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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 states, “The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the machine bed is a single structural unit.” Disclosure for this claim; however, is not provided for in the specification or in the drawings.
Regarding the specification filed on 1/7/2022, at no point therein does Applicant actually disclose the machine bed (100) as being “a single structural unit.” Noting this, Applicant discloses the machine bed (100) as comprising each of a horizontal portion (110) and a vertical portion (120) in at least lines 1-4 of page 15 of the specification. Applicant; however, never goes as far as to disclose in the specification the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical potion (120) being formed as, for example, “a single structural unit.”
Noting the above, Examiner cannot eliminate the possibility that the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are two separate pieces that are attached/joined to one another. (Please note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration). Please be advised that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. That being said, there isn’t anything to indicate that the machine bed (100) has to be “a single structural unit” as opposed to, for example, a structural unit that is formed of multiple, separate pieces attached/ joined to one another. Based on the foregoing, the specification as filed on 1/7/2022 does not provide disclosure for, “wherein the machine bed is a single structural unit.”
Next, attention is directed to the drawings filed on 1/7/2022. As can be seen in Figure 3 thereof, the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching. That said, it is apparent in Figure 3 that the Z slide/tool carrier (300) has the same cross-hatching as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). There is no dispute though, that the Z slide/tool carrier (300) is a separate element from the machine bed (100) and from the vertical (120) and horizontal portions (110) thereof. Noting this, the Z slide/tool carrier (300) having the same cross-hatching (see Figure 3) as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) is an indicator that elements that are shown in the drawings as having the same cross-hatching does not necessarily mean that those elements are all part of the same single structural unit. Thus, just because the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching as one another, doesn’t necessarily mean that these portions (110, 120) are integral with one another such that the machine bed (100) is “a single structural unit.” While the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) having the same cross-hatching as one another might be an indicator that it is likely, for example, that the machine bed (100) is a single structural unit, it is reiterated that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. In other words, there isn’t anything in the drawings filed on 1/7/2022 to indicate that the machine bed (100) has to be “a single structural unit” as opposed to, for example, a machine bed (100) in which the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) thereof are two separate pieces that are attached/joined to one another and this joint is simply not shown/picked up in the cross-section. (Please note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration). Based on the foregoing, the drawings as filed on 1/7/2022 do not provide disclosure for, “wherein the machine bed is a single structural unit.”
Since neither the drawings nor the specification are in agreement with or provide support for the claimed subject matter, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Line 3 of claim 30 states therein, “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion.” Disclosure for this claim; however, is not provided for in the specification or in the drawings.
Regarding the specification filed on 1/7/2022, Applicant discloses the machine bed (100) as comprising each of a horizontal portion (110) and a vertical portion (120) in at least lines 1-4 of page 15 of the specification. At no point within the specification though, does Applicant actually disclose “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion” (emphasis added).
Noting the above, Examiner cannot eliminate the possibility that the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are two separate pieces that are attached/joined to one another in some manner such that there is allowed slight movement of the vertical portion (120) with respect to the horizontal portion (110), for example, so as to enable adjustments to be made so as to ensure the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are balanced as is required. (Please note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration). Please be advised that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. That being said, there isn’t anything in the specification filed on 1/7/2022 to indicate that the vertical portion (120) has to be immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110), as opposed to, for example, the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) being two separate pieces attached/joined to one another and said vertical portion (120) able to incur slight movement with respect to the horizontal portion (110) so as to enable adjustments to be made so as to ensure the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are balanced and/or leveled as is required. Based on the foregoing, the specification as filed on 1/7/2022 does not provide disclosure for, “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion.”
Next, attention is directed to the drawings filed on 1/7/2022. As can be seen in Figure 3 thereof, the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching. That said, it is apparent in Figure 3 that the Z slide/tool carrier (300) has the same cross-hatching as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). There is no dispute though, that the Z slide/tool carrier (300) is a separate element from the machine bed (100) and from the vertical (120) and horizontal portions (110) thereof. Noting this, the Z slide/tool carrier (300) having the same cross-hatching (see Figure 3) as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) is an indicator that elements that are shown in the drawings as having the same cross-hatching does not necessarily mean that those elements are all part of the same single structural unit. This is noted, because if the vertical portion (120) and horizontal portion (110) were indeed part of the same single structural unit, then the vertical portion (120), for example, would be rendered immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110). Thus, just because the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching as one another in Figure 3, doesn’t necessarily mean that these portions (110, 120) are integral with one another such that the vertical portion (120) is immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110). While the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) having the same cross-hatching as one another might be an indicator that it is likely, for example, that the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) are part of a same single structural unit such that the vertical portion (120) is immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110), it is reiterated that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. In other words, there isn’t anything in the drawings filed on 1/7/2022 to indicate that the vertical portion (120) has to be immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110), as opposed to, for example, the vertical portion (120) and horizontal portion (110) are two separate pieces attached/joined to one another in some manner such that there is allowed slight movement of the vertical portion (120) with respect to the horizontal portion (110) so as to enable adjustments to be made so as to ensure the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are balanced and/or leveled as is required. (Please note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration). As such, the drawings as filed on 1/7/2022 do not provide disclosure for, “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion.”
Since neither the drawings nor the specification are in agreement with or provide support for the claimed subject matter, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, Examiner suggests to Applicant the following amendment: “the vertical portion extending vertically upward from the horizontal portion.”
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 1-5, 8, 10, 11, and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weppelmann (Germany Publication No. DE 102017011978 A1) in view of Meuschel (UK Patent Application No. GB 2271945 A), and further in view of Gao (China Publication No. CN 101011797 A).
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Weppelmann that was previously provided on 4/7/2025 is relied upon below.
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Weppelmann shows a machine tool (100) for machining of rotary parts with groove-shaped profiles by a generating method [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0051]. Figure 1 of Weppelmann further shows the machine tool (100) as comprising a machine bed (90) and a workpiece spindle (80) configured to clamp a workpiece thereon [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0051] and configured to drive the workpiece to rotate about a workpiece axis (C1).
Next, Examiner has annotated Figure 1 and provided it below. Please note that in annotating Figure 1, Examiner has re-designated the X1, Y1, Y2, and Y3 directions. Thus, what was previously shown by Weppelmann as the Y1 direction, has now been re-designated as the X1 direction (to correspond to the present claim language). Also, what was previously shown within Figure 1 as the X1 direction has now been re-designated as the Y1 direction (to correspond to the present claim language). For the sake of consistency, what was previously shown within Figure 1 as the Y2 direction is now the X2 direction and likewise what was previously shown in Figure 1 as the Y3 direction is now the X3 direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please be advised that with the above re-designation, Examiner is not making any structural modifications to the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann. Rather, Examiner is only re-designating the foregoing directions of the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann such that discussion of the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann is easier to follow.
As can be seen above, the machine bed (90) is formed as a horizontal bed on which is disposed a vertically-oriented column (72). Noting this, it can be seen above in annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann that the machine tool (100) further comprises two mutually parallel Z linear guides that are disposed on the vertically-oriented column (72). Please be advised that the parallel Z linear guides are “fixedly connected” (as is broadly claimed) to the machine bed (90) via the vertically-oriented column (72). Please be advised that claim 1 does not set forth any requirement as to how or in what way that the claimed parallel Z linear guides are to be “fixedly connected” to the claimed machine tool. Also, claim 1 as currently presented does not preclude an interpretation of Weppelmann in which the parallel Z linear guides are considered to be “fixedly connected” to the machine bed (90) via the intervening vertically-oriented column (72).
As can also been above, in addition to the workpiece spindle (80), the machine tool (100) comprises a Z slide (74) that is guided on the parallel Z linear guides and that is linearly displaceable in a Z direction (Z1) relative to the machine bed (90). The machine tool (100) of Weppelmann further comprises an X slide (76) that is arranged on the Z slide (74) and that is linearly displaceable in the aforesaid X direction (X1).
Weppelmann though, does not disclose “a Y slide linearly displaceable in a Y direction relative to the machine bed,” wherein the workpiece spindle (80) is “arranged on the Y slide.” Please be advised that the workpiece axis (C1) is arranged transversely to a Y direction (Y1). Please also be advised that a tool head (78) (which carries a machining tool (S)) is mounted to the X slide (76) and is displaceable in the Y direction (Y1) toward the workpiece spindle (80).
Figure 1 of Meuschel, though, shows a machine tool for machining a workpiece having a workpiece support (10), and a tool support (9) with a tool mounted thereon. As can be seen in Figure 1, the tool support (9) contains a motor (6.1) and a headstock (5). Via the motor (6.1), the headstock may be displaced in a horizontal machining direction, as well as opposite thereto, along the Z-axis. Regarding the workpiece support (10), it contains a lower slide (2), an upper slide (8), and a motor (6.3). During machining, a workpiece to be processed/machined is disposed on the upper slide (8). Via a motor (6.3), the lower (2) and upper slides (8) can be driven together along the W-axis on guides (7.3) which extend in the W-axis. As Figure 1 of Meuschel illustrates, the W and Z-axes run parallel to one another. With this configuration, the tool and workpiece can simultaneously be driven toward one another, thereby doubling the relative velocities of the tool and workpiece [Meuschel, page 3, lines 18-27], which results in productivity being intensified [Meuschel, page 1, lines 21-24].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the workpiece spindle (80) of Weppelmann to be mounted upon the lower slide (2) and guides (7.3) of Meuschel so as to be displaceable through actuation of the motor (6.3) of Meuschel along the Y direction (Y1) of Weppelmann, in accordance with the teachings of Meuschel, so as provide the advantage of intensifying productivity by doubling relative velocities of the machining tool (S) and the workpiece. By making this modification, productivity can be intensified/increased, because the time spent driving the machining tool (S) and tool head (78) along the Y-axis toward the workpiece and the workpiece spindle (80) (which is now mounted on the lower slide (2) and the guides (7.3) of Meuschel) may be halved. Please be advised that the lower slide (2) will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the Y lower slide (2)” while the guides (7.3) will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the Y linear guides (7.3).” Also, the Y lower slide (2) is linearly displaceable in the Y direction (Y1) on the Y linear guides (7.3) relative to the machine bed (90) by actuating the motor (6.3) in the modified machine tool (100).
Also, in making the above modification to the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann, the workpiece spindle (80) is arranged on the lower Y slide (2) and is configured to clamp the workpiece thereon and configured to drive the workpiece to rotate about the workpiece axis (C1). Next, it is reiterated that the workpiece axis (C1) extends transversely to the Y direction (Y1). Noting this, Examiner has again annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann and provided it below.
PNG
media_image2.png
431
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, Examiner illustrates therein a “center plane” defined by the workpiece axis (C1) and the Y direction (Y1). Noting this, the Z direction (Z1) runs parallel to the center plane defined by the Y direction (Y1) and the workpiece axis (C1). In doing so, it is noted that the Z direction (Z1) extends at an angle of less than 45° to the workpiece axis (C1). (For Applicant’s reference, please be advised that the center plane is centered with respect to the aforesaid X direction (X1) such that the center plane is centrally located between, for example, the two mutually parallel linear Z linear guides along which the Z slide (74) is linearly displaceable).
Next, it is reiterated that the machine tool (100) further comprises an X slide (76) that is arranged on the Z slide (74) and that is linearly displaceable in the aforesaid X direction (X1) relative to the Z slide (74). With regards to the X direction (X1), it extends perpendicular to the center plane (please see annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann on the previous page).
Next, the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann has a controller configured to establish a positive coupling (see Figure 10) between a rotation of the generating machining tool and a rotation of the workpiece [EPO Machine Translation of Weppelmann, paragraphs 0018, 0051, 0078].
Regarding the tool head (78), it (78) carries a tool spindle/direct drive that is configured to drive the generating machining tool (S) about a tool axis (B1) [EPO Machine Translation of Weppelmann, paragraph 0052]. Please note that the tool spindle is arranged on the X slide (76) via the tool head (78). As a result of this setup, Weppelmann does not provide disclosure upon the tool spindle “being pivotable relative to the X slide about a first swivel axis.”
Figure 1 of Gao though, shows therein a tool head comprising a tool spindle (17) that is pivotable about a first swivel axis. Please be advised that the tool spindle (17) is pivotable about the first swivel axis by way of an adjustment mechanism having an A-drive motor (7), a threaded spindle (11), a spindle nut (10), a first pair of connecting rods (12), brackets (14), a second pair of connecting rods (15), and a third pair of connecting rods (16). As a result of this setup of Gao, the tool spindle (17) of Gao is able to be pivoted into a plurality of different orientations for machining of a workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the tool head (78) of Weppelmann with the tool head of Gao, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the advantage of having a tool head in which the tool spindle (17) thereof is able to be pivoted into a plurality of different orientations for engagement with and machining of a supplied workpiece.
In making the above modification, please be advised that by virtue of being connected to the X slide (76) of Weppelmann via the tool head of Gao, in the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann, the tool spindle (17) (of Gao) is pivotable about the first swivel axis relative to the X slide (76) (of Weppelmann) by means of the corresponding adjustment mechanism. For Applicant’s reference, it is noted that the first swivel axis extends parallel to X direction (X1) of Weppelmann. Based on the foregoing, the limitation corresponding to, “the tool spindle [17] being arranged on the X slide [76] and being pivotable relative to the X slide [76] about a first swivel axis” is satisfied.
Claim 2: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the tool head (78) of Weppelmann replaced the tool head of Gao, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the advantage of having a tool head in which the tool spindle (17) thereof is able to be pivoted into a plurality of different orientations for engagement with and machining of a supplied workpiece. For Applicant’s reference, Examiner has tried to illustrate in the below figure (see next page) as to how the tool head of Gao is replacing the tool head (78) of Weppelmann. In doing so, the tool head of Gao is mounted to the X slide (76) of Weppelmann such that the first pivot axis, as well as second and third pivot axes of Gao, each extend parallel to, for example, the X direction (X1) in the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann.
PNG
media_image3.png
348
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above within the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann, the first swivel axis extends perpendicular to the center plane. Also, the tool axis, which is the axis about which the tool spindle (17) drives rotation, extends perpendicular to the first swivel axis. Lastly, due to how the first, second, and third swivel axes extend, e.g. perpendicular to the center plane but parallel to the X direction (X1), the tool spindle (17) is pivotable about the first swivel axis in a swivel plane that extends parallel to said center plane.
Claim 3: Examiner now directs attention to annotated Figure 1 of Gao which has been provided on the following page. As can be seen therein, the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann (which again comprises the tool head of Gao) comprises two first swivel bearings for pivotably supporting the tool spindle (17). Please note that by virtue of replacing the tool head (78) of Weppelmann that was disposed on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann, the two first swivel bearings of the tool head of Gao are supported on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann about the first swivel axis. Note that the two first swivel bearings are arranged on opposing sides of the tool spindle (17) with respect to the swivel plane.
PNG
media_image4.png
682
525
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the tool head (78) of Weppelmann replaced the tool head of Gao, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the advantage of having a tool head in which the tool spindle (17) thereof is able to be pivoted into a plurality of different orientations for engagement with and machining of a supplied workpiece. Please note that by virtue of replacing the tool head (78) of Weppelmann that was disposed on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann, that the tool head of Gao is disposed on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann such that the tool spindle (17) of said tool head is pivotable about the first swivel axis relative to the X slide (76) by means of the corresponding adjustment mechanism.
With respect to the prior art and Gao, it is reiterated that in the tool head of Gao that the tool spindle (17) thereof is pivotable via the adjustment mechanism having the A-drive motor (7), threaded spindle (11), spindle nut (10), first pair of connecting rods (12), brackets (14), second pair of connecting rods (15), and third pair of connecting rods (16). Again, because the tool head of Gao is disposed on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann, the tool spindle (17) of said tool head is pivotable such that the orientation thereof is adjustable relative to said X slide (76) by means of said adjustment mechanism.
PNG
media_image3.png
348
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen above, since the tool head of Gao replaced the tool head (78) of Weppelmann in the modification described in claim 1, the adjusting mechanism of Gao is connected to the X slide (76) of Weppelmann so as to be pivotable about the second swivel axis, the second swivel axis extending parallel to the and spaced apart from the first swivel axis.
Likewise, the adjusting mechanism of Gao is connected to the tool spindle (17) so as to be pivotable about the third swivel axis, the third swivel axis extending parallel to and spaced apart from the first swivel axis and the second swivel axis.
Claim 5: Examiner now directs attention to annotated Figure 1 of Gao which has been provided below. As can be seen therein, the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann (which again comprises the tool head of Gao) comprises two second swivel bearings and further comprises two third swivel bearings for pivotably supporting the tool spindle (17).
PNG
media_image5.png
640
485
media_image5.png
Greyscale
By virtue of the tool head of Gao replacing the tool head (78) of Weppelmann that was disposed on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann, the two second swivel bearings and the two third swivel bearings of said tool head of Gao are each supported on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann. Thus, the two second swivel bearings of the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann pivotably support the adjustment mechanism on the X slide (76) about the second swivel axis. Also, the two third swivel bearings pivotably support the adjustment mechanism on the tool spindle (17) about the second swivel axis. Please note that the two second swivel bearings and the two third swivel bearings are each arranged on opposing sides of the tool spindle (17) with respect to the swivel plane.
Claim 8: Regarding the tool spindle (17), it has a first end that faces the tool and an opposing second end that face away from the tool. Please be advised that in the modified machine tool (17) of Weppelmann that the tool spindle (17) of Gao receives Weppelmann’s tool, which as was noted above within the rejection of claim 1, is a generating machining tool. As such, the generating machining tool of Weppelmann is clamped on the tool spindle (17) of Gao at the end that faces the tool. It is noted that Figure 2 of Weppelmann shows said generating machining tool. Referring to Figure 2 of Weppelmann, please be advised that the generating machining tool defines a tool reference plane that extends perpendicular to the tool axis about which the generating machining tool rotates. Next, Examiner has annotated Figure 1 of Gao and provided it below.
PNG
media_image6.png
665
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the first swivel axis intersects the tool axis between the first end of the tool spindle (17), e.g. the end that faces the tool, and the second end that faces away from the tool. Noting this, the first swivel axis and the tool reference plane extend at a first distance from another, while the first swivel axis and the third swivel axis extend at a second distance from one another. As a result of the second distance being greater in length than the first distance, the second distance and the first distance have a ratio greater than 1.
Claim 10: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the tool head (78) of Weppelmann replaced the tool head of Gao, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the advantage of having a tool head in which the tool spindle (17) thereof is able to be pivoted into a plurality of different orientations for engagement with and machining of a supplied workpiece. Note that by virtue of replacing the tool head (78) of Weppelmann that was disposed on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann, the tool head of Gao is disposed on the X slide (76) of Weppelmann such that the tool spindle (17) of said tool head is pivotable into the plurality of different orientations relative to said X slide (76) about the first swivel axis.
PNG
media_image3.png
348
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen below, the workpiece axis (C1) runs vertical in space. Noting this, Figures 1 and 2 of Gao show the tool spindle (17) being able to move into a positive orientation having a positive angle and into a negative orientation having a negative angle. As such, as it pertains to the modified machine tool (10) of Weppelmann, the tool spindle (17) is pivotable about the first swivel axis relative to the X slide (76) such an axis crossing angle between the tool axis and the workpiece axis (C1) is able to take on negative and positive values between, for example, a smallest negative value and a maximum positive value. Depending upon the given application, the smallest negative value and the maximum positive value can be selected for that particular application. +180° [EPO Machine Translation of Gao, paragraph 0011, lines 3-4] can be selected as maximum positive value in the given application, for example, whereas -90° [EPO Machine Translation of Gao, paragraph 0011, line 9] can be selected as smallest negative value in the given application, for example. In at least this scenario, the maximum positive value of the axis crossing angle is greater than an absolute value of the corresponding smallest negative value.
Claim 11: As can be seen below, the workpiece axis (C1) extends vertical in space.
PNG
media_image2.png
431
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 22 & 23: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, Examiner annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann. Please note that in annotating Figure 1, Examiner has re-designated the X1, Y1, Y2, and Y3 directions. Thus, what was previously shown by Weppelmann as the Y1 direction, has now been re-designated as the X1-direction (to correspond to the present claim language). Also, what was previously shown within Figure 1 as the X1 direction has now been re-designated as the Y1 direction (to correspond to the present claim language). For the sake of consistency, what was previously shown within Figure 1 as the Y2 direction is now the X2 direction and likewise what was previously shown in Figure 1 as the Y3 direction is now the X3 direction. Noting this, annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann is provided on the following page.
Please be advised that with the above re-designation, Examiner is not making any structural modifications to the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann. Rather, Examiner is only re-designating the foregoing directions of the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann such that discussion of machine tool (100) of Weppelmann is easier to follow.
PNG
media_image7.png
454
593
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above within annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann, in accordance with dependent claim 22, the (vertically extending) workpiece axis (C1) extends perpendicularly to the (horizontally extending) Y direction (Y1).
Furthermore, as can be seen above within annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann, in accordance with dependent claim 23, the (vertically extending) Z direction (Z1) extends parallel to the (vertically extending) workpiece axis (C1).
Claim 24: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 2 of Gao, the tool spindle (17) can be pivoted into an orientation such that the tool axis and the first swivel axis intersect one another.
PNG
media_image8.png
846
458
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 25: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1 of Gao, the two first swivel bearings are equidistant from the swivel plane.
PNG
media_image9.png
682
525
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 26: Please be advised that within the modified machine tool (17) of Weppelmann that the tool spindle (17) of Gao receives Weppelmann’s tool, which as was noted above within the rejection of claim 1, is a generating machining tool. As such, the generating machining tool of Weppelmann is clamped on the tool spindle (17) of Gao. It is noted that Figure 2 of Weppelmann shows said generating machining tool as being gear-shaped.
Claim 27: Please be advised that within the modified machine tool (17) of Weppelmann that the tool spindle (17) of Gao receives Weppelmann’s tool, which as was noted above within the rejection of claim 1, is a generating machining tool. As such, the generating machining tool of Weppelmann is clamped on the tool spindle (17) of Gao. It is noted that Figure 2 of Weppelmann shows said generating machining tool. Per Weppelmann, the generating machining tool is a gear skiving tool [EPO Machine Translation of Weppelmann, paragraphs 0061, 0063].
Claim 28: Please be advised that within the modified machine tool (17) of Weppelmann that the tool spindle (17) of Gao receives Weppelmann’s tool, which as was noted above within the rejection of claim 1, is a generating machining tool. As such, the generating machining tool of Weppelmann is clamped on the tool spindle (17) of Gao. It is noted that Figure 2 of Weppelmann shows said generating machining tool. As can be seen in Figure 2 of Weppelmann, the generating machining tool comprises a plurality of cutting edges (6) arranged at a distal end of the tool. It is noted that the tool reference plane, which extends perpendicular to the tool axis, extends through the plurality of cutting edges (6) of the tool.
Claim 29: Regarding the machine bed (90), it is a single structural unit.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weppelmann (Germany Publication No. DE 102017011978 A1) in view of Meuschel (UK Patent Application No. GB 2271945 A), in view of Gao (China Publication No. CN 101011797 A), and further in view of Watanabe (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0252789 A1).
Claim 9: Weppelmann does not provide disclosure on the machine tool (100) further comprising, “at least one vibration damper acting between the tool spindle and the X slide in order to damp vibrations of the tool spindle about the first swivel axis.” Having said that, it is reiterated from claim 1 (on which claim 9 directly depends) that it would have been obvious to have replaced the tool head (78) of Weppelmann with the tool head of Gao, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the advantage of having a tool head in which the tool spindle (17) thereof is able to be pivoted into a plurality of different orientations for engagement with and machining of a supplied workpiece. Please note that in the tool head of Gao that the tool spindle (17) thereof is pivotable via the adjustment mechanism comprising the A-drive motor (7), threaded spindle (11), and spindle nut (10). (These elements can be seen within Figures 1 and 2 of Gao).
Figure 1 of Watanabe though, shows a ball screw device (1) comprising a spindle nut (4) to which a stopper (14) is attached, a threaded spindle (3), a drive motor (5), and a damper (21). It is noted that the damper (21) and the stopper (14) are part of a brake (7). It is also noted that the drive motor (4) is received within a motor chamber (6) of a housing (2), and the damper (21) extends out from the motor chamber (6) and the housing (2) by means of a coupler (23) and a spring (24). Note that while one end of the coupler (23) is attached to the damper (21), an opposite end of the coupler (23) is attached to a brake plate (22) received within the motor chamber (6). With this setup, when the spindle nut (4) and stopper (14) move toward the damper (21), the stopper (14) first collides with the damper (21) thereby to move the damper (21) rightward against an urging force of the spring (24). The brake plate (22) which is coupled (integrated) to the damper (21) by the coupler (23) moves rightward in accordance with the rightward movement of the stopper (14), so that the damper (21) comes into contact with the left face of the rotor of the motor (11), without the collision of the stopper (14) with respect to the left bottom wall (6b) of the motor chamber (6), thereby to exert a braking force on the rotor of the motor (5). Accordingly, the rotation of the rotor of the motor (11) is braked, so that rotation speed of the rotor of the motor (5) is reduced. As a result, the rotation speed of the rotor of the motor (5) is gradually reduced by the brake (7), without the collision between the stopper (14) and the left bottom wall (6b) of the motor chamber (6). Hence, rotation inertia of the rotor of the motor (5) and the threaded spindle (3) to be exerted between the threaded spindle (3) and the spindle nut (4) is also gradually reduced. In this manner, formation of brinelling on the ball screw raceway of the threaded spindle (3) is prevented [Watanabe, paragraphs 0028-0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the tool head of Gao in the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the brake (7) (damper (21) and stopper (14)), spring (24), coupler (23), brake plate (22), and housing (2) of Watanabe, so as to provide the tool head in the modified machine tool (100) with advantage of being able to gradually reduce a rotation speed of the rotor of the drive motor (7) of said tool head in order to prevent the brinelling on the ball screw raceway of the threaded spindle (11) of said tool head.
In making the above modification, please note that the A-drive motor (7) in the modified machine tool (100) is receiving within the motor chamber (6) of the housing (2) of Watanabe. Moreover, in accordance with the disclosure of Watanabe, the stopper (14) of Watanabe is attached to the spindle nut (10) of the tool head of Gao in said modified machine tool (100). Moreover, in accordance with the disclosure of Watanabe, the damper (21) extends out from the motor chamber (6) and the housing (2) by means of the coupler (23) and the spring (24). Note that while one end of the coupler (23) is attached to the damper (21), the opposite end of the coupler (23) is attached to the brake plate (22) that is received within the motor chamber (6). Noting that the A-drive motor (7) provides for pivoting of the tool spindle (17) about at least the first swivel axis [EPO Machine Translation of Gao, paragraph 0021], by having provided the damper (21) of Watanabe in the above modification, a result is provided in which there is damping of vibrations of the tool spindle (17) about the first swivel axis. Please note that due to the location of the damper (21), wherein with respect to the Y direction (Y1) of the modified machine tool (100) the damper (21) is disposed “between” the X slide (76) and at least a distal end of the tool spindle (17), said damper (21) acts (as broadly claimed) “between” the tool spindle (17) and the X slide (76) so as to damp the vibrations of the tool spindle (17) about the first swivel axis. (Please note that claim 9 as presently constructed, doesn’t require the claimed “at least one vibration damper” to be embodied in any particular manner).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weppelmann (Germany Publication No. DE 102017011978 A1) in view of Meuschel (UK Patent Application No. GB 2271945 A), in view of Gao (China Publication No. CN 101011797 A), and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Claim 12: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann, the machine tool (100) comprises the two mutually parallel Z linear guides on which the Z slide (74) is guided in and along the Z direction (Z1) relative to the machine bed (90), the Z linear guides extending parallel to the Z direction (Z1) and being arranged on opposing sides of the center plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weppelmann though, does not disclose the machine tool (100) as further comprising “two Z drives for moving the Z slide along the Z direction relative to the machine bed, and wherein each of the Z drives is assigned to one of the Z linear guides.”
In the Office Action mailed on April 7, 2025 though, Examiner took Official Notice that use of two drives, e.g. two Z drives, for moving a slide, e.g. a Z slide, along a direction, e.g. a Z direction, relative to a machine bed of a machine tool wherein each of the two drives is assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Z linear guide, is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in controlled linear displacement of the slide along the two linear guides through actuation of the two drives, and thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with two Z drives for moving the Z slide (74) along the Z direction (Z1) relative to the machine bed (90), wherein each of said Z drives is assigned to one of the Z linear guides as is well-known, so as to provide controlled linear displacement of the Z slide (76) along the two Z linear guides through actuation of the two Z drives.
Note that this assertion {that use of two drives, e.g. two Z drives, for moving a slide, e.g. a Z slide, along a direction, e.g. a Z direction, relative to a machine bed of a machine tool wherein each of the two drives is assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Z linear guide, is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in controlled linear displacement of the slide along the two linear guides through actuation of the two drives} is taken to be applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) because Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner’s assertion. See MPEP section 2144.03, section C, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with two Z drives for moving the Z slide (74) along the Z direction (Z1) relative to the machine bed (90), wherein each of said Z drives is assigned to one of the Z linear guides as is well-known (as taught by AAPA), so as to provide controlled linear displacement of the Z slide (76) along the two Z linear guides through actuation of the two Z drives.
Claim 14: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, in the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann, the workpiece spindle (80) of Weppelmann is mounted upon the Y lower slide (2) and the guides (7.3) of Meuschel so as to be displaceable, through actuation of the motor (6.3) of Meuschel, along the Y direction (Y1) of Weppelmann, in accordance with the teachings of Meuschel, so as provide the advantage of intensifying productivity by doubling relative velocities of the machining tool (S) and the workpiece.
Noting this, in the form of the guides (7.3) of Meuschel, the modified machine tool (100) comprises two parallel Y linear guides (7.3) which extend parallel to the Y direction (Y1), and which are arranged on both sides of the center plane and on which the Y lower slide (2) is guided along the Y direction (Y1) relative to the machine bed (90). Note that the Y linear guides (7.3) and the Y lower slide (2) are arranged on both/opposite sides of the center plane, so as that the workpiece spindle (80) (which is disposed upon the Y lower slide (2) and Y linear guides (7.3)) is maintained centered in the X direction (X1) with respect to a vertical machine bed leg (72) of the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann.
Weppelmann though, does not disclose the machine tool (100) as further comprising “two Y drives for moving the Y slide along the Y direction relative to the machine bed, and wherein in each case one of the Y drives is assigned to each of the Y linear guides.” Rather, Weppelmann/ Meuschel discloses a single motor (6.3) for driving linear displacement of the Y lower slide (2).
In the Office Action mailed on April 7, 2025 though, Examiner took Official Notice that use of two drives, e.g. two Y drives, for moving a slide, e.g. a Y slide, along a direction, e.g. a Y direction, relative to a machine bed of a machine tool wherein each of the two drives is assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Y linear guide, is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in controlled linear displacement of the slide along the two linear guides through actuation of the two drives, and thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the two drives, e.g. two Y drives, each of the two drives being assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Y linear guide, for the single motor (6.3) of Meuschel in the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann as is well-known, as this is a substitution of one known means for imparting linear motion for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of controlled linear displacement of the Y lower slide (2) along the two Y linear guides and relative to the machine bed (90) being provided through actuation of the two Y drives.
Note that this assertion {that use of two drives, e.g. two Y drives, for moving a slide, e.g. a Y slide, along a direction, e.g. a Y direction, relative to a machine bed of a machine tool wherein each of the two drives is assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Y linear guide, is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in controlled linear displacement of the slide along the two linear guides through actuation of the two drives} is taken to be applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) because Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner’s assertion. See MPEP section 2144.03, section C, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the two drives, e.g. two Y drives, each of the two drives being assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Y linear guide, for the single motor (6.3) of Meuschel in the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann as is well-known (as taught by AAPA), as this is a substitution of one known means for imparting linear motion for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of controlled linear displacement of the Y lower slide (2) along the two Y linear guides and relative to the machine bed (90) being provided through actuation of the two Y drives.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weppelmann (Germany Pub. No. DE 102017011978 A1) in view of Meuschel (UK Patent Application No. GB 2271945 A), in view of Gao (China Publication No. CN 101011797 A), in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), and further in view of Lin (China Publication No. CN 105619181 A).
Claim 13: Weppelmann does not provide disclosure on the machine tool (100) further comprising “a Z linear measuring system for determining a position of the Z slide with respect to the Z direction, the Z linear measuring system comprising a measuring head mounted on the Z slide and a linear scale mounted on the machine bed, wherein the measuring head is arranged in an A-reference plane which is perpendicular to the Z direction and contains the first swivel axis.”
Lin though, shows in Figures 1 and 4 a machine tool (100) comprising a Z linear measuring system (53), the Z linear measuring system (53) comprising a measuring head (532) that is mounted on a Z slide (511) and comprising a linear scale (531) that is mounted on a machine bed of the machine tool (100) by way of intermediate structure. Due to the linear scale (531) being mounted so as to extend parallel to a Z linear guide (513), the result is the Z linear measuring system (53) carrying out a position measurement in a reference plane, e.g. an A reference plane, which is perpendicular to the Z direction. Be advised that the Z linear measuring system (53) of Lin provides for measuring a sliding distance of the Z slide (511) [EPO Machine Translation of Line, paragraph 0054], and in doing so, determining a position of the Z slide (511) in the Z direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the Z linear measuring system (53) of Lin, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the advantage of being able to measure a sliding distance of the Z slide (74) along the Z direction (Z1) such that a position of the Z slide (74) in the Z direction can be determined. In making this modification, in accordance with the disclosure of Lin, the measuring head (532) is mounted on the Z slide (74) of Weppelmann while the corresponding linear scale (531) is “mounted on” (as broadly claimed) the machine bed (90) via the intervening vertically-oriented column (72). Note that due to the linear scale (531) being mounted so as to extend parallel to one of the two mutually parallel Z linear guides of the machine tool (100), the result is the Z linear measuring system (53) carrying out a position measurement in a reference plane, e.g. an A reference plane, which is perpendicular to the Z direction (Z1).
Lastly, depending upon the selected orientation of the tool spindle (17) of the tool head of Gao in the modified machine tool (100) at a given point in time, the A reference plane is capable of containing the first swivel axis, as the first swivel axis is capable of incurring vertical displacement in the Z direction (Z1) with respect to the Z linear measuring system (53), for example, noting how the displacement of the spindle nut (10) of the tool head of Gao in the modified machine tool (100) results in the first swivel axis being vertically displaced. Additionally/Alternatively,
depending upon a selected location of the measuring head (532) when mounting/providing the measuring head (532) of Lin to the Z slide (74) in the above modification, the A reference plane is capable of containing the first swivel axis.
Claim 15: Weppelmann does not provide disclosure on the machine tool (100) further comprising “a Y linear measuring system for determining a position of the Y slide with respect to the Y direction, the Y linear measuring system comprising a measuring head mounted on the Y slide and a linear scale mounted on the machine bed, wherein the measuring head is arranged in a C-reference plane which is perpendicular to the Z direction and contains the workpiece axis.”
Lin though, shows in Figures 1 and 2 a machine tool (100) comprising a Y linear measuring system (23), the Y linear measuring system (23) comprising a measuring head (232) that is mounted on a Y slide (21) and comprising a linear scale (231) that is mounted on a machine bed (10) of the machine tool (100). Please note that due to the linear scale (231) being mounted so as to extend parallel to a Y linear guide (211), the result is the at least one Y linear measuring system (23) carrying out a position measurement in a reference plane, e.g. an C reference plane, which is perpendicular to the Y direction. (Please note that what is shown as the X direction in Figure 1 of Lin is considered to actually be the Y for the sake of this direction. This interpretation is being made so as that discussion of machine tool (100) of Lin is easier to follow). Also, in use, the at least one Y linear measuring system (23) of Lin provides for the measuring of a sliding distance of the Y slide (21) [EPO Machine Translation of Line, paragraph 0047], and in doing so, determining a position of the Y slide (21) in the Z direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the Y linear measuring system (23) of Lin, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the advantage of being able to measure a sliding distance of the Y lower slide (2) along the Y direction (Y1) such that a position of the Y lower slide (3) in the Y direction can be determined.
In making the above modification, in accordance with the disclosure of Lin, the measuring head (232) is mounted on the Y lower slide (2) of the modified machine tool (100) of Weppelmann while the corresponding linear scale (231) is mounted on the machine bed (90). Please note that due to the linear scale (231) being mounted so as to extend parallel to one of the two mutually parallel Y linear guides (7.3) of the aforesaid modified machine tool (100), the result is the at least one Y linear measuring system (23) carrying out a position measurement in a reference plane, e.g. a C reference plane, which extends perpendicular to the Y direction (Y1). Lastly, depending upon a selected location of the measuring head (232) when mounting/providing the measuring head (232) of Lin to the Y lower slide (2) in the above modification, the C reference plane is capable of containing the workpiece axis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weppelmann (Germany Pub. No. DE 102017011978 A1) in view of Meuschel (UK Patent Application No. GB 2271945 A), in view of Gao (China Publication No. CN 101011797 A), and further in view of Wurfel (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/1176944 A1).
Please be advised that Wurfel was previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 mailed on 4/7/2025.
Claim 16: Please note that for the purpose of applying art to claim 16 that due to the “at least one” language of line 2 of claim 16 that only one of the two listed additional components was required. As it pertains to this office action, the additional component that art is being applied to corresponds to the “optical measuring bridge” of claim 16.
Weppelmann does not provide disclosure on the machine tool (100) further comprising, “an optical measuring bridge for measuring the workpiece and/or the tool; and wherein the machine tool has two alternative mounts for each of the additional components, the alternative mounts being arranged on opposing sides of the center plane.”
Figures 2 and 3 of Wurfel though, show a machine tool (20) comprising a measurement system (23), which is mounted to a counter column (33) of said machine tool (20). Regarding the counter column (23), as can be seen in Figure 2, it is mounted to a horizontal portion (31) of a machine bed (31, 32), and it has at least two alternative mounts, one on each of the visible faces thereof. From the perspective of Figure 2 of Wurfel, on the face of the column (33) that is adjacent the drive (37) and the table (38), the measurement system (23) is disposed. Be advised that due to the counter column (33) being able to be pivoted about a vertical axis (C3), the at least two alternative mounts can be indexed so as to be arranged on opposing sides of a center plane of the machine tool (20). Noting this, Figure 3 shows the measurement system (23) as comprising an optical measuring bridge (233), which is an optical sensor, e.g. a laser, that can be used for the measurement of a tool (21) [paragraph 0106, also see Figure 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann with the pivotable counter column (33) and measuring system (23) of Wurfel, so as to provide the machine tool (100) of Wurfel with the advantage of having an optical measuring bridge (233) for measuring the generating machining tool of Weppelmann. In making this modification, it is noted that the counter column (33), in accordance with the disclosure of Wurfel, is mounted to the machine bed (90). In doing so, the counter column (33) is mounted to the machine bed (90) such that it (33) is able to be pivoted about the vertical axis (C3) thereof, which provides for the at least two alternative mounts of the counter column (33) to be able to be indexed so as to be arranged on opposing sides of the center plane of the machine tool (100) of Weppelmann.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weppelmann (Germany Pub. No. DE 102017011978 A1) in view of Meuschel (UK Patent Application No. GB 2271945 A), in view of Gao (China Publication No. CN 101011797 A), and further in view of Jung (U.S. PG Publication No. 2013/0207331 A1).
Claim 17: Weppelmann does not provide disclosure on the machine tool (100) further comprising, “a chip conveyor, and wherein the machine tool has a central opening to allow discharge of chips onto the chip conveyor.”
Figures 1 and 3 of Jung though, show a machine tool comprising a machine bed (2), which in turn comprises a chip conveyor (50) and a central opening (19) that allows discharge of chips onto the chip conveyor (50) [Jung, paragraph 0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine bed (90) of Weppelmann with the chip conveyor (50) and the central opening (19) of Jung, so as to provide the machine tool of Weppelmann with a means for removing accumulated chips. In doing so, please note that the chip conveyor (50) and the central opening (19) of Jung are incorporated into the machine bed (90) of Weppelmann such that chips resulting from the generating method discharge through the central opening (19) onto the chip conveyor (50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to disclosure for new claims 29 and 30, Applicant argues the following:
New claims 29 and 30 are based at least on paragraphs [0073]-[0075], [0090] and [0094] of the specification and Figure 3. In particular, Figure 3 depicts the machine bed (100) as a single, monolithic block. The cross-hatching is continuous between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120), with no lines, seams, or fasteners indicating they are separate components. A single piece cannot have its portions move relative to one another. Therefore, it is clearly apparent that the machine bed (100) is a single structural unit, as claimed in new claim 29, and that the machine bed (100) is an L-shaped structure having a horizontal portion (110) and a vertical portion (120), the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion, as claimed in new claim 30.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. First, be advised that in the specification filed on 1/7/2022, Applicant did not provide any paragraph numbers. As such, Examiner believes that Applicant must be referring to the U.S. PG Publication of the current application, but he cannot be entirely sure. Noting this, please be advised that Examiner has reviewed at least paragraphs [0073]-[0075], [0090], and [0094] of the U.S. PG Publication of the current application, and at no point there does Applicant ever disclose that, “The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the machine bed is a single structural unit” (claim 29), and at no point therein does Applicant ever disclose that, “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion” (emphasis added) (claim 30).
First, regarding claim 29 and the specification filed on 1/7/2022, at no point in paragraphs [0073]-[0075], [0090], and [0094] (or elsewhere in the specification for that matter) does Applicant actually disclose the machine bed (100) as being “a single structural unit.” Noting this, Applicant discloses the machine bed (100) as comprising each of a horizontal portion (110) and a vertical portion (120) in at least lines 1-4 of page 15 of the specification filed on 1/7/2022. Applicant though, never goes as far as to disclose in the specification the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical potion (120) being formed as, for example, “a single structural unit.”
Noting the above, Examiner cannot eliminate the possibility that the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are two separate pieces that are attached/joined to one another. (Please note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration). Please be advised that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. That being said, there isn’t anything to indicate that the machine bed (100) has to be “a single structural unit” as opposed to, for example, a structural unit that is formed of multiple, separate pieces attached/ joined to one another. Based on the foregoing, the specification as filed on 1/7/2022 does not provide disclosure for, “wherein the machine bed is a single structural unit.”
Next, with respect to claim 30 and the specification filed on 1/7/2022, Applicant discloses the machine bed (100) as comprising each of a horizontal portion (110) and a vertical portion (120) in at least lines 1-4 of page 15 of the specification. At no point in paragraphs [0073]-[0075], [0090], and [0094] (or elsewhere in the specification for that matter), does Applicant actually disclose “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion” (emphasis added).
Noting the above, Examiner cannot eliminate the possibility that the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are two separate pieces that are attached/joined to one another in some manner such that there is allowed slight movement of the vertical portion (120) with respect to the horizontal portion (110), for example, so as to enable adjustments to be made so as to ensure the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are balanced as is required. (Please note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration). Please be advised that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. That being said, there isn’t anything in the specification filed on 1/7/2022 to indicate that the vertical portion (120) has to be immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110), as opposed to, for example, the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) being two separate pieces attached/joined to one another and said vertical portion (120) able to incur slight movement with respect to the horizontal portion (110) so as to enable adjustments to be made so as to ensure the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are balanced and/or leveled as is required. Based on the foregoing, the specification as filed on 1/7/2022 does not provide disclosure for, “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion.”
Next, as to claim 29 and the drawings, Applicant argues for support of claim 29 being provided with the following: “In particular, Figure 3 depicts the machine bed (100) as a single, monolithic block. The cross-hatching is continuous between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120), with no lines, seams, or fasteners indicating they are separate components. A single piece cannot have its portions move relative to one another. Therefore, it is clearly apparent that the machine bed (100) is a single structural unit, as claimed in new claim 29.”
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. As can be seen in Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings filed on 1/7/2022, the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching. That said, it is apparent in Figure 3 that the Z slide/ tool carrier (300) also has the same cross-hatching as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). There is no dispute though, that the Z slide/tool carrier (300) is a separate element from the machine bed (100) and from the vertical (120) and horizontal portions (110) thereof. Noting this, the Z slide/tool carrier (300) having the same cross-hatching (see Figure 3) as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) is an indicator that elements that are shown in the drawings as having the same cross-hatching does not necessarily mean that those elements are all part of the same single structural unit. Thus, just because the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching as one another, doesn’t necessarily mean that these portions (110, 120) are integral with one another such that the machine bed (100) is “a single structural unit.” While the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) having the same cross-hatching as one another might be an indicator that it is likely, for example, that the machine bed (100) is a single structural unit, it is reiterated that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. In other words, there isn’t anything in the drawings filed on 1/7/2022 to indicate that the machine bed (100) has to be “a single structural unit” as opposed to, for example, a machine bed (100) in which the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) thereof are two separate pieces that are attached/joined to one another and this joint is simply not shown/picked up in the cross-section. (Please note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration).
Lastly, with regards to Applicant’s argument that, “The cross-hatching is continuous between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120), with no lines, seams, or fasteners indicating they are separate components,” it is noted that there is a large gap in Figure 3 in which there is no cross-hatching whatsoever shown between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). Due to this large gap, the cross-hatching is not continuous as is argued.
PNG
media_image10.png
816
802
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, as can be seen above in annotated Figure 3 which Examiner has marked up, there are indeed lines (unlike what Applicant argues) between the between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). With the aforesaid large gap, the respective line of each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120), and the same cross-hatching not necessarily being indicative of different parts being of the same singular structural element, e.g. the Z slide/tool carrier (300) and the horizontal portion (110), Examiner does not agree with Applicant that Figure 3 provides disclosure for, “wherein the machine bed is a single structural unit.” Applicant’s argument is therefore not deemed to be persuasive.
Next, as to claim 30 and the drawings, Applicant argues for support of claim 30 being provided with the following: “In particular, Figure 3 depicts the machine bed (100) as a single, monolithic block. The cross-hatching is continuous between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120), with no lines, seams, or fasteners indicating they are separate components. A single piece cannot have its portions move relative to one another. Therefore, it is clearly apparent…that the machine bed (100) is an L-shaped structure having a horizontal portion (110) and a vertical portion (120), the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion, as claimed in new claim 30.”
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. As can be seen in Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings filed on 1/7/2022, the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching. That said, it is apparent in Figure 3 that the Z slide/ tool carrier (300) has the same cross-hatching as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). There is no dispute though, that the Z slide/tool carrier (300) is a separate element from the machine bed (100) and from the vertical (120) and horizontal portions (110) thereof. Noting this, the Z slide/tool carrier (300) having the same cross-hatching (see Figure 3) as each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) is an indicator that elements that are shown in the drawings as having the same cross-hatching does not necessarily mean that those elements are all part of the same single structural unit. This is noted, because if the vertical portion (120) and horizontal portion (110) were indeed part of the same single structural unit, then the vertical portion (120), for example, would be rendered immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110).
Thus, just because the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) have the same cross-hatching as one another in Figure 3, doesn’t necessarily mean that these portions (110, 120) are integral with one another such that the vertical portion (120) is immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110). While the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) having the same cross-hatching as one another might be an indicator that it is likely, for example, that the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120) are part of a same single structural unit such that the vertical portion (120) is immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110), it is reiterated that it is not a matter of whether something is merely likely, but rather when something has to be a certain way. That being said, there isn’t anything in the specification filed on 1/7/2022 to indicate that the vertical portion (120) has to be immovable relative to the horizontal portion (110), as opposed to, for example, the vertical portion (120) and horizontal portion (110) are two separate pieces attached/joined to one another in some manner such that there is allowed slight movement of the vertical portion (120) with respect to the horizontal portion (110) so as to enable adjustments to be made so as to ensure the vertical portion (120) and the horizontal portion (110) are balanced and/or leveled as is required. (Note that Examiner is simply using this as an example and is not advising that Applicant has disclosure for such configuration).
Lastly, with regards to Applicant’s argument that, “The cross-hatching is continuous between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120), with no lines, seams, or fasteners indicating they are separate components,” it is noted that there is a large gap in Figure 3 in which there is no cross-hatching whatsoever shown between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). Due to this large gap, the cross-hatching is not continuous as is argued.
PNG
media_image10.png
816
802
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Also, as can be seen above in annotated Figure 3 which Examiner has marked up, there are indeed lines (unlike what Applicant argues) between the between the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120). With the aforesaid large gap, the respective line of each of the horizontal portion (110) and the vertical portion (120), and the same cross-hatching not necessarily being indicative of different parts being of the same singular structural element, e.g. the Z slide/tool carrier (300) and the horizontal portion (110), Examiner does not agree with Applicant that Figure 3 provides disclosure for, “the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion.” Applicant’s argument is therefore not deemed to be persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and the prior art rejection thereof, Applicant argues the following:
Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses this rejection. The Examiner's rejection is based on an incorrect interpretation of the primary reference, Weppelmann.
Interpretation of Weppelmann
The Examiner's assertion that Weppelmann discloses "two mutually parallel Z linear guides fixedly connected to the machine bed" rests on an unreasonable interpretation of the term "machine bed." The Examiner kindly provided an annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann on page 6 of the Office Action and held:
"As can be seen above, the machine bed (72, 90) comprises a horizontal portion (90) and a vertical portion (72)."
The annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann from the Office Action is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image11.png
396
460
media_image11.png
Greyscale
However, element 72 of Weppelmann is not part of the machine bed. The following is a translation of the relevant portions of paragraphs [0051]-[0052] of Weppelmann (cf. the corresponding paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of family member US20210178499A1):
“[0051] The tool machine shown in FIG. 1 is a machine 100 designed for skiving with a skiving wheel S. On the workpiece side, the machine 100 has a tool table 80 rotatably driven in the machine bed 90, on which a workpiece to be machined not shown in FIG. 1, for example with an internal toothing to be machined, can be rotatably clamped around the workpiece axis C1.
“[0052] On the tool side, the machine 100 has a linear machine axis X1 [Remark: Y1 in the above annotated version of Fig. 1] for a positioning movement of the tool radially with respect to the workpiece, an axis Z1 for a movement of the tool along the axial direction of the table axis C1, and an axis Y1 [Remark: X1 in the above annotated version of Fig. 1] for a tangential relative movement between tool and workpiece. These linear axes X1, Z1 [Remark: Y1, Z1 in the above annotated version of Fig. 1] are perpendicular to each other and are realized by a slide arrangement 70, where a linear slide 72 for the X1 movement [Remark: Y1 in the above annotated version of Fig. 1] carries a vertical slide 74 for the Z1 movement.[…]”
These paragraphs clearly show that the machine bed of Weppelmann is formed exclusively by element 90, whereas element 72 is a "linear slide".
A person of ordinary skill in the art clearly understands a "machine bed" to be a single, foundational structural unit of the machine tool, providing the primary reference frame and support for all other components. In the annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann, element 90 represents this foundational structure. In contrast, element 72, which the Examiner labeled as the "Vertical Portion of the Machine Bed", is clearly depicted as a slide that is movable on the machine bed 90. The Z linear guides are, in turn, mounted on this movable slide 72.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, and is moot. At least in light of Applicant submitting new claim 29 that depends upon claim 1 and that recites there, “the machine bed is a single structural unit,” Examiner has utilized a new interpretation of the prior art. In rejecting claim 1, Examiner has considered element 90 of Weppelmann to correspond to the machine bed of the machine tool of Weppelmann. Element 72 is not considered by Examiner to correspond to a vertical portion of the machine bed like in the prior office action. Since element 90 (and not the combination of elements 90 and 72) is considered to be the machine bed of the machine tool in Weppelmann, Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous interpretation of, “the machine bed (72, 90) comprises a horizontal portion (90) and a vertical portion (72)” are moot. For the sake of completeness, please be advised that in Weppelmann, the machine bed (90) is formed as a horizontal bed on which is disposed a vertically-oriented column (72). This vertically-oriented column (72) of Weppelmann has not been considered by Examiner as an element of the claimed “machine bed” in the prior art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1 and the prior art rejection thereof, Applicant also argues the following:
Therefore, the Z linear guides in Weppelmann are not "fixedly connected to the machine bed" as claimed. They are connected to a linear slide, which is movable relative to the machine bed. This is a structurally distinct and less rigid arrangement than that of the claimed invention, where the guides are connected directly to the single, unitary machine bed structure. As such, Weppelmann fails to teach this critical structural limitation of claim 1 at the outset, and the rejection is improper for this reason alone.
Distinguishing features
As discussed above, Weppelmann fails to disclose that the Z slide is guided on "two mutually parallel Z linear guides fixedly connected to the machine bed". Further, as acknowledged by the Examiner, Weppelmann fails to disclose, inter alia, that that the workpiece spindle is arranged on "a Y slide linearly displaceable in a Y direction relative to the machine bed".
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “where the guides are connected directly to the single, unitary machine bed structure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Aside from claim 1 not claiming the machine bed as being formed as a, “single, unitary machine bed structure,” claim 1 also does not claim the Z linear guides as being “connected directly” to the claimed machine bed. Rather, claim 1 as filed on 3/3/2026 claims the Z linear guides as “being fixedly connected to the machine tool.” Note that “connected directly” and “fixedly connected” are not one and the same. Rather, please note that “fixedly connected” is a broad limitation that does not set forth any requirement as to how or in what way that the claimed parallel Z linear guides are to be “fixedly connected” to the claimed machine tool.
Noting the above, Examiner will now briefly explain as to why Weppelmann reads on, “two mutually parallel Z linear guides, the parallel Z linear guides being fixedly connected to the machine bed.”
As can be seen below, the machine bed (90) is formed as a horizontal bed on which is disposed a vertically-oriented column (72). Noting this, it can be seen below in annotated Figure 1 of Weppelmann that the machine tool (100) further comprises two mutually parallel Z linear guides that are disposed on the vertically-oriented column (72). Please be advised that the parallel Z linear guides are “fixedly connected” (as is broadly claimed) to the machine bed (90) via the vertically-oriented column (72). Please be advised that claim 1 does not set forth any requirement as to how or in what way that the claimed parallel Z linear guides are to be “fixedly connected” to the claimed machine tool. Also, claim 1 as currently presented does not preclude an interpretation of Weppelmann in which the parallel Z linear guides are considered to be “fixedly connected” to the machine bed (90) via the intervening vertically-oriented column (72), noting again that claim 1 does not claim the Z linear guides as being “connected directly” to the claimed machine bed. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, with respect to Applicant’s argument that, “Weppelmann fails to disclose, inter alia, that that the workpiece spindle is arranged on ‘a Y slide linearly displaceable in a Y direction relative to the machine bed,’” it is unclear as to how this fits into Applicant’s argument about why Applicant believes that, “Weppelmann fails to disclose that the Z slide is guided on "two mutually parallel Z linear guides fixedly connected to the machine bed.’” Examiner is not relying upon the Y-slide/the Y lower slide (2) of the modified Weppelmann disclosure for reading on, for example, the “two mutually parallel Z linear guides, the parallel Z linear guides being fixedly connected to the machine bed.” This is because Weppelmann already teaches this feature as was just detailed above. Applicant’s argument is therefore not deemed persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and the prior art reference of Meuschel, Applicant argues the following:
Meuschel cannot cure the deficiencies of Weppelmann. Meuschel does not disclose or reasonably suggest that the Z slide is guided on Z guides that are fixedly connected to the machine bed, as required by the claim. To the contrary, Meuschel teaches that the machining tool and the workpiece simultaneously move toward one another, thereby doubling the relative velocities of the tool and workpiece (Meuschel, page 3, lines 18-27) in order to achieve a higher productivity (Meuschel, page 1, lines 21-24). This would deter a person skilled in the art from fixing the Z guides on the machine bed.
In this connection, we reiterate that MPEP § 2141.02 (VI) holds that "a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention". Meuschel clearly leads away from guiding the Z slide on Z guides that are fixedly connected to the machine bed because Meuschel teaches that a higher productivity can be achieved if both the machining tool and the workpiece are simultaneously moved toward one another. Arranging the Z linear guides fixedly on the machine bed would therefore deprive the machine of Meuschel of its specific advantages.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is moot. This is because Examiner is not relying upon Meuschel for teaching, “two mutually parallel Z linear guides, the parallel Z linear guides being fixedly connected to the machine bed.” Rather, Examiner relies upon Meuschel as a modifying reference for teaching, “a Y slide linearly displaceable in a Y direction relative to the machine bed,” wherein the workpiece spindle (80) is “arranged on the Y slide.”
Regarding claims 12 and 14 and the prior art rejections thereof, Applicant argues the following:
The Examiner held that the assertion {that use of two drives, e.g. two Z drives, for moving a slide, e.g. a Z slide, along a direction, e.g. a Z direction, relative to a machine bed of a machine tool wherein each of the two drives is assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Z linear guide, is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in controlled linear displacement of the slide along the two linear guides through actuation of the two drives} is taken to be applicant's admitted prior art (AAPA) because Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner's assertion.
Likewise, the Examiner held that the assertion {that use of two drives, e.g. two Y drives, for moving a slide, e.g. a Y slide, along a direction, e.g. a Y direction, relative to a machine bed of a machine tool wherein each of the two drives is assigned to one linear guide, e.g. a Y linear guide, is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in controlled linear displacement of the slide along the two linear guides through actuation of the two drives} is taken to be applicant's admitted prior art (AAPA) because Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner's assertion.
Please deal with these rejections at your end. While the way the slides are driven (whether by one or two drives) is not critical for the invention, I believe that the Examiner's assertions are without any factual basis and might therefore be traversed if this is sensible and still possible.
Applicant’s argument has been considered. Having said, Examiner is unclear as to what Applicant means with, “Please deal with these rejections at your end.” Examiner does not know what Applicant is arguing with this sentence. Noting this, claims 12 and 14 remain rejected by Examiner as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weppelmann (Germany Publication No. DE 102017011978 A1) in view of Meuschel (UK Patent Application No. GB 2271945 A), in view of Gao (China Publication No. CN 101011797 A), and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As to Applicant’s argument that, “Examiner's assertions are without any factual basis and might therefore be traversed if this is sensible and still possible,” be advised that Examiner took Office Notice in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 4/7/2025. As was then explained within the Final Rejection mailed on 9/5/2025, the above assertions were taken to be applicant's admitted prior art (AAPA) because Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner's assertion. In saying this, in the Final Rejection mailed on 9/5/2025, Examiner directed Applicant’s attention to MPEP 2144.03, section C. This section of the MPEP states the following;
To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Noting the above, in Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/7/2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection that had mailed on 4/7/2025, Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. Also, as is required by the MPEP, Examiner clearly indicated in the next office action (which was the Final Rejection that was mailed on 9/5/2025) that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement was taken to be admitted prior art (AAPA) because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. Since Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner's assertion, and because Examiner was (and remains) in compliance with the MPEP, it is not “still possible” for Applicant to traverse Examiner’s assertion of official notice at this time.
Regarding claim 29 and Weppelmann, Applicant argues the following:
New claim 29 recites that "the machine bed is a single structural unit". Weppelmann's base 90 and movable slide 72 are fundamentally not a "single structural unit".
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. This is because as it pertains to Weppelmann, the machine bed (90) thereof is a single structural unit. Based on the foregoing, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 30 and Weppelmann, Applicant argues the following:
Claim 30 further defines the structure of the machine bed and its relationship to the machine's primary slides. Specifically, claim 30 recites "wherein the machine bed is an L-shaped structure having a horizontal portion and a vertical portion, the vertical portion being immovable relative to the horizontal portion, wherein the Y slide is guided on the horizontal portion of the machine bed, and wherein the parallel Z linear guides are fixedly connected to the vertical portion of the machine bed".
Weppelmann fails to teach or suggest this specific architecture of the machine bed. Weppelmann's machine bed is formed only by element 90, which is a flat, horizontal base. It is not an L-shaped structure. Only by viewing the assembly of the base 90 and the movable slide 72 can one arrive at a general L-shape. The claim, however, requires this feature to be an attribute of the machine bed itself, a limitation not met by Weppelmann. Furthermore, the claim recites a specific guiding architecture that is fundamentally different from Weppelmann. The claim requires that the "parallel Z linear guides are fixedly connected to the vertical portion of the machine bed", which in turn is immovable relative to the horizontal portion. Weppelmann does not teach this structure. In Weppelmann, the Z linear guides are mounted on the movable slide 72, not on a vertical portion of the machine bed that is immovable relative to the horizontal portion.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not moot. This is because Weppelmann is not being utilized by Examiner as the base reference in a prior art rejection of current claim 30. Having said that, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claim 30 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
Note that that in the Office action mailed September 5, 2025, it was indicated that claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten (withing broadening) in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Present independent claim 6 as filed on 3/3/2026 constitutes former dependent claim 6 so re-written. The indication of the allowability of such a claim stands.
Examiner’s Comment
A thorough search has been conducted re: the invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claim 30. Examiner notes that no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claim 30 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights