DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "both tooth flanks" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as only a single tooth flank is recited in claim 1. It is unclear how many tooth flanks must be present to meet the claims. Furthermore, as the claim recites “both tooth flanks,” this implies that only two tooth flanks are present. This appears to be contradictory to applicant’s specification, which shows a gear workpiece with many teeth, each of this may be considered to have two tooth flanks. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as defining the grinding of two tooth flanks of the gear workpiece.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2022/0134458).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a gear grinding method for grinding a tooth flank of a gear (G) using a threaded grinding wheel (321), the gear grinding method comprising; a grinding step for grinding the tooth flank of the gear by setting an axis intersection angle between a rotation axis (C) of a workpiece (gear G; [0030]) and a rotation axis (B) of the threaded grinding wheel ([0032]) to a composite axis intersection angle obtained by combining a reference axis intersection angle (“installation angle”) and a correction axis intersection angle (“additional installation angle” γa; [0039]), synchronously rotating the threaded grinding wheel and the workpiece ([0037]), and relatively moving the threaded grinding wheel in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the workpiece ([0037] describes axial motion during grinding; [0045] describes motion along Z axis which is parallel to rotation axis C of workpiece as shown in fig 2), wherein the reference axis intersection angle is an axis intersection angle determined based on a helix angle on a reference circle of the gear and a helix angle on a reference circle of the threaded grinding wheel (as described [0033-0034], [0041]; relative positioning of grinding wheel and gear workpiece is determined based on geometry which includes helix angles of both the workpiece and grinding wheel), and the correction axis intersection angle is an axis intersection angle for forming a grinding streak (grinding streaks shown in fig 5B; at position O2 in fig 4) in a direction inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to a tooth trace direction (direction along central axis of tooth, vertical direction as viewed in fig 4) on the tooth flank of the gear by the threaded grinding wheel (as shown in figs 4-5; [0040]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Wu further discloses the reference axis intersection angle is an axis intersection angle for forming the grinding streak in a direction parallel to the tooth trace direction on the tooth flank of the gear by the threaded grinding wheel (reference axis intersection angle is the angle prior to adding the correction axis intersection angle γa and which forms the parallel marks at O1 shown in figs 4 and 5A and described in [0040]); and wherein when viewed in an axial direction of the threaded grinding wheel (direction shown in fig 4), the tooth trace direction of the gear and a velocity vector of rotation of the threaded grinding wheel at a grinding point (point O2 shown in fig 4) on a protruding blade of the threaded grinding wheel have an angle (as described [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Wu further discloses the threaded grinding wheel is configured to be able to simultaneously grind two tooth flanks of the gear of the workpiece (as described in [0040], a contact area is defined on “one side” and the “other side” of the workpiece); the grinding streak on one of the tooth flanks of the gear is formed in a direction inclined at a positive predetermined angle with respect to the tooth trace direction (the downward shift described in [0040] and shown at O2 in fig 4 causes a clockwise angle relative to the vertical tooth trace direction); the grinding streak on the other of the tooth flanks of the gear is formed in a direction inclined at a negative predetermined angle with respect to the tooth trace direction (the upward shift described in [0040] would cause a counterclockwise shift on the other tooth flank; as these shifts are in opposite directions, one may be considered positive and one may be considered negative as claimed); and the grinding step includes simultaneously grinding both the tooth flanks of the gear of the workpiece by the threaded grinding wheel ([0040]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Wu further discloses a grinding condition determination step for determining grinding conditions including a profile of a protruding blade (teeth on the grinding wheel constitute protruding blades) of the threaded grinding wheel ([0033]; profile geometry of grinding teeth is determined) and the composite axis intersection angle (γa determined as described [0040]); and the grinding step for grinding the tooth flank of the gear using the threaded grinding wheel based on the determined grinding conditions ([0040]); and wherein the grinding condition determination step includes: a reference axis intersection angle determination step for determining the reference axis intersection angle based on the helix angle on the reference circle of the gear and the helix angle on the reference circle of the threaded grinding wheel ([0033], [0040]; when γa is zero, reference angle is 90 degrees as shown in figs 2 and 4); a correction axis intersection angle determination step for determining the correction axis intersection angle for forming the grinding streak in the direction inclined at the predetermined angle with respect to the tooth trace direction on the tooth flank of the gear of the workpiece by the threaded grinding wheel (correction axis intersection angle γa determined as described [0040]); and a protruding blade profile determination step for determining the profile of the protruding blade of the threaded grinding wheel in a state in which the axis intersection angle between the rotation axis of the workpiece and the rotation axis of the threaded grinding wheel is the composite axis intersection angle (as described [0043], the profile of the grinding wheel including the protruding blades is determined based on the geometry, location, and movement of the grinding wheel and gear workpiece).
Regarding claims 9-10, Wu further discloses the gear is a helical gear (gear may have a helix angle as described [0033-0034]); and the predetermined angle is set to an angle formed by the tooth trace direction on the tooth flank of the gear (angle shown in fig 5B) and a meshing progress direction of a mated gear (note that the mated gear is not a part of the claimed method and any gear may be mated with the formed gear workpiece and thus the meshing progress direction is an intended use of the gear which does not positively limit the claimed method); and wherein: the gear is a spur gear (as shown in fig 4), and the predetermined angle is set to an inclination angle with respect to the tooth trace direction on the tooth flank of the gear (as shown in fig 4) and with respect to a meshing progress direction of a mated gear (note that the mated gear is not a part of the claimed method and any gear may be mated with the formed gear workpiece and thus the meshing progress direction is an intended use of the gear which does not positively limit the claimed method).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses a gear grinding device configured to grind a tooth flank of a gear (G) using a threaded grinding wheel (321), the gear grinding device comprising; a grinding processing unit (60) configured to grind the tooth flank of the gear by setting an axis intersection angle between a rotation axis (C) of a workpiece (gear G; [0030]) and a rotation axis (B) of the threaded grinding wheel ([0032]) to a composite axis intersection angle obtained by combining a reference axis intersection angle (“installation angle”) and a correction axis intersection angle (“additional installation angle” γa; [0039]), synchronously rotating the threaded grinding wheel and the workpiece ([0037]), and relatively moving the threaded grinding wheel in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the workpiece ([0037] describes axial motion during grinding; [0045] describes motion along Z axis which is parallel to rotation axis C of workpiece as shown in fig 2), wherein the reference axis intersection angle is an axis intersection angle determined based on a helix angle on a reference circle of the gear and a helix angle on a reference circle of the threaded grinding wheel (as described [0033-0034], [0041]; relative positioning of grinding wheel and gear workpiece is determined based on geometry which includes helix angles of both the workpiece and grinding wheel), and the correction axis intersection angle is an axis intersection angle for forming a grinding streak (grinding streaks shown in fig 5B; at position O2 in fig 4) in a direction inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to a tooth trace direction (direction along central axis of tooth, vertical direction as viewed in fig 4) on the tooth flank of the gear by the threaded grinding wheel (as shown in figs 4-5; [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Wu further discloses a grinding condition determination unit (40; [0036-0037]) configured to determine grinding conditions including a profile of a protruding blade (teeth on the grinding wheel constitute protruding blades) of the threaded grinding wheel ([0033]; profile geometry of grinding teeth is determined) and the composite axis intersection angle (γa determined as described [0040]); and the grinding processing unit (60) configured to grind the tooth flank of the gear using the threaded grinding wheel based on the determined grinding conditions ([0040], [0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abysov (US 5079877).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Wu does not explicitly teach grinding only one tooth flank of the gear of the workpiece (although it appears the capability to make the many movements of the tool of Wu would allow this functionality). Abysov teaches a method of gear grinding wherein a grinding wheel (1 with teeth on rim 3) is configured to be able to grind only one tooth flank of a gear (2) of a workpiece (single contact point on one flank shown in fig 8), and a grinding step including grinding only one tooth flank of the gear of the workpiece by the grinding wheel (shown in fig 8, described col 5, lines 18-31). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to execute the grinding step of Wu to include grinding only one tooth flank of the gear by the threaded grinding wheel, as this provides space for washing out debris from the zone of engagement as taught by Abysov (col 5, lines 15-38).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 8, Wu appears to be the closest prior art. As detailed above, Wu teaches many aspects of the claimed invention, including using geometry of the grinding wheel and gear to determine a correction axis intersection angle to form inclined grinding streaks on the workpiece. However, Wu does not teach calculating the claimed vectors, setting a provisional correction axis intersection angle, determining a provisional grinding wheel point when a magnitude of the tooth flank normal component vector is equal to a magnitude of the grinding wheel normal component vector, or determining whether the tangent vector coincides with a direction of the grinding streak. While it is generally known to calculate tangent and normal vectors to determine relative motion and contact between a grinding wheel and a gear workpiece (see e.g. US 6602115), the prior art does not teach or disclose using these in combination with the claimed determination of the tangent vector coinciding with a direction of the grinding streak set in advance and determining the provisional grinding wheel point when the target vector coincides as a grinding wheel profile point as claimed, particularly in combination with using the correction axis intersection angle to form a grinding streak in a particular inclined direction. This would not have been an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar gear grinding methods and devices are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights