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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 11 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 11 recites “designed to be asymmetrical” which is generally unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, there is no reference geometry to define a plane or axis by which the worm is considered asymmetrical.
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) 1, 3, 11 and 12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov (USPN 4,047,449) in view of Shiino (US 2009/0120711).
Popov discloses a helical gear unit (10) for an auxiliary drive, comprising: a worm (1) with globoid toothing, a worm wheel (2) that is in meshing engagement with the worm, characterized in that the toothing of the worm has, in at least one of two axial edge regions (see Fig. 1), teeth (see Fig. 1) having a tooth height (Column 3, lines 55-61) which is less than a height (see Fig. 1) of a remainder of the teeth of the worm; characterized in that the worm has at its two axial edge regions (see Fig. 1) one tooth or a plurality of teeth (see Fig. 1, teeth at each end of worm 1) with a lower tooth height (Column 3, lines 55-61) compared to teeth (see Fig. 1, teeth at center of worm 1) arranged in the center of the worm; characterized in that the worm has a center region or edge region that has a cylindrical envelope or a cylindrical region (see ends of worm 1 in figure 1, considered a cylindrical region); the toothing of the worm has a root circle (teeth of worm 1 would necessarily have a root circle) having a first radius and a tip circle (circle passing through the tips of worm 1s teeth, as the teeth reduce in height, the tip circle necessarily becomes larger) having a second radius, wherein an imaginary center of the root circle is closer (the center of the root circle would necessarily be closer to the center axis of the worm than the tip circle, as the tip circle would have a larger radius due to the height of the teeth reducing towards the outsides of the worm, see Fig. 1) to a center axis (W1) of the worm than an imaginary center of the tip circle; the worm is asymmetrical (as best understood, there are an infinite number of reference planes bisecting the worm in which the two portions of the worm would be asymmetrical); and the ratio of tooth thickness of the worm to tooth thickness of the worm wheel is in the range of approximately 20:80 to 50:50 (as best understood, see Fig. 1, the thickness of the teeth can be considered in the range of 1:4 to 1:1).
Popov does not disclose that the tooth tips of the worm are rounded.
Shiino discloses worm teeth having tooth tips (Fig. 5 at 22) that are rounded.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant was filed to have modified the worm teeth of Popov to have rounded tooth tips, in order to reduce stress concentrations during meshing.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Popov (USPN 4,047,449) and Shiino (US 2009/0120711) and further in view of Appleyard (USPN 6,491,131).
The combination of Popov and ShiIno discloses the claimed invention, except for an engagement angle of the helical gear unit is between 13° and 17°.
Appleyard discloses an engagement angle of 14° (pressure angle, column 7, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the helical gear unit of the combination of Popov and Shiino to have a pressure angle between 13° and 17°, as the selection of a known pressure angle for a suitable intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Popov (USPN 4,047,449) and Shiino (US 2009/0120711).
The combination of Popov and Shiino discloses the claimed invention, except for the worm being made of free-cutting steel, or the worm wheel being made from plastic.
The selection of a known material suitable for a particular purpose is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the combination of Popov and Shiino to have the worm be made from free-cutting steel and the worm wheel made from plastic, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Popov (USPN 4,047,449) and Shiino (US 2009/0120711).
The combination of Popov and Shiino discloses the claimed invention, except for the worm wheel has a gear rim width of approximately 10 mm to 30 mm, preferably 16 mm to 20 mm.
The sizing of a gear suitable for a given intended use is a simple matter of engineering design and is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the worm gear of the combination of Popov and Shiino to have a gear rim width within the claimed range, as selecting the width of the rim of a gear based on its suitability for an intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14-15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov (USPN 4,047,449) in view of Shiino (US 2009/0120711).
Popov discloses a method for producing the worm according to claim 13, having the following method steps:- providing a rod-shaped worm blank (Column 2, line 67); - creating a circumferential concave recess (see Fig. 1, recess of globoid worm) having a radius R, the radius center of which is selected so that the teeth (120) in the center of the worm are produced with full height (see Fig. 1) and the teeth at the edge of the worm are produced with reduced height (see Fig. 1); and - adding globoid-type toothing (Column 2, line 67- Column 3 line 1) to the concave recess having a root circle radius (see Fug, 1) that is smaller than the radius (see Fig. 1); and the toothing of the worm has a root circle (teeth of worm 1 would necessarily have a root circle) having a first radius and a tip circle (circle passing through the tips of worm 1s teeth, as the teeth reduce in height, the tip circle necessarily becomes larger) having a second radius, wherein an imaginary center of the root circle is closer (the center of the root circle would necessarily be closer to the center axis of the worm than the tip circle, as the tip circle would have a larger radius due to the height of the teeth reducing towards the outsides of the worm, see Fig. 1) to a center axis (W1) of the worm than an imaginary center of the tip circle.
Popov does not disclose that the worm blank is made of metal.
The selection of a known material suitable for particular purpose is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the manufacturing method of Popov to have the worm blank to be made from metal, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Popov does not disclose the method step of rounding at least the tip region of the teeth arranged in the edge region of the worm or that all teeth of the worm are rounded at their tips.
Shiino discloses worm teeth having being manufactured by a step rounding the tips of the teeth (see Fig. 5 at 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the manufacturing method of Popov to have a step rounding the tips of the gear teeth, in order to reduce stress concentrations during meshing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Popov has a constant gap width and therefore does not disclose the claimed geometric relationship.
This was not persuasive, as the claims do not define a non-constant gap width, and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Popov discloses the claimed geometric relationship (see rejection above). Applicant’s arguments do not specifically address how the toothing of the worm of Popov and its associated tip and root circle radii differ from the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 JAKE COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (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 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.
JAKE COOK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
