DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 2-3, the phrase “rolling test of toothed components; and gearing measurement of at least a subset of the toothed components” should read as “conducting a rolling test of toothed components; and conducting a gearing measurement of at least a subset of the toothed components”
In claim 15, lines 2-3, the phrase “wherein a gear cutting machine for the hard finishing of toothed components” should read as “wherein the production system further includes a gear cutting machine for the hard finishing of toothed components”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Landvogt et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0277610 A1, hereinafter Landvogt).
Regarding claim 1, Landvogt teaches a method (see Fig. 5, device 10 for conducting method shown; see also Abstract; see also [0053]-[0054], discussion of testing method steps) including the following steps: conducting a rolling test of toothed components (see [0053], toothed components 13/14 undergo initial rolling test including structure-born noise testing); and conducting a gearing measurement of at least a subset of the toothed components (see [0054], single-flank working test (gearing measurement) was conducted for the toothed components 13/14, wherein Examiner considers that the phrase “measuring at least a subset” includes measuring all of the toothed components); wherein a measurement requirement and a scope of the gearing measurement are determined on a component-specific basis in dependence on a result of the rolling test (see [0053]-[0054], the initial rolling test determines the measurement requirement (the single-flank working requirement) and the scope (range of installation positions during testing) for the single-flank working test for the specific components 13/14 as described).
Regarding claim 2, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Landvogt teaches that a rolling test is carried out for each toothed component (see [0053], rolling test carried out for each toothed component 13/14).
Regarding claim 3, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Landvogt teaches that a number of the toothed components for which the rolling test is carried out is larger than a number of the toothed components for which the gearing measurement is carried out (see Fig. 5, [0053]-[0054], and [0039], wherein one of the toothed components 13 may be a master wheel, such that the rolling test (structure-born test) is conducted for both the test component 14 and the master component 13 utilizing noise sensor 20, however, the single-flank test would only be conducted for the test component 14).
Regarding claim 12, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furtehrmore, Landvogt teaches that the rolling test is performed using the rolling test bench (see Fig. 5, rolling test bench 10 shown); and the gearing is measured using a coordinate measuring machine (see Fig. 5 and [0053]-[0054], gearing test (single-flank working test) uses coordinate measuring machine 19 as shown and described).
Regarding claim 14, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Landvogt teaches a production system (see Fig. 5, [0003], and [0039], measurement system 10, wherein the Examiner considers that measurement system 10 is part of a production or manufacturing system), having a rolling test bench (12) for testing toothed components (13/14); having a gear measuring machine (23/24) for measuring toothed components (13/14); having a control device (30), wherein the control device (30) is set up to control the production system (10) for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landvogt.
Regarding claim 10, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Landvogt fails to specifically teach that corrections for the hard finishing process are determined on the basis of the results of the rolling test and/or the results of the gearing measurement.
However, Landvogt does teach that the gears and gear pairs are tested for manufacturing quality (see [0020]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Landvogt such that corrections for the hard finishing process were determined based on the quality measurements of Landvogt. This is because it is well known in the art of quality testing to conduct an iterative process whereby manufacturing processes are modified based on quality testing.
Regarding claim 13, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Landvogt above fails to specifically teach that the toothed components are hard-finished before the rolling test, wherein the hard finishing is carried out using a gear cutting machine.
However, Landvogt does teach that the gears and gear pairs are tested for manufacturing quality (see [0020]) for vehicle gears (see [0075]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Landvogt such that the testing was conducted on hard-finished gears formed via gear cutting machines. This is because it is well known in the art of gear or toothed component production to hard-finish the gears vis a gear cutting machine such that the final hardness of the gear may be precisely controlled.
Regarding claim 15, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Landvogt above fails to specifically teach that the production system further includes a gear cutting machine for the hard finishing of toothed components.
However, Landvogt does teach that the gears and gear pairs are tested for manufacturing quality (see [0020]) for vehicle gears (see [0075]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method and system of Landvogt such that the testing was conducted for hard-finished gears formed via gear cutting machines. This is because it is well known in the art of gear or toothed component production to hard-finish the gears vis a gear cutting machine such that the final hardness of the gear may be precisely controlled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 11 are 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 claims 4-9 and 11, Landvogt above represents the best art of record. However, Landvogt fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claims 4, 5, and 11.
Regarding claim 4, Landvogt above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Landvogt teaches and wherein for a toothed component whose result of the rolling test does not meet the specified quality requirements of the rolling test, there is a need for measurement and a gearing measurement is carried out (see [0049], if the toothed component fails the initial rolling test (SBNT), no further measurements are conducted).
However, Landvogt fails to critically teach that for a toothed component whose result of the rolling test meets specified quality requirements of the rolling test, there is no need for measurement and no gearing measurement is carried out.
Regarding claim 5, Landvogt fails to teach that deviations determined using the rolling test are provided as an order spectrum, wherein individual orders and/or order ranges of the order spectrum are assigned test features of the gearing, such as runout errors; wobble; pitch errors of the first order and/or higher orders; surface waviness, and errors of the flank shape.
Regarding claim 11, Landvogt fails to teach an end-of-line test is carried out for a respective toothed component after the gearing measurement using an end-of line test bench, wherein the end-of line test bench is a gear test bench, or the end-of-line test of the gearing is carried out for a respective toothed component after the rolling test and without preceding gearing measurement using the end-of line test bench.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claims 4, 5, and 11 and the examiner can find no teachings for a method as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights