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
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-3, drawn to “A bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism”) in the reply filed on 2/10/2025 was previously acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Please be advised that in the reply filed on 2/10/2025, Applicant stated the following: “Applicant affirms the previous telephonic election of claims 1-3, with traverse”). In making this statement though, Applicant did not specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement.
Claims 4 and 5 were previously withdrawn (and still are) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 8-9 of the claim, “a direction” should be amended to “[[a]] the direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “a direction” should be amended to “[[a]] the direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “a periphery” should be amended to “[[a]] the periphery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 7 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.
Lines 2-3 of claim 2 state, “the tool magazine comprises disk-shaped cutter head.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the claimed disk-shaped cutter head corresponds the tool magazine’s tool magazine disk on the periphery of which a plurality of tool holders are mounted, or if instead the claimed disk-shaped cutter head corresponds to a portion, for example, of the tool mounted to the tool magazine. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because since it is unclear as to which element of the tool magazine the disk-shaped cutter head makes up, it is unclear as to how or in what way that an axis of the disk-shaped cutter head is parallel to the Z-axis.
Lines 1-2 of claim 7 state, “The bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism according to claim 6.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because claim 6 was canceled by Applicant in the claim set filed on 11/14/2025. As such, it is unclear as to which claim that Applicant intended claim 7 to be dependent upon. In the below art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner has interpreted claim 7 to be dependent upon claim 1.
Lines 3-4 of claim 7 state, “an angle between the swing head and the Y-axis is maintained at 45°.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it is unclear if “an angle between the swing head and the Y-axis” is a same angle or is a different angle than the previously set forth “an angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head and the Y-axis” of line 12 of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrscher et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,126,526 A).
Claim 1: Figures 1 and 2 of Herrscher et al. show a bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism (10) comprising a bed (11), a sliding table (23), a column (21), a ram (26), and a swing head (28). Regarding the swing head (28), it is configured to be moved along (at least) a Y-axis and an X-axis. For Applicant’s reference, the Y-axis and the X-axis have shown below in annotated Figure 2 of Herrscher et al. Also, a B-axis of the ram (26) can be seen below. (It is noted that the B-axis of the ram (26) isn’t required by claim 1 to extend in any particular way. Noting this, the B-axis of the ram (26) extends parallel to the Y-axis of the mechanism (10)).
PNG
media_image1.png
974
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 2 further show the bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism (10) as comprising a tool magazine (32) which is equipped with a tool (30, 38). Please be advised that the swing head (28) is configured to move along a direction of a longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) to attach the swing head (28) to the tool (30, 38) or change the tool (30, 38) that is attached to the swing head (28) [column 3, lines 28-41].
Next, please note that Figure 2 of Herrscher et al. has again been annotated and provided below. As can be seen therein, an angle is formed between the B-axis of the ram (26) and the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28). Herrscher et al. though, does not provide disclosure on this angle being “an angle that remains between 30°-60°.”
PNG
media_image2.png
1000
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the angle formed between the B-axis of the ram (26) and the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) is an acute angle. This acute angle is a result effective variable, because changing a value of this acute angle effects the ratio of movement speed of the ram (26) to movement speed of the column (21) to ensure the swing head (28) is moved in the direction of the longitudinal axis thereof for workpiece engagement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism (10) of Herrscher et al. to cause the acute angle that is formed between the B-axis of the ram (26) and the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) to remain between 30°-60° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Next, be advised that the swing head (28) is configured so that when the swing head (28) moves along the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) to attach to the tool (30, 38) or change the tool (30, 38), the ram (26) (and a gear box (27) that connects the ram (26) and swing head (28) to one another, for example) moves (vertically) toward the tool (30, 38) along the X-axis, while the column (21) (via the sliding table (23), for example) moves (horizontally) toward the tool (30, 38) along the Y-axis [column 3, lines 28-41].
Next, it is reiterated that the B-axis of the ram (26) extends parallel to the Y-axis of the bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism (10). As such, in the bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism (10) of Herrscher et al., an angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis is equal to the acute angle formed between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the B-axis of the ram (26). Thus, the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis also “remains between 30°-60°.”
Noting the above, a ratio of movement speed of the ram (26) to movement speed of the column (21) is a tangent value of the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis.
For example, should the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis be 45°, for example, the tangent value of this angle is 1, and thus, the ratio of the movement speed of the ram (26) to the movement speed of the column (28) is also 1. That is to say that the column (21) and ram (26) move toward the tool (30, 38) (in their respective direction) at the same movement speed. Alternatively, for example, should the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis be 30°, for example, the tangent value of this 30° angle is 0.577, and thus, the ratio of the movement speed of the ram (26) to the movement speed of the column (28) is also 0.577. Alternatively, for example, should the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis be 60°, for example, the tangent value of this 60° angle is 1.732, and thus, the ratio of the movement speed of the ram (26) to the movement speed of the column (28) is also 1.732.
Claim 2: First, please be advised that neither claim 2, nor claim 1 on which claim 2 directly depends, sets forth the Z-axis as extending in any particular way. For example, neither claim 1 nor claim 2 requires the Z-axis to extend, for example, perpendicular to the X-axis and Y-axis. Noting this, the Z-axis of the bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism (10) of Herrscher et al. is considered to extend parallel to axis 35 and to axis 53 shown in Figure 3.
Noting the above, at least Figure 3 of Herrscher et al. shows the tool magazine (32) as receiving a tool (30, 38). Through receipt of the tool (30, 38), the tool magazine (32) comprises a disk-shaped cutter head (31). This will now be explained. The disk-shaped cutter head (31) provides for connecting the grinding head (38) of the tool (30, 38) to the handle (30) of the tool (30, 38). As such, when the tool (30, 38) is received in the tool magazine (32) as in Figure 3 of Herrscher et al., for example, at this time of receiving the tool (30, 38) to which is connected the disk-shaped cutter head (31), the tool magazine (32) receives (and thus comprises) the disk-shaped cutter head (31).
Next, as can also be seen in Figure 3, the cutter head (31) has an axis (53). The axis (53) of the cutter head (31) extends parallel to the Z-axis of the mechanism (10). Also, as can be seen in Figure 3 of Herrscher et al., on opposing peripheries thereof, the cutting head (31) is equipped with the tool (30, 38), e.g. the distal peripheral of the cutter head (31) is equipped with the grinding head (38) of the tool (30, 38), while the proximal peripheral of the cutter head (31) is equipped with the handle (30) of the tool (30, 38). Regarding the handle (30), which the tool (30, 38) comprises, it extends outward from the tool magazine (32) (see at least Figures 2-3).
Claim 3: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 2 of Herrscher et al., the sliding table (23) is arranged on one side (right side) of the bed (11) (from the perceptive of Figure 3), and the tool magazine (32) is arranged on another side (left side) of the bed (11).
PNG
media_image3.png
974
1061
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to the column (21), it is arranged at least in part on the sliding table (23). Regarding the ram (26), it is arranged on a side of the column (21), with the ram (26) being between the side of the column (21) and the tool magazine (32). In use, the column (21) moves in the direction of (and thus “along”) the Y-axis, while the ram (26) moves in the direction of (and thus “along”) the X-axis.
Next, please be advised that neither claim 3, nor claim 1 on which claim 3 directly depends, sets forth the Z-axis as extending in any particular way. For example, neither claim 1 nor claim 3 requires the Z-axis to extend, for example, perpendicular to the X-axis and Y-axis. Noting this, should the Z-axis be considered to correspond to arrows (25) in Figure 2 (see above) so as to extend parallel to the Y-axis, it follows that the sliding table (23) moves in the direction of (and thus “along”) the Z-axis (25). Additionally/Alternatively, the sliding table (23) moves “along”/beside/next to any number of axes. For example, if the Z-axis was considered instead to extend parallel to the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28), note that the sliding table (23) moves “along” (as broadly claimed)/beside/next to this Z-axis.
Claim 7: First, be advised that the swing head (28) is configured to move along the direction of the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) to attach the swing head (28) to the tool (30, 38) or change the tool (30, 38) that is attached to the swing head (28) [column 3, lines 28-41].
Next, it is reiterated that the B-axis of the ram (26) extends parallel to the Y-axis of the bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism (10). As such, in the bevel swing head interpolation tool changing mechanism (10) of Herrscher et al., an angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis is equal to the acute angle formed between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the B-axis of the ram (26). Thus, as was advised above within the rejection of independent claim 1, the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis also remains between 30°-60°. Disclosure; however, is not provided on this 30°-60° angle being “maintained at 45°.”
Noting the above, the 30°-60° angle that is formed between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis is a result effective variable. This is because changing a value of this angle effects the ratio of the movement speed of the ram (26) to the movement speed of the column (21) to ensure the swing head (28) is moved in the direction of the longitudinal axis thereof for workpiece engagement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanism (10) of Herrscher et al. to cause the angle that is formed between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis to be maintained at 45° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Lastly, a ratio of the movement speed of the ram (26) to the movement speed of the column (21) is a tangent value of the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis. As such, since the angle between the longitudinal axis of the swing head (28) and the Y-axis is maintained at 45°, the tangent value of this angle is 1, and thus, the ratio of the movement speed of the ram (26) to the movement speed of the column (28) is also 1. That is to say that the column (21) and ram (26) move toward the tool (30, 38) (in their respective direction) at an equal movement speed.
Claim 8: As can be seen in Figure 4 of Herrscher et al., the tool magazine (32) further comprises a tool holder (36) for removably mounting the tool (30, 38). Be advised that the tool holder (36) is mounted along/beside/next to a periphery of the cutter head (31) of the magazine (32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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
/THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729