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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/22/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “The invention relates to…” in line 1 is language which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “14° and 16.” which appears to be a typographical error. An appropriate correction would be - -14° and 16°. - -
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are 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 1 recites “designed as” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the limitations following “designed as” are required by the claim or not.
Claim 1 recites “globoid-like toothing” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what “globoid-like” means, and what toothing is required by the claims cannot be determined.
Claim 1 recites “the height of the other teeth of the worm” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, there is no antecedent basis for the terms “the height” or “the other teeth” and the heights and teeth required by the claims cannot be determined.
Claim 2 recites “one tooth or a plurality of teeth with a lower tooth height compared to teeth…” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, there are already two different sets of teeth claimed each having a different height, and it is unclear if the teeth defined in claim 2 are the same teeth or different teeth, and how their heights are related to the other teeth claimed.
Claims 2 and 3 use reference numeral (200) to refer to the worm, while claim 1 referenced the worm with (100) and the worm wheel (200). The lack of consistency in the use of reference characters renders the claims indefinite, as the gear being further defined by the claim limitations cannot be determined.
Claim 4 recites “at least an approximate radius” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what is considered “an approximate radius” and how this differs from the alternatively claimed “first radius”.
Claim 5 recites “the toothing of the worm between root circle and the tip circle” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. The language appears to be referencing a selection of the teeth of the worm, however all of the teeth exist between the root circle and tip circles.
Claim 5 recites “designed at least in sections” which is generally unclear and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the limitations following “designed as” are required, and it is further unclear what is required by “at least in sections”.
Claim 6 recites “the tooth tips” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 6 recites “designed to be rounded” which is unclear for the reasons given above.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation 13° and 17°, and the claim also recites 14° and 16 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “at least partially, preferably completely” which is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. The composition of the worm gear required by the claims cannot be determined.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation 10mm to 30mm, and the claim also recites 16mm to 20mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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. Additionally, the term “designed to be” makes it unclear if the worm is required to be asymmetrical.
Claim 12 recites “the ratio of tooth thickness” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 13 recites “a worm for use in a helical gear unit according to claim 1” where claim 1 already defines “a worm”. It is unclear how many worms are required by the claim. The recitation of “a worm” in claim 14 is likewise unclear.
Claim 14 recites “the tip region” and “the edge region” which lack antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Popov (USPN 4,047,449).
Popov discloses a helical gear unit (10) for an auxiliary drive, in particular for a steering gear of a motor vehicle, having: a worm (1) with helical toothing that is designed as globoid toothing or as globoid-like 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 its two axial edge regions (see Fig. 1), teeth (see Fig. 1) having a lower tooth height (Column 3, lines 55-61) compared to the height (see Fig. 1) of the other 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 (as best understood, 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); characterized in that the toothing of the worm has a root circle (teeth of worm 1 would necessarily have a root circle) having a first radius or at least an approximate 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; characterized in that the worm is designed to be 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 characterized in that 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).
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) 5-6, 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 the claimed invention, except for that the toothing of the worm between root circle and the tip circle is designed at least in sections with a concave tooth flank or that the tooth tips of the worm are designed to be rounded.
Shiino discloses worm teeth having a concave tooth flank (Fig. 5 at 23) and tooth tips (Fig. 5 at 22) that are designed to be 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 concave flanks and rounded tips, in order to increase the load capacity of the gear, as taught by Shiino (Paragraph [0034] lines 3-6).
Claim(s) 7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov (USPN 4,047,449) in view of Appleyard (USPN 6,491,131).
Popov discloses the claimed invention, except for an engagement angle of the helical gear unit is between 13° and 17°, preferably between 14° and 16°.
As best understood, 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 Popov to have a pressure angle between 14° and 16°, as the selection of a known pressure angle for a suitable intended use only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8-9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov (USPN 4,047,449).
Popov 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 Popov 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, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov (USPN 4,047,449).
Popov 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 Popov 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).
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 provide tip clearance during meshing of the gears.
Conclusion
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