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 .
Claims 1, 6 have been amended.
Claims 3, 10 have been canceled.
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 1-2, 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga [WO 2023/105733] in view Stadtfeld [US Pub # 2008/0070484].
Regarding claim 1: Yoshinaga shows a helical gear, wherein each tooth of the helical gear (Gb1) comprises a tooth surface profile (Gr1), wherein the tooth surface profile (Gr1) comprises a series of peaks disposed along a line in a ripple direction, and a series of valleys disposed along a line in the ripple direction wherein the tooth surface profile forms a meshing line during meshing with another gear, wherein the helical gear (Gb1) has predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold, and wherein an angle from parallel between the line in the ripple direction and the meshing line during the meshing with the other gear (“…Fig(3)(a) is a diagram showing a meshing state of a drive gear and a driven gear, and (b) is a diagram for explaining a meshing line and a meshing advancing direction in the case of a helical gear …”) greater than 20 degrees (∑, see fig 4a) such that an actual noise sound pressure level of the helical gear is less than the predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold (see translation “… by using a helical gear as the workpiece W2, it is possible to make the direction in which the grinding streaks Gr_W2 extend substantially coincide with the mesh advancing direction D_La. Therefore, it is possible to reduce the noise generated in the meshing of the helical gears…”).
Yoshinaga does not explicitly disclose that the series of peaks caused by vibration of machining tool (see [0034]) and the series of valleys caused by the vibration of the machine tool. Stadtfed shows the series of peaks (LC) caused by vibration of machining tool and the series of valleys (F) caused by the vibration of the machine tool (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have peaks and valleys at an angle to improve contact surface and prevent slippage.
Regarding claim 2: Yoshinaga shows wherein a difference between the actual noise sound pressure level and the predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold increases with an increase of the angle (see translation “…Grinding streaks Gr_W2 to be formed are formed in a direction inclined by a predetermined angle Σ with respect to the tooth trace direction D_Tr. In particular, the extending direction of the grinding streak Gr_W2 that is formed coincides with the mesh advancing direction D_La on the tooth surface of the workpiece W2. That is, the predetermined angle Σ is set to the angle formed by the tooth trace direction D_Tr of the tooth surface of the driven gear Gb (shown in FIG. 3) serving as the workpiece W2 and the mesh advancing direction D_La of the drive gear Ga serving as the mating gear. ing. As a result, meshing noise can be reduced…”).
Regarding claim 4: Yoshinaga shows wherein the angle from coincident between the line in the ripple direction and the meshing line is greater than 25 degrees (see fig 4a).
Regarding claim 5: Yoshinaga shows wherein the helical gear is of a gear honing type or a gear grinding type ([0016, fig 1]).
Regarding claim 6: Yoshinaga shows a machining method of a helical gear (Gb1), comprising:
providing a machining tool (T);
providing a helical gear blank (W);
machining the helical gear blank (W) with the machining tool (T) to form a helical gear, wherein each tooth of the helical gear comprises a tooth surface profile, wherein the tooth surface profile comprises a series of peaks and disposed along a line in a ripple direction (the griding steak Gr-W2 direction) and disposed along a line in the ripple direction wherein the tooth surface profile forms a meshing line (D_La) during meshing with another gear, wherein the helical gear (Gb1) has a predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold,
and wherein an angle from parallel between the line in the ripple direction and the meshing line during the meshing with the other gear (“…Fig(3)(a) is a diagram showing a meshing state of a drive gear and a driven gear, and (b) is a diagram for explaining a meshing line and a meshing advancing direction in the case of a helical gear …”) is greater than 20 degrees such so that an actual noise sound pressure level of the helical gear is less than the predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold (see translation “… by using a helical gear as the workpiece W2, it is possible to make the direction in which the grinding streaks Gr_W2 extend substantially coincide with the mesh advancing direction D_La. Therefore, it is possible to reduce the noise generated in the meshing of the helical gears…”).
Yoshinaga does not explicitly disclose that the series of peaks caused by vibration of machining tool (see [0034]) and the series of valleys caused by the vibration of the machine tool. Stadtfed shows the series of peaks (LC) caused by vibration of machining tool and the series of valleys (F) caused by the vibration of the machine tool (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have peaks and valleys at an angle to improve contact surface and prevent slippage.
Regarding claim 7: Yoshinaga shows wherein a difference between the actual noise sound pressure level and the predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold increases with an increase of the angle ([0036], [0037], figs 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 8: Yoshinaga shows wherein, the machining tool comprises a body and a series of inclined cutter teeth arranged on a circumferential surface of the body, and the series of inclined cutter teeth form a first predetermined angle with respect to a first central axis of the body,
the helical gear blank comprises a second central axis,
the machining method comprises inclining the machining tool to make the first central axis of the machining tool form a second predetermined angle with the second central axis of the helical gear blank (“… the grinding streaks Gr_W2 are formed in a direction inclined by a predetermined angle Σ with respect to the tooth trace direction D_Tr of the tooth surface of the workpiece W2. However, although the grinding streaks Gr_W2 are not straight lines but consist of arcs with a large number of small angles...”, figs 17A and 17B).
Regarding claim 9: Yoshinaga shows wherein the first predetermined angle and the second predetermined angle are selected so that a sum of the first predetermined angle and the second predetermined angle is equal to a spiral angle of the helical gear (“…The combined crossed axes angle θ2 is an angle obtained by combining the reference crossed axes angle θ1 and the corrected crossed axes angle Δθ…”), and the actual noise sound pressure level of the helical gear is smaller than the predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold at the same time (“…Grinding streaks Gr_W2 to be formed are formed in a direction inclined by a predetermined angle Σ with respect to the tooth trace direction D_Tr. In particular, the extending direction of the grinding streak Gr_W2 that is formed coincides with the mesh advancing direction D_La on the tooth surface of the workpiece W2. That is, the predetermined angle Σ is set to the angle formed by the tooth trace direction D_Tr of the tooth surface of the driven gear Gb (shown in FIG. 3) serving as the workpiece W2 and the mesh advancing direction D_La of the drive gear Ga serving as the mating gear. ing. As a result, meshing noise can be reduced…”).
Regarding claim 11: Yoshinaga shows wherein the angle from parallel between the line in the ripple direction of the helical gear and the meshing line is greater than 25 degrees (fig 4a).
Regarding claim 12: Yoshinaga shows wherein the machining tool is a gear honing tool or a gear grinding tool (fig 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant Yoshinaga explicitly provides that the grinding streaks (Gr_W2) are in a direction that is "inclined at a predetermined angle (Σ) with respect to the tooth trace direction (D_Tr).
The trace line direction is parallel to the horizontal line therefore the angle is still ∑ representing the angle between the meshing line and the horizontal line,
Yoshinaga does not disclose the claimed angle or offset from parallel in any respect, and in
fact suggests the opposite - substantial coincidence. Yoshinaga provides only that the
direction of the grinding streaks (Gr_W2) (analogous to line S (the ripple direction) of the
claimed invention) substantially coincides with the mesh advancing direction (D-La)
(analogous to line L (the meshing line) of the claimed invention). Thus, Yoshinaga provides
substantial coincidence, not an offset from parallel (of greater than 20 degrees or otherwise), as is claimed. Yoshinaga teaches the opposite - teaching away from an offset from parallel, as a situation to be purposefully avoided.
Figure 9(c) shows the ripple direction (Gr_W2) and meshing line (D_La), both lines have angle ∑, reads on the limitation wherein an angle from parallel between the lines (Gr_W2 and D_La ) in the ripple direction and the meshing line (D_La) during the meshing with the other gear is greater than 20 degrees (∑) such that an actual noise sound pressure level of the helical gear is less than the predetermined noise sound pressure level threshold.
PNG
media_image1.png
725
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
851
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [CN 114483914] also shows peaks lines see fig 1s in angle with meshing lines.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights