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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Claims 24-25 are canceled. Claims 20-23, 26-32, and 35 are amended.
Currently, claim(s) 20-23 and 26-38 is/are pending, with claims 36-38 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 20, the term “relative the first plate” should read “relative to the first plate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 20-23 and 26-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 20, the term “bearings coupled proximate the top of the second plate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “coupled proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 21-23 and 26-35 are rejected for being dependent on claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 20-23, 26-29, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Etschenberg of DE 102005014642 A1 (hereinafter, Etschenberg) in view of Chong Nam Chu of US 2013/0299458 A1 (hereinafter, Chu), Akio Ebisu of JP 2011161568 A (hereinafter, Ebisu), John Royden Peirce of US 857,898 A (hereinafter, Peirce), Dipl-Ing Clemens Hoppe of DE 12 43 496 B (hereinafter referred to as Hoppe), Joseph B. Armitage of US 2,653,519 A (hereinafter, Armitage), and Katsuhisa Nagata of JPS 48-90273 (hereinafter referred to as Nagata).
As to claim 20, Etschenberg teaches to an apparatus configured to perform a die sinking electrical discharge machining process on a workpiece having a longitudinal axis, the apparatus comprising:
a tank configured to contain a dielectric fluid (Etschenberg, Fig. 1, teaches to a tank containing working fluid 18);
Etschenberg does not explicitly teach a base plate.
In an analogous art, Chu teaches to a base plate (Chu, paragraph [0042], Fig. 2A, teaches that EDM module 100 are disposed on the bed 20; bed 20 reads as a base plate).
Both Etschenberg and Chu relate to electrical discharge machining system (Chu, paragraph [0003]). Etschenberg does not explicitly teach a base plate. Etschenberg does teach to a spark erosion system 10 as an apparatus configured to perform a die sinking electrical discharge machining process on a workpiece having a longitudinal axis. Chu teaches using electrical discharge machining process on a workpiece having a longitudinal axis (Chu, paragraph [0042], Fig. 2A, teaches to the die 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spark erosion system 10 of Etschenberg with the bed 20 of Chu for providing a base, thereby providing more stability for holding the workpiece.
PNG
media_image1.png
252
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Ebisu
Etschenberg in view of Chu teaches to adjustable supports disposed on the base plate, the adjustable supports comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
809
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A of Chu
a first plate (Chu, Fig. 2A, teaches to a first plate of EDM module 100) arranged perpendicular to the base plate (Chu, Fig. 2A, the first plate of EDM module 100 is perpendicular to the bed 20 of Chu);
Etschenberg in view of Chu does not explicitly teach a second plate vertically moveable relative to the first plate, the second plate having a top, a bottom.
In an analogous art, Ebisu teaches to a second plate vertically moveable relative to the first plate (Ebisu, paragraph [0022], Fig. 1, teaches to support column 3, wherein the support column 3 consists of a fixed support column 3a whose base end is fixed to the movable table 2, and a movable support 3b that can move in the height direction relative to the fixed support column 3a; the movable support column 3b reads as a second plate vertically moveable relative to the first plate), the second plate having a top, a bottom (Ebisu, Fig. 1, teaches that the movable support column 3b necessarily has a top and a bottom).
Both Etschenberg in view of Chu and Ebisu relate to electrical discharge machining (Ebisu, paragraph [0001]). Etschenberg in view of Chu does not explicitly teach the second plate moveable relative to the first plate. Etschenberg in view of Chu does teach the first plate perpendicular to the base plate. Ebisu teaches to the second plate moveable relative to the first plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EDM module of Etschenberg in view of Chu with the moveable support column of Ebisu for providing a moveable support for adjusting height, thereby resulting in more effective die sinking electrical discharge machining process.
Etschenberg in view of Chu and Ebisu does not explicitly teach and vertical channels having an open end at the bottom of the second plate and a closed end terminating between the bottom and the top; pins disposed in the channels.
In an analogous art, Peirce teaches to and vertical channels having an open end at the bottom of the second plate and a closed end terminating between the bottom and the top (Peirce, pg. 1, ln. 65-70, Figs. 1-2, teaches to vertical channels F having an open end at the bottom of the frame M and slots G with closed ends terminating between the bottom and the top of the frame M; frame F comprising slots F reads as vertical channels); pins disposed in the channels (Peirce, pg. 1, ln. 65-70, Figs. 1-2, teaches to a pair of guiding pins H disposed in the vertical channels; guiding pins read as pins).
PNG
media_image3.png
438
860
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1-2 of Peirce
Both Etschenberg in view of Chu and Ebisu and Peirce relate to vertical channels (Peirce, pg. 1 , ln. 67). Etschenberg in view of Chu and Ebisu does not explicitly teach the vertical channels wherein pins are disposed n the channel. Etschenberg in view of Chu and Ebisu does teach to the first and second plates, wherein the second plates move vertically relative to the first plate. Peirce teaches to the second plate moveable relative to the first plate with vertical channels and the closed end terminating between the bottom and the top, wherein the pins are disposed in the channels, for the purpose of achieving desirable height at any desired elevation (Peirce, col. 2, ln. 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EDM module of Etschenberg in view of Chu and Ebisu with the vertical channels and pins of Peirce for providing a guide for adjusting height, thereby providing more stability for holding the workpiece and more effective die sinking electrical discharge machining process.
Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce does not explicitly teach bearings coupled proximate the top of the second plate, the bearings spaced apart from one another forming at least one point of contact to support the workpiece when placed thereon.
In an analogous art, Hoppe teaches to bearings coupled proximate the top of the second plate, the bearings spaced apart from one another forming at least one point of contact to support the workpiece when placed thereon (Hoppe, paragraph [0031], teaches to two adjustable support rollers 9 mounted on a slide; the slide is read as the second plate; the two adjustable support rollers 9 are spaced apart from one another forming at least one point of contact to support the workpiece when placed thereon; the term “to support the workpiece when placed thereon” is an intended use, as the claim is directed to an apparatus; the two adjustable support rollers 9 of Hoppe nonetheless perform the intended use).
Both Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce and Hoppe relate to supporting workpieces in machine processing (Hoppe, paragraph [0012]). Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce does not explicitly teach two bearings that are coupled proximate to the top of the second plate. Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce does teach using a moveable support column as the second plate. Hoppe teaches to rollers on a second plate as bearings that support workpiece for performing an electrical discharge machining process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EDM module of Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce with the two adjustable support rollers of Hoppe for providing a guide for adjusting height, thereby providing more stability for holding the workpiece and more effective die sinking electrical discharge machining process.
Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce and Hoppe does not explicitly teach an adjustment member arranged between the bearings and in contact with the bottom of the second plate and configured to move the second plate up and down relative the first plate.
PNG
media_image4.png
500
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Armitage
In an analogous art, Armitage teaches to an adjustment member (Armitage, col. 4, ln. 5-10, Fig. 2, teaches to an adjustment member) in contact with the bottom of the second plate (Armitage, Fig. 2, teaches that the adjustment member is in contact with the bottom of the knee 32) and configured to move the second plate up and down relative the first plate (Armitage, col. 4, ln. 5-10, Fig. 2, teaches that the adjustment member is configured to move the knee 32 up and down relative to the surfaces 33).
Both Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce and Hoppe and Armitage relate to a machine tools and control mechanism (Armitage, col. 1, ln. 1-5). Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce and Hoppe does not explicitly teach an adjustment member. Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce and Hoppe does teach the first plate and the moveable second plate. Armitage teaches to an adjustment member in contact with the bottom of the second plate and configured to move the second plate up and down relative to the first plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EDM module of Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, and Peirce and Hoppe with the adjustment member of Armitage for providing a guide for adjusting height, thereby providing more stability for holding the workpiece and more effective die sinking electrical discharge machining process.
Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage does not explicitly teach that the adjustment member is arranged between the bearings.
Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage, however, does teach that the adjustment member that is in contact with the bottom of the second plate and configured to move the second plate up and down relative to the first plate (Armitage, col. 4, ln. 5-10, Fig. 2). Further, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage teaches to bearings coupled proximate the top of the second plate, the bearings spaced apart from one another forming at least one point of contact to support the workpiece when placed thereon (Hoppe, paragraph [0031], teaches to two adjustable support rollers 9 mounted on a slide; the slide is read as the second plate; the two adjustable support rollers 9 are spaced apart from one another forming at least one point of contact to support the workpiece when placed thereon; the term “to support the workpiece when placed thereon” is an intended use, as the claim is directed to an apparatus; the two adjustable support rollers 9 of Hoppe nonetheless perform the intended use).
Here, displacement of the adjustment member is a variable that results from routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Positioning an adjustment member such that the disposition of the adjustment member results in a balanced weight distribution of the second plate for providing increased stability in an effective die sinking electrical discharge machining process, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust accordingly.
For instance, positioning the adjustment member between the bearings would provide increased stability because the adjustment member of Armitage functions to adjust the relative height of the moveable vertical second plate by acting against the gravity and the weight of the moveable vertical second plate. On the other hand, positioning the adjustment outside the space between the bearings leads to decreased stability resulting from less optimal weight distribution to act against the gravity and the weight of the moveable vertical second plate, as the bearings are on the moveable vertical second plate for supporting the workpiece.
There is insufficient showing that the changed disposition of the adjustment member such that the disposition results in “arranged between the bearings” would have been novel and nonobvious to the operation of the invention because the difference between the teaching of the prior art is not as substantial as to render a question whether the invention is novel and nonobvious. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would simply optimize the placing of the adjustment member to obtain increased stability, which results in arranging between the bearings, as the bearings on the moveable vertical second plate are used to support the workpiece.
The Office notes that the recited method of the instant claim can be reached by one of ordinary skill in the art by simply choosing a different operating parameters to implement the term “arranged between the bearings”, so long as the position of the adjustment member results in desired weight balance of the moveable vertical second plate.
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (please refer to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation.
Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage does not explicitly teach a rotating table adapted to grip one of the workpiece and to rotate the workpiece around the longitudinal axis
In an analogous art, Nagata teaches to a rotating table adapted to grip one of the workpiece and to rotate the workpiece around the longitudinal axis (Nagata, paragraph [0001], Figs. 1-3, teaches to the end of the workpiece W gripped by the face plate 8, which can be rotated).
Both Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage and Nagata relate to machining of rotating workpiece (Nagata, paragraph [0002]). Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage does not explicitly teach a rotating table for gripping a workpiece. Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage does teach rotating workpiece. Nagata teaches to a rotating table for gripping workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EDM module of Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, and Armitage with the rotating table of Nagata for providing more stability for holding the workpiece.
PNG
media_image5.png
612
628
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Nagata
Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to and a machining head unit (Etschenberg, paragraph [0023], Fig. 1, teaches to the machining head unit comprising a head arranged to move along one Cartesian axis and to rotate along at least one rotational axis by an electric motor via a corresponding holding arm 22) equipped with an electrode that is configured to perform the die sinking electrical discharge machining process (Etschenberg, paragraphs [0023] – [0024], Fig. 1, teaches to the holding arm 22 for holding a cutting electrode 20 for carrying out the electrical discharge machining process).
PNG
media_image6.png
649
912
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Etschenberg
As to claim 21, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the adjustable supports are adjustably arranged on the base plate and are configured to adjust position in a direction that is horizontal to the base plate (Ebisu, pg. 18, Figs. 1 to 3, teaches that the movable table 2 moves in a Y-axis direction relative to the apparatus base 1; the movable table 2 is configured to adjust position in a direction that is horizontal to the base plate).
As to claim 22, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, further comprising:
adjustable fixing members (Hoppe, paragraph [0032], Fig. 1, teaches to set screw 11) for fixing the adjustable supports along the respective positioning guide (the term “for fixing the adjustable supports along the respective positioning guide” is an intended use for an apparatus claim; nonetheless, the set screw 11 of Hoppe is capable of performing the intended use).
As to claim 23, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, further comprising:
channels extending across the base plate (Peirce, pg. 1, ln. 65-70, Figs. 1-2, teaches to vertical slides F, provided with slots G through which a pair of guiding pins H pass; the vertical channels extend across the base plate), the channels parallel to one another and perpendicular to the workpiece (Peirce, pg. 1, ln. 65-70, Figs. 1-2, teaches that the vertical channels are parallel to one another and perpendicular to the workpiece),
wherein the channels receive one of the adjustable supports (Peirce, pg. 1, ln. 65-70, Figs. 1-2, teaches that the vertical channels comprising slots receive one of the adjustable supports, such as pins).
As to claim 26, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the bearings are adapted to allow the rotation of the workpiece around the longitudinal axis by means of the rotating table (Hoppe, paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, teaches that the workpiece 12 rotates as allowed by the support rollers 9; Nagata, paragraph [0001], Figs. 1-3, teaches to the end of the workpiece W gripped by the face plate 8, which can be rotated).
As to claim 27, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the rotating table comprises a collar having a housing to receive the end of the workpiece (Nagata, paragraph [0001], Figs. 1-3, teaches to movable blocks 6 and 7 read as collars having a housing to receive the end of the workpiece), and a centering tip arranged within the housing on which the end of the workpiece is pivoted to rotate (Nagata, paragraph [0001], Figs. 1-3, teaches to a centering tip arranged within the housing on which the end of the workpiece is pivoted to rotate; see Figs. 1-3 of Nagata above).
As to claim 28, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the rotating table comprises:
a collar having a housing to receive the end of the workpiece (Nagata, paragraph [0001], Figs. 1-3, teaches to movable blocks 6 and 7 read as collars having a housing to receive the end of the workpiece),
a centering tip arranged within the housing on which the end of the workpiece is pivoted to rotate (Nagata, paragraph [0001], Figs. 1-3, teaches to a centering tip arranged within the housing on which the end of the workpiece is pivoted to rotate; see Figs. 1-3 of Nagata above),
a pulling screw arranged within the collar and functionally coupled with the centering tip (Nagata, Figs. 1, teaches to a portion of headstock center 3 excluding the tip portion, wherein the pulling screw is inside collar, or movable blocks 6 and 7) for pulling the centering tip against the end of the workpiece (the term “for pulling the centering tip against the end of the workpiece” is an intended use of a structure; nonetheless, the pulling screw of Nagata is capable of pulling the centering tip against the end of the workpiece), and
a flanged bush that comprises threaded grains for gripping the end of the workpiece in the collar (Nagata, Fig. 1, teaches to face plate 8 with two support bolts 13 and 14; face plate 8 reads as a flanged bush).
As to claim 29, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the machining head unit comprises a head arranged to move along three Cartesian axes and to rotate a rotational axis (Etschenberg, paragraph [0023], Fig. 1, teaches that the machining head unit can be moved in the axial direction by an electric motor via a corresponding holding arm 22), and an electrode holder on which an electrode for carrying out the electrical discharge machining process can be removably coupled, and wherein the electrode holder is rotatably coupled with the head so as to rotate along the rotational axis (Etschenberg, paragraphs [0023] – [0024], Fig. 1, teaches to the tool holder 24 has a coupling structure 25 which corresponds to a corresponding coupling structure 26 of the cutting electrode 20 such that the cutting electrode 20 is fixed to the tool holder 24 in a defined manner and can be easily removed or replaced).
As to claim 34, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does explicitly teach wherein the workpiece is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor.
The term “wherein the workpiece is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor”, however, is an intended use but the instant claim is directed to an apparatus or an article of manufacture. Unless the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, the intended use in the instant claim is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Etschenberg, paragraph [0001], teaches that the apparatus is used for a rotor vane disk for a turbomolecular pump. In this instance, the prior art reads into the claim limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because the intended use does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, as the claimed invention is directed to a type of sample to be treated by the claimed apparatus, instead of a structure of the claimed apparatus. The claimed apparatus does not necessarily have to be applied to workpiece that is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor but one of ordinary skill in the art may choose to apply the claimed apparatus to the workpiece that is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor. For this reason, the instant claim is interpreted as being directed to an apparatus that is configured to process a monolithic shaft impeller rotor.
As to claim 35, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does not explicitly teach wherein the workpiece is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor is for centrifugal compressor.
The term “wherein the workpiece is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor”, however, is an intended use but the instant claim is directed to an apparatus or an article of manufacture. Unless the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, the intended use in the instant claim is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Etschenberg, paragraph [0001], teaches that the apparatus is used for a rotor vane disk for a turbomolecular pump. In this instance, the prior art reads into the claim limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because the intended use does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, as the claimed invention is directed to a type of sample to be treated by the claimed apparatus, instead of a structure of the claimed apparatus. The claimed apparatus does not necessarily have to be applied to workpiece that is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor but one of ordinary skill in the art may choose to apply the claimed apparatus to the workpiece that is a monolithic shaft impeller rotor. For this reason, the instant claim is interpreted as being directed to an apparatus that is configured to process a monolithic shaft impeller rotor.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Etschenberg of DE 102005014642 A1 (hereinafter, Etschenberg) in view of Chong Nam Chu of US 2013/0299458 A1 (hereinafter, Chu), Akio Ebisu of JP 2011161568 A (hereinafter, Ebisu), John Royden Peirce of US 857,898 A (hereinafter, Peirce), Dipl-Ing Clemens Hoppe of DE 12 43 496 B (hereinafter referred to as Hoppe), Joseph B. Armitage of US 2,653,519 A (hereinafter, Armitage), and Katsuhisa Nagata of JPS 48-90273 (hereinafter referred to as Nagata), as applied to claims 20 and 29 above, and in further view of Roger Girardin of US 5,786,557 A (hereinafter referred to as Girardin).
As to claim 30, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does not explicitly teach further comprising: beams with guides engaging with the matching head unit so as to move the machining head unit above the workpiece, and a vertical support arranged perpendicular to the base plate, the vertical support having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the vertical support is rotatably coupled with the machining head unit, and wherein the second end of the vertical support is rotatably coupled with the head.
In an analogous art, Girardin teaches to beams with guides engaging with the matching head unit so as to move the machining head unit above the workpiece (Girardin, col. 5, ln. 24-25, teaches to rails 7, 8, 10, and 11, which read as beams with guides engaging with the matching head unit so as to move the machining head unit above the workpiece), and
a vertical support arranged perpendicular to the base plate, the vertical support having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the vertical support is rotatably coupled with the machining head unit, and wherein the second end of the vertical support is rotatably coupled with the head (Girardin, col. 5, ln. 14-29, Fig. 1, teaches to the chariot 12 having a circle cut out and comprises the means 20 for holding the cylindrical shaft 13; if the cylindrical shaft 13 is read as the vertical support, the first end is the circle cut out of the chariot 12, and the second end is tool holder 14; claim 8 of Girardin teaches that tool is being rotatably mounted to the said shaft, for instance).
Both Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata and Girardin relate to electrical discharging machining machine (Girardin, col. 1, ln. 9-20). Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does not explicitly teach a cylindrical shaft that is configured to move along axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates. Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does teach the machining head unit comprises a head (Etschenberg, Fig. 1) arranged to move along one Cartesian axis (see the arrows on the head in Fig. 1 of Etschenberg) and to rotate along at least one rotational axis (can be moved in the axial direction by an electric motor via a corresponding holding arm 22; Etschenberg, paragraph [0023], Fig. 1), and an electrode holder (holding arm 22; Etschenberg, paragraphs [0023] – [0024], Fig. 1) on which the electrode for carrying out the electrical discharge machining process can be removably coupled (the tool holder 24 has a coupling structure 25 which corresponds to a corresponding coupling structure 26 of the cutting electrode 20 such that the cutting electrode 20 is fixed to the tool holder 24 in a defined manner and can be easily removed or replaced; Etschenberg, paragraphs [0023] – [0024], Fig. 1) and wherein the electrode holder is rotatably coupled and wherein the electrode holder is rotatably coupled with the head so as to rotate along a rotation axis (Etschenberg, Fig. 1). Girardin teaches a cylindrical shaft 13 that is configured to move along axes in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates (Girardin, col. 1, ln. 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EDM module of Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata with the cylindrical shaft with chariots of Girardin for providing an effective machine tool for realizing three dimensional models.
PNG
media_image7.png
736
758
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Girardin
As to claim 31, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage, Nagata and Girardin teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the tank is configured to the workpiece to be submerged during the die sinking electrical discharge machining processing (Etschenberg, Fig. 1, teaches to the tank, wherein the tank is configured to the workpiece to be submerged during the die sinking electrical discharge machining processing).
As to claim 32, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage, Nagata and Girardin teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the tank is made of four bulkheads, each one vertically movable (Girardin, col. 5, ln. 42-46, Fig. 1, teaches to tank 16 wherein the tank is made of four side walls configured to provide partitions, each wall vertically moveable through the hydraulic or pneumatic systems 28 and 19; the work tank 16 can slide downwards along column 18).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Etschenberg of DE 102005014642 A1 (hereinafter, Etschenberg) in view of Chong Nam Chu of US 2013/0299458 A1 (hereinafter, Chu), Akio Ebisu of JP 2011161568 A (hereinafter, Ebisu), John Royden Peirce of US 857,898 A (hereinafter, Peirce), Dipl-Ing Clemens Hoppe of DE 12 43 496 B (hereinafter referred to as Hoppe), Joseph B. Armitage of US 2,653,519 A (hereinafter, Armitage), and Katsuhisa Nagata of JPS 48-90273 (hereinafter referred to as Nagata), as applied to claim 20 above, in further view of Hidetaka Katoki of JP 6141557 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Katoki).
As to claim 33, Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does not explicitly teach wherein the workpiece has a length of at least 800 millimeters.
In an analogous art, Katoki teaches to the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the workpiece has a length of at least 800 millimeters (Katoki, paragraphs [0078] and [0080], teaches that a long workpiece T having a diameter of 30 mm and a length of 800 mm).
Both Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata and Katoki relate to electric discharge machining apparatus (Katoki, paragraph [0001]). Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does not explicitly teach a workpiece having a length of at least 800 mm. Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata does teach to using an electric discharge machining apparatus on an elongated workpiece. Katoki teaches that a workpiece has a length of at least 800 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EDM module of Etschenberg in view of Chu, Ebisu, Peirce, Hoppe, Armitage and Nagata with the workpiece of Katoki for providing an elongated workpiece for being operable in performing electrical discharge machining processes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10 of 12, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. For instance, claim(s) 20-23, 26-29, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars Etschenberg of DE 102005014642 A1 (hereinafter, Etschenberg) in view of Chong Nam Chu of US 2013/0299458 A1 (hereinafter, Chu), Akio Ebisu of JP 2011161568 A (hereinafter, Ebisu), John Royden Peirce of US 857,898 A (hereinafter, Peirce), Dipl-Ing Clemens Hoppe of DE 12 43 496 B (hereinafter referred to as Hoppe), Joseph B. Armitage of US 2,653,519 A (hereinafter, Armitage), and Katsuhisa Nagata of JPS 48-90273 (hereinafter referred to as Nagata).
Chu and Ebisu are added as new prior art.
Please refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Verter Battistini of US 2002/0062561 A1 teaches a method for production of a rotor for centrifugal compressors.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights