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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Ito does not teach a first machining head and a support and rotation unit that are movable one with respect to the other in a direction orthogonal to a first rotation axis of a first pair of support and rotation members and to a second rotation axis of a second pair of support and members and parallel to a plane on which the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members and the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members. This is not found persuasive because Ito was relied upon to teach the second pair of rotation and support members and the combination of this second pair of rotation and support members with Southworth to allow the turning center to simultaneously machine two workpieces, as described on page 5 of the previous office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 8 is 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. The disclosure does not provide adequate structure for the claim language “the rotary tool of the first machining head rotates about an axis oriented at 90° with respect to the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members and with respect to the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members, and parallel to the plane on which the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members and the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members lie”. Figures 5(A) and 5(B) depict the use of the milling cutter, and paragraphs [0083] and [0087-0088] discuss the use of said milling cutter in a manner that is orthogonal to the rotation axes of the support and rotation units. However, there is no indication that the milling cutter is rotating about an axis that is also parallel to the plane on which the rotation axes of the support and rotation units lie.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the machining position” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “substantially horizontal” in line 4 and “a substantially horizontal direction” in line 6. It is unclear in light of the specification what deviation from the horizontal direction and horizontal plane is determined by the term “substantially.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “substantially parallel” in line 3. It is unclear in light of the specification what deviation from parallel is determined by the term “substantially.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “substantially parallel” in line 3. It is unclear in light of the specification what deviation from parallel is determined by the term “substantially.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the gantry structure” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “substantially orthogonal” in line 4. It is unclear in light of the specification what deviation from orthogonal is determined by the term “substantially.”
Claim 16 also recites the limitation “each machining head” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9, 11-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by WO 2020107046 A1 to Dallinger.
Regarding claim 1, Dallinger discloses a numerically controlled turning center 1, the turning center comprising: a support and rotation unit 20 comprising: a first pair of support and rotation members 25,26 aligned with each other along a first rotation axis 23; and a second pair of support and rotation members 27,28 aligned with each other along a second rotation axis 24 parallel to the first rotation axis (Fig 1); at least a first machining head 5, comprising a first rotary tool for chip removal machining, movable according to a first numerically controlled axis 10 parallel to the rotation axes 23,24 of the first pair of support and rotation members and of the second pair of support and rotation members (via 13, [0064]); wherein the first machining head 5 and the support and rotation unit 20 are movable with respect to the others in a direction 11 orthogonal to the first rotation axis 23 of the first pair of support and rotation members and to the second rotation axis 24 of the second pair of support and rotation members and parallel to a plane on which the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members and the second axis of the second pair of support and rotation members lie (the machining head is movable in the Y-axis direction via 17, [0067]); and wherein the arrangement of the tool 5 and the center-to-center distance of the rotation axis 23,24 of the first pair of rotation and support members 25,26 and of the second pair of support and rotation members 27,28 are such that the tool can simultaneously machine two workpieces 37,38 (where it is possible to arrange the tool in between the two axes 23 and 24 such that the tool can machine a workpiece set on each pair of support and rotation units), rotationally supported respectively by the first pair of support and rotation members 25,26 and by the second pair of support and rotation units 27,28 ([0072]).
Regarding claim 3, Dallinger discloses the turning center of claim 1, wherein the support and rotation unit 20 and the at least one machining head 5 are adapted to alternately take: a first mutual position in which the tool of the machining head simultaneously machines two workpieces 37,38 engaged with the first pair of support and rotation members 25,26 and with the second pair of support and rotation members 27,28, respectively (where it is possible to arrange the tool in between the two axes 23 and 24 such that the tool can machine a workpiece set on each pair of support and rotation units); a second mutual position in which the tool of the machining head 5 machines a single workpiece 37 supported on the first pair of support and rotation members 25,26 (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Dallinger discloses the turning center of claim 1, wherein: the plane on which the first rotation axis 23 of the first pair of support and rotation members 25,26 and the second rotation axis 24 of the second pair of support and rotation members 27,28 lie is substantially horizontal (Fig 1, in the Y-axis direction); and wherein the first machining head 5 and the support and rotation unit 20 are movable with respect to the other in a substantially horizontal direction (via 17, [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Dallinger discloses the turning center of claim 1, comprising at least a second machining head 6 comprising a second rotary tool for chip removal machining, movable along said first numerically controlled axis 10 (via 13, [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Dallinger discloses the turning center of claim 9, wherein the first machining head 5 and the second machining head 6 are carried by a first slide 13 movable along the first numerically controlled axis 10 (Fig 1, [0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Dallinger teaches the turning center of claim 1, comprising a load-bearing gantry structure (Fig 4), with a cross member 16 carried by a pair of uprights 3,47, wherein the cross member 16 is substantially parallel to the first rotation axis 23 of the first pair of support and rotation members and to the second rotation axis 24 of the second pair of support and rotation members (shown in the annotated figure below); and wherein the first machining head 5 is supported on a first side of the cross member 16 and movable there along according to the first numerically controlled translation axis 11.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Dallinger discloses the turning center of claim 1, wherein each machining head 5 is provided with a movement according to a numerically controlled axis 7, toward and away from the support and rotation unit 20, according to a direction substantially orthogonal to the plane on which the first rotation axis 23 of the first pair of support and rotation members 25,26 and the second rotation axis 24 of the second pair of support and rotation members 27,28 lie (movement in the Z-direction 9 is accomplished by 15, Fig 1, [0065]); each machining head being controlled in the movement toward and away from the support and rotation unit according to a respective independent numerically controlled axis 7.
Regarding claim 17, Dallinger discloses the turning center of claim 1, further comprising an electrospindle 6 for a further rotary tool, rotating about an axis 8 adapted to take an orientation incident to the plane on which the rotation axes 23,24 of the first pair of support and rotation members and of the second pair of support and rotation members lie (when the head 4 is rotated about 19 to hold the rotary tool incident to the plane).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020107046 A1 to Dallinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6161457 A to Hammer.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Dallinger discloses the turning center of claim 1. Dallinger also discloses a support structure 21 on which the support and rotation unit is carried in a cantilever manner (via 35, [0080]). Dallinger does not explicitly disclose in the machining position the support and rotation unit and the rotary tool are positioned over a chip collection area. Dallinger also does not disclose a conveyor under the support and rotation unit, for collecting the machining chips, movable in a direction parallel to the first rotation axis and to the second rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members and of the second pair of support and rotation members.
However, Hammer teaches the support and rotation unit 34 and the rotary tool 44 are positioned over a chip collection area 20. Hammer also teaches a conveyor 22 under the support and rotation unit 34, for collecting machining chips, movable in a direction parallel to the first rotation axis and to the second rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members 34a and of the second pair of support and rotation members 34b.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dallinger to incorporate the chip removal method of Hammer in order to freely discard of the chips removed during the machining process, as would be readily understood to be a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GFB2178991 A to Southworth, and further in view of JP S63200937 A to Ito et al. (hereinafter, ‘Ito’).
Regarding claim 1, Southworth discloses a numerically controlled turning center (Fig 1), the turning center comprising: a support and rotation unit comprising: a first pair of support and rotation members (5,5’) aligned with each other along a first rotation axis (Fig 1, axis extending through 5 and 5’); at least a first machining head 16, comprising a first rotary tool 19 for chip removal machining (Fig 1), movable according to a first numerically controlled translation axis Z1 parallel to the rotation axes of the first pair of support and rotation members (5,5’); wherein the first machining head 16 and the support and rotation unit are movable one with respect to the others in a direction X2 orthogonal to the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members (5,5’).
Southworth does not explicitly disclose a second pair of support and rotation members aligned with each other along a second rotation axis parallel to the first rotation axis; a first machining head movable parallel to the second pair of support and rotation members; the first machining head and the support and rotation unit are movable with respect to the others in a direction orthogonal to the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members and parallel to a plane on which the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members and the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members lie; and wherein the arrangement of the tool and the center-to-center distance of the rotation axes of the first pair of support and rotation members and of the second pair of support and rotation members are such that the tool can simultaneously machine two workpieces, rotationally supported respectively by the first pair of support and rotation members and by the second pair of support and rotation members.
However, Ito teaches a second pair of support and rotation members (2,3) aligned with each other along a second rotation axis parallel to the first rotation axis (Fig 1); wherein the arrangement of the tool 8a and the center-to-center distance of the rotation axes (through each combination of headstock 2 and tailstock 3) of the first pair of support and rotation members (2,3) and of the second pair of support and rotation members (2,3) are such that the tool can simultaneously machine two workpieces, rotationally supported respectively by the first pair of support and rotation members and the second pair of support and rotation members (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth to incorporate the second pair of support and rotation members as taught by Ito, making it capable of machining both workpieces simultaneously with the two machining heads disclosed by Southworth, in order to have multiple workpieces set up at the same time on the same machine (Ito, page 3 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 4, Southworth in view of Ito teaches the turning center of claim 1. Southworth also teaches the relative movement between the first machining head 16 and the support and rotation unit with respect to a stationary load-bearing structure (the spindle is movable in the Y2 direction via 23 relative to the body of the turning center).
Regarding claim 9, Southworth in view of Ito teaches the turning center of claim 1. Southworth also teaches a second machining head 7 comprising a second rotary tool 20 for chip removal machining, movable along said first numerically controlled translation axis Z1.
Regarding claim 10, Southworth in view of Ito teaches the turning center of claim 9. Southworth also teaches the second rotary tool 20 has a rotation axis parallel to the plane on which the first rotation axis (Fig 1, axis extending through 5 and 5’) of the first pair of support and rotation members lie, and parallel to the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation axes (Fig 1).
Southworth does not explicitly disclose the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members and the plane that the two rotation axes lie on.
However, Ito teaches the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members 2,3.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth to incorporate the second pair of support and rotation members as taught by Ito, making it capable of machining both workpieces simultaneously with the two machining heads disclosed by Southworth, in order to have multiple workpieces set up at the same time on the same machine (Ito, page 3 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 14, Southworth in view of Ito teaches the turning center of claim 1. Southworth also teaches the support and rotation unit is carried on a second slide 23, movable along a second numerically controlled translation axis Y2 orthogonal to the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members 5,5’.
Southworth does not explicitly disclose the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members and the plane that the two rotation axes lie on.
However, Ito teaches the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members 2,3.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth to incorporate the second pair of support and rotation members as taught by Ito, making it capable of machining both workpieces simultaneously with the two machining heads disclosed by Southworth, in order to have multiple workpieces set up at the same time on the same machine (Ito, page 3 lines 18-21).
Claim(s) 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Southworth in view of Ito as applied to at least claims 1 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Dallinger.
Regarding claim 11, Southworth in view of Ito teaches the turning center of claim 9. Southworth does not explicitly disclose the first machining head and the second machining head are carried by a first slide, movable along the first numerically controlled translation axis.
However, Dallinger teaches the first machining head 5 and the second machining head 6 are carried by a first slide 17, movable along the first numerically controlled translation axis 11.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth as previously modified to incorporate both machining heads onto the slide as taught by Dallinger in order to provide further operational capabilities for both machining heads, as would be readily understood to be a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, Southworth in view of Ito teaches the turning center of claim 11. Southworth does not explicitly disclose a load-bearing gantry structure, with a cross member carried by a pair of uprights, wherein the cross member is substantially parallel to the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members and to the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members; and wherein the first machining head is supported on a first side of the cross member and movable there along according to the first numerically controlled translation axis, wherein the first slide is movable along guides integral with the cross member of the gantry structure.
However, Dallinger teaches a load-bearing gantry structure (Fig 4), with a cross member 16 carried by a pair of uprights 3,47, wherein the cross member 16 is substantially parallel to the first rotation axis 23 of the first pair of support and rotation members and to the second rotation axis 24 of the second pair of support and rotation members; and wherein the first machining head 5 is supported on a first side of the cross member 16 and movable there along according to the first numerically controlled translation axis 11, wherein the first slide is movable along guides integral with the cross member 16 of the gantry structure.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the slide structure by Southworth with the gantry structure by Dallinger in order to provide further operational capabilities for both machining heads, as would be common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and/or as simple substitution of one known element for another leading to the predictable result of having multiple machining heads that are capable of moving along an axis parallel to the rotation axes. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting the rationale of simple substitution of one known element to another to obtain predictable results to support a finding of obviousness).
Regarding claim 15, Southworth in view of Ito teaches the turning center of claim 10. Southworth also teaches the support and rotation unit is carried on a second slide 23, movable along a second numerically controlled translation axis Y2 orthogonal to the first rotation axis of the first pair of support and rotation members 5,5’.
Southworth does not explicitly disclose the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members and the plane that the two rotation axes lie on, and wherein the second slide is mounted movable on guides positioned under the gantry structure, and fixed to a bed underneath the cross member.
However, Ito teaches the second rotation axis of the second pair of support and rotation members 2,3.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Southworth to incorporate the second pair of support and rotation members as taught by Ito, making it capable of machining both workpieces simultaneously with the two machining heads disclosed by Southworth, in order to have multiple workpieces set up at the same time on the same machine (Ito, page 3 lines 18-21).
In addition, Dallinger teaches the gantry structure 16,3,47.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the slide structure by Southworth with the gantry structure by Dallinger in order to provide further operational capabilities for both machining heads, as would be common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and/or as simple substitution of one known element for another leading to the predictable result of having multiple machining heads that are capable of moving along an axis parallel to the rotation axes. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting the rationale of simple substitution of one known element to another to obtain predictable results to support a finding of obviousness).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE whose telephone number is (703)756-4729. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights