ¶33). 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 Stadtfeld since it was known that hobbing tools and laser cladding tools are analogues for fabricating gear toothing (Stadtfeld, c6, ¶35). 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, ll24-25), further comprising providing a metal master tool and machining an inverse pattern of a desired pattern on the metal master tool (c9, ll25-33); wherein the master tool is fabricated from laser machining (c9, ll25-33).
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, ll27-30). 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, ll27-30). 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 (¶66). 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) (¶66).
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, ¶66). 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 Napau et al. (US 2014/0271010 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, c9, ll39-51).
Napau discloses a machining apparatus for generating a gear by a gear hobbing machine (fig. 1, ¶141), wherein the machining apparatus (10) comprises an inclination drive configured to incline a workpiece relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus by an angle corresponding to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing or a helix angle with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (fig. 3, ¶¶145-147 and 149). Napau discloses an angularly adjustable table (14), which is pivotable around its axis of rotation A3 (fig. 3, ¶149) which renders obvious adjustable workpiece inclination and controlled table pivoting, reasonably implying an actuator or drive as required of claim 29 (fig. 3, ¶¶145-147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an inclination drive as taught by Napau in order to provide controlled workpiece pivoting (Napau, figs. 8-9 ¶¶145-147). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Te Riele et al. (WO 2016/148570 A1) in view of Napau et al. (US 2014/0271010 A1).
Claim 29:
Te Riele discloses a method for producing a corrugating roller which has a corrugating roller helical toothing with corrugating teeth (abstract), comprising the steps of:
providing a corrugating roller blank (3) which has a corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (figs. 1-2, p7, ll1-5); 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, p1, ll9-11, p3, ll9-15 and p4, ll6-10). Te Riele 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, by an angle corresponding to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing or a helix angle with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis.
Napau discloses a machining apparatus for generating a gear by a gear hobbing machine (fig. 1, ¶141), and renders obvious a machining apparatus (10) comprising an inclination drive configured to incline a workpiece relative to a vertical main plane of the machining apparatus by an angle corresponding to a target offset of the corrugating roller helical toothing or a helix angle with respect to the corrugating roller blank central longitudinal axis (fig. 3, ¶¶145-147 and 149). Napau discloses an angularly adjustable table (14), which is pivotable around its axis of rotation A3 (fig. 3, ¶149) which renders obvious adjustable workpiece inclination and controlled table pivoting, reasonably implying an actuator or drive as required of claim 29 (fig. 3, ¶¶145-147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a means for inclination as taught by Napau in order to retain axial rotation and add inclination adjustment in or to provide controlled workpiece pivoting (Napau, figs. 8-9 ¶¶145-147). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 30-31 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) machine translation as an English language equivalent in view of Te Riele et al. (WO 2016/148570 A1).
Claim 30:
Stadele discloses at least one corrugating roller (abstract) comprising, a corrugating roller helical toothing (37) including a plurality of individual helical teeth (37), each extending from the first end to the second end 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) and having a helix angle of between 0.5° to 8° (¶¶53–56).
Stadele fails to disclose a method for producing the corrugating roller.
Te Riele discloses a method for producing a corrugating roller having a plurality of helical corrugating teeth (abstract), the method comprising:
providing a corrugating roller blank (3) having a first end, a second end, and a central longitudinal axis extending between the first and second ends (figs. 1-2, p7, ll1-5); and,
machining the corrugating roller blank (3) with a machining apparatus (1) having at least one machining device (9) (figs. 1-2, p7, ll1-5), wherein the machining includes
forming at least one of the plurality of helical teeth, the at least one of the plurality of helical teeth extending from the first end to the second end of the corrugating roller blank (3), 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. 1-2, p3, ll9-15),
(ii) subsequent to step (i), swiveling the corrugated roller blank on the central longitudinal axis (figs. 1-2, p1, ll9-11), and,
subsequent to step (ii) forming at least one other of the plurality of helical teeth, the at least one other of the plurality of helical teeth extending from the first end to the second end of the corrugating roller blank, 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. 1-2, p1, ll9-11, p3, ll9-15 and p4, ll6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture Stadele’s helical corrugating roller using Te Riele’s longitudinally traveling cutting tool and coordinated roller rotation, with the tool travel and roller rotation selected to produce Stadele’s disclosed helix angle, and to index the roller between successive cutting strokes to form the circumferentially distributed teeth thereby permitting machining the helical tooth spaces without longitudinally translating the heavy roller and reducing the need for a heavy translating slide and the associated machine space, as taught by Te Riele. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 31:
Stadele in view of Te Riele 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 (Te Riele, figs. 1-2, p1, ll9-11, p3, ll9-15 and p4, ll6-10).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Te Riele in view of Napau as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Stadele (DE 10 2015 224 133 A1) as provide by (DE 10 2015 224 133 A1) as an English language equivalent
Claim 32:
Te Riele in view of Napau 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 (Te Riele, figs. 1-2, p7, ll1-5).
Te Riele in view of Napau fails to disclose a helix angle of 0.5° to 8°. Stadele discloses at least one corrugating roller (abstract) comprising, a corrugating roller helical toothing (37) including a plurality of individual helical teeth (37), each extending from the first end to the second end 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) and having a helix angle of between 0.5° to 8° (¶¶53–56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture Stadele’s helical corrugating roller using Te Riele’s longitudinally traveling cutting tool and coordinated roller rotation, with the tool travel and roller rotation selected to produce Stadele’s disclosed helix angle, and to index the roller between successive cutting strokes to form the circumferentially distributed teeth thereby permitting machining the helical tooth spaces without longitudinally translating the heavy roller and reducing the need for a heavy translating slide and the associated machine space, as taught by Te Riele. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation is improper because the limitation “a machining apparatus having at least one machining device” recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the Claim Interpretation section, “device” serves as a generic placeholder, while “machining” identifies its function. The complete limitation does not recite sufficient structure for performing that function, and Applicant has not explained what sufficiently definite structure the phrase conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the identified machining-device limitation continues to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), covering the corresponding structures linked in the original disclosure to the claimed function and equivalents thereof, as specified in that section.
On pages 8-11, Applicant argues the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Stadel in view of Weixler is improper because Weixler’s teeth occupy separate axial bands and do not extend between the workpiece ends. Examiner disagrees. Applicant correctly observes that Weixler’s illustrated second embodiment includes separate gearing regions whose teeth do not extend over the entire workpiece length. The rejection of claim 1, however, relies on Stadele for the corrugating roller having individual helical teeth extending between its first and second ends, and on Weixler for the machining technique used to manufacture that geometry. The proposed combination applies Weixler’s longitudinal helical machining technique to Stadele’s roller blank over the length required to produce Stadele’s disclosed teeth; it does not adopt Weixler’s stepped workpiece or require manufacturing two separate gearing regions.
On pages 8-11, Applicant further argues that axial separation is required by Weixler because a hob used to manufacture the smaller gearing would damage the larger gearing. The recited disclosure addresses interference between the two gearings of the illustrated stepped workpiece. It does not establish that the applied machining technique requires two separated gearing regions when used to manufacture Stadele’s corrugating roller. The rejection identifies the proposed application of the technique and the resulting end-to-end tooth geometry.
On pages 8-11, Applicant further argues that Bauer does not establish the helix angle as a result-effective variable. The present rejection of claims 30–31 relies on Stadele in view of Te Riele, rather than Weixler in view of Bauer. Te Riele supplies longitudinal cutting-tool movement while the cylinder rotates to produce helical cutouts, together with repeated profiling and circumferential positioning, as explained in the rejection. Stadele supplies the end-to-end corrugating tooth arrangement and a disclosed helix angle of 2°–8°, including approximately 5°, within the claimed 0.5°–8° range. Accordingly, the present rejection does not depend on treating Bauer’s helix angle as a result-effective variable.
On pages 8-12, Applicant argues the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 29 is improper because Kobayashi inclines its workpiece according to cone angle, not the claimed tooth offset or helix angle. Applicant’s arguments are now moot because the revised rejection of claim 29 relies on Examiner’s proposed combination of Te Riele and Napau in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claimed invention.
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.
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 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 3729
Prosecution Insights