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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the tool or tools" in Lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, only sets forth one tool.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EMAG (DE 102018004241).
Regarding claim 1, EMAG discloses a method of chamfering teeth 2 on a workpiece which has a plurality of outwardly projecting teeth disposed about a circumference of the workpiece, which has central rotational axis. The teeth are disposed in a first plane that is perpendicular to the workpiece axis. The method utilizes a tool 1 which has a plurality of cutting teeth disposed about the circumference of the tool, which has a central rotational tool axis. The cutting teeth are disposed in a second plane that is perpendicular to the tool central axis. The method comprises the steps of rotating the workpiece in one direction about its central axis and rotating the tool in an opposite direction about the tool axis (see Fig. 1). The teeth of the tool each having a cutting portion at a leading edge when the tool is rotated in the opposite direction. The tool and workpiece are moved towards each other while the tool and workpiece are rotating, such that the teeth of the tool engage the teeth at an axially facing end of the workpiece at a meshing zone. The cutting portions of the tool teeth engage and cut into the meshing surfaces of the workpiece teeth at the trailing edges of the workpiece teeth 4 thereby to chamfer said trailing edges of the workpiece teeth (see Fig. 1). An axis extends perpendicular to the workpiece central axis through the meshing zone, and the tool axis is tilted at an angle γ relative to a direction which is an imaginary axis which is parallel to the workpiece axis and extends through the axis such that the second plane is not parallel to or co-planar with the first plane only by virtue of the tilting about the axis (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, EMAG discloses the tilt angle about the axis being up to 15˚ (see Paragraph 3 of the Description in the attached English translation of the document).
Regarding claim 5, EMAG discloses the tool being moved towards the workpiece in one or a combination of a direction parallel to the direction of the axis (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, EMAG discloses the tool teeth being provided on the cutting tool such that the cutting portions of the teeth are spaced radially from the central tool axis and extend at an angle (90 degrees) relative to the central tool axis.
Regarding claim 9, EMAG discloses the tool having a central disc portion and the tool teeth depending from the central disc portion and extending outwardly therefrom at the said angle relative to the tool axis.
Regarding claim 10, EMAG discloses providing control means to control the movement of the tool and workpiece towards each other and the relative speeds of rotation of the tool and workpiece thereby to control the amount of chamfer and rate of material removal in the chamfering process (see claim 4 of EMAG).
Regarding claim 11, EMAG discloses the control means being configured to control the distance between the workpiece axis and imaginary axis, thereby controlling the radial extent of the chamfer formed on the workpiece teeth (see claim 4 of EMAG).
Regarding claim 12, EMAG discloses the axially facing opposite ends of the teeth of the workpiece are chamfered simultaneously with the first-mentioned axially facing ends of the workpiece. The method further comprises the step of providing a farther tool, similar to the first-mentioned tool and effecting the method steps on the axially opposing facing ends of teeth of the workpiece. The further tool is positioned so as to not interfere with the first-mentioned tool during chamfering (see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EMAG (DE 102018004241).
Regarding claim 3, EMAG discloses the tilt angle being ‘preferably 14 degrees’ and does not explicitly disclose the tilt angle being up to 10 degrees.
However, modifying the exemplary tilt angle of EMAG to be up to 10 degrees would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, depending on the desired chamfer characteristics applied to the workpiece. See e.g. Paragraph 3 of the description of EMAG, which discloses the tool ‘deviating from zero cross angle between the axes of rotation of the machining tool and the teeth to be machined’ which 14 degrees is purely an example thereof. Claim 4 of EMAG discloses the angle between tool spindle and workpiece axes being adjustable, thereby supporting the assertion that 14 degrees is merely an example, and variations are expected depending on the desired chamfer angle provided to the workpiece/teeth.
Regarding claim 4, EMAG discloses it being known/incorporated in DE 102013012737 to provide the kinematics to a machine tool axis and workpiece axis wherein the tool axis is also tilted about the Z’ axis and/or about a further axis perpendicular to axes Z’ and X.
Therefore, providing this tilt to the tool axis of EMAG would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, depending on the desired chamfer characteristics/shape(s) provided to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 6, EMAG discloses the method of chamfering the leading edges of the workpiece by a reversal of the steps above, utilizing a tool which has a plurality of cutting teeth disposed about the circumference of the tool, and which has a central rotational tool axis, with the cutting teeth disposed in a second plane that is perpendicular to the tool central axis, and the teeth of the tool each having a cutting portion at a leading edge when the tool is rotated in said one direction.
Viewing Figure 1, it can be seen that the tool for machining the leading edges 3 of the workpiece is rotated in the opposite direction to the tool for machining the other edges of the workpiece 4. Accordingly, were it desired to chamfer the leading edges of the workpiece on the same side of the workpiece (e.g. the right of Figure 1) in order to make the machine tool more compact, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the operation of the tool, such that the workpiece would be rotated in the opposite direction about its central axis and the tool would be rotated in the first direction in order to provide the desired interaction between tool and workpiece. The tool and workpiece are moved towards each other so that the teeth of the tool engage the teeth at said axially facing end of the workpiece at the meshing zone, the second cutting portions of the tool teeth engaging and cutting into the now trailing leading edges of the workpiece thereby to chamfer said leading edges of the workpiece teeth. The tool axis is tilted at an angle about the axis in the opposite direction relative to direction Z’ and extends through the axis such that the second plane is not parallel or co-planar to the first plane by virtue of tilting about the axis.
Regarding claim 7, EMAG discloses the tool utilized to chamfer the trailing edges of the workpiece teeth being a separate tool to the tool utilized to chamfer the leading edges of the workpiece teeth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thijssen et al. (DE 102014019817) discloses a similar tool/method for forming a chamfer 30 on a workpiece 1 (see Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights