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 .
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, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 20150298271 A1), and further in view of Murakami et al. (US 20160325400 A1, hereinafter ‘Murakami’).
Regarding claim 1, Murata teaches a manufacturing system for machining (Figs 9-14), comprising: a machine tool 1A, which is configured for multi-axis machining ([0041]), and which comprises a tool holder 14 ([0047]) and a workpiece holder 6 ([0043]) that are movable relative to each other in at least three axes ([0041]), wherein the tool holder 14 and the workpiece holder 14 are arranged at a rear side of a working space 25 of the machine tool 1A (Figs 1-2), and a handling cell 9 comprising: a first interface 29 to the machine tool 1A, which is laterally coupled to the working space 25 (Fig 1), a second interface 45 configured for transfer purposes ([0051]), and at least one buffer storage 8, wherein the handling unit 36 is arranged for an automated workpiece change ([0052-0055]).
Murata does not explicitly disclose a handling unit, wherein the handling unit is a hanging articulated robot, and wherein a movement range of the handling unit encompasses the first interface, a workpiece transfer position with the workpiece holder, and the second interface.
However, Murakami teaches a handling unit 5, wherein the handling unit is a hanging articulated robot (Fig 1, [0061]), and wherein a movement range of the handling unit encompasses the first interface 30A, a workpiece transfer position with the workpiece holder 29, and the second interface 30B.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata to include the hanging articulate robot of Murakami in the handling cell to increase the capability of the cell to include moving individual workpieces onto the pallets or directly to the workpiece holder, as would be readily understood to be a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art, in a manner that maximizes the space efficiency of the cell (Murakami, [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Murata as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Murata does not explicitly disclose the handling unit comprises a double gripper, which is arranged for gripping blanks.
However, Murakami teaches the handling unit 5 comprises a double gripper (a plurality of robot hands are used by the robot, [0062]), which is arranged for gripping blanks 13.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata to include the hanging articulate robot of Murakami in the handling cell to increase the capability of the cell to include moving individual workpieces onto the pallets or directly to the workpiece holder, as would be readily understood to be a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art, in a manner that maximizes the space efficiency of the cell (Murakami, [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Murata as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Murata also teaches the handling cell 9 further comprises an area configured for production-related inspection of workpieces (based on the best understanding of the limitation as described by the specification, this function is achieved by the operator viewing the part through a window in the doors 46,47 or by opening one or more of the doors.)
Regarding claim 18, Murata as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Murata also teaches the machine tool 1A comprises: a frame block 11, a Y-carriage 50, which is arranged at a Y-guide 13A,13A on an underside of the frame block 11, and which is movable horizontally relative to the frame block (Fig 9, [0063]), an X-carriage 3A, which is arranged at an X-guide 12A,12A on an inclined side of the frame block 11, and which is movable horizontally relative to the frame block, wherein the frame block is arranged as an inclined bed frame block (the frame block is inclined relative to the Y-axis), and wherein the X-carriage 3A is movable along an X-axis ([0062]), which is oriented perpendicular to a Y-axis (Fig 9), along which the Y-carriage 50 is movable ([0063]), a Z-carriage 5, which is arranged on a Z-guide 15A,15A at a front of the X-carriage 3A (Fig 9), and which is movable vertically ([0062]), and a rotary drive 18 mounted directly or mediately on the Y-carriage 50 (Fig 9), which supports a table 6A with the workpiece holder 21.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klaiber (DE 102011000107 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Murata as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Murata does not explicitly disclose the handling unit provides a primary function and at least one secondary function, wherein the primary function comprises a workpiece change, and wherein the secondary function comprises a tool change.
However, Klaiber teaches the handling unit 9 provides a primary function and at least one secondary function ([0038]), wherein the primary function comprises a workpiece 8 change, and wherein the secondary function comprises a tool 7 change (Fig 4, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata as previously modified to utilize the robot hand of Murakami to function as a workpiece changer and a tool changer as taught by Klaiber (Klaiber, [0040]) in order to ensure an uninterrupted supply of workpieces and tools (Klaiber, [0012]).
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US 20060270540 A1, hereinafter ‘Takayama’), and further in view of Murakami.
Regarding claim 1, Takayama teaches a manufacturing system for machining, comprising: a machine tool 1, which is configured for multi-axis machining ([0052-0053]), and which comprises a tool holder 19 and a workpiece holder 20a that are movable relative to each other in at least three axes ([0052-0053]), wherein the tool holder 19 and the workpiece holder 20a are arranged at a rear side of a working space 10 of the machine tool 1 (Figs 3-4), a handling cell 62 comprising: a first interface 14a to the machine tool 1, which is laterally coupled to the working space 10 ([0056]), a second interface 62a configured for transfer purposes ([0088]), a handling unit 47, and at least one buffer storage 46, wherein the handling unit 47 is arranged for an automated workpiece change ([0074-0075]).
Takayama does not explicitly disclose a handling unit, wherein the handling unit is a hanging articulated robot, and wherein a movement range of the handling unit encompasses the first interface, a workpiece transfer position with the workpiece holder, and the second interface.
However, Murakami teaches a handling unit 5, wherein the handling unit is a hanging articulated robot (Fig 1, [0061]), and wherein a movement range of the handling unit encompasses the first interface 30A, a workpiece transfer position with the workpiece holder 29, and the second interface 30B.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayama to include the hanging articulate robot of Murakami in the handling cell to increase the capability of the cell to include moving individual workpieces onto the pallets or directly to the workpiece holder, as would be readily understood to be a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art, in a manner that maximizes the space efficiency of the cell (Murakami, [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama also teaches the at least one buffer storage 45 comprises at least one support for a workpiece carrier 46 having a plurality of storage locations 46a, which are arranged for accommodating blanks W (Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama also teaches the at least one buffer storage 46 is arranged to support a first workpiece carrier (one of the pallet tables 46a) for providing blanks and a second workpiece carrier (another of the pallet tables 46a) for accommodating workpieces to be processed or remaining pieces (workpieces W can be processed or unprocessed, [0076]), and wherein the at least one buffer storage 46 is arranged to support the first workpiece carrier 46a and the second workpiece carrier 46a together in the handling cell (Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama also teaches at least one auxiliary storage 46a in the handling cell, which is arranged for storing samples. (The pallet tables 46a are capable of storing a sample, and one of the pallet tables can be designated for that function).
Regarding claim 9, Takayama teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama does not explicitly disclose the handling unit comprises a vacuum gripper, which is arranged for gripping processed workpieces.
However, Murakami teaches the handling unit 5 comprises a vacuum gripper 33, which is arranged for gripping processed workpieces 13 ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayama to include the hanging articulate robot of Murakami in the handling cell to increase the capability of the cell to include moving individual workpieces onto the pallets or directly to the workpiece holder, as would be readily understood to be a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art, in a manner that maximizes the space efficiency of the cell (Murakami, [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama also teaches at least one reference part W in the handling cell for aligning workpieces. (The pallet tables 46a are capable of storing a reference part, and one of the pallet tables can be designated for that function)
Regarding claim 12, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama also teaches a door, which is arranged to close the first interface 14a between the machine tool 1 and the handling cell 62 ([0085]).
Regarding claim 13, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama also teaches a setup cell 40 having a handling manipulator 42, wherein the setup cell 40 and the handling cell 62 are coupled on opposite sides to the working space 10 of the machine tool 1 (Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama also teaches the machine tool 1 is arranged in a machining cell 10, which is separated from the handling cell 62 that is provided for workpiece change purposes, and from a setup cell 40 that is provided for tool change purposes (Figs 1-4).
Claims 2 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of Murakami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klaiber.
Regarding claim 2, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 1. Takayama does not explicitly disclose the handling unit provides a primary function and at least one secondary function, wherein the primary function comprises a workpiece change, and wherein the secondary function comprises a tool change.
However, Klaiber teaches the handling unit 9 provides a primary function and at least one secondary function ([0038]), wherein the primary function comprises a workpiece 8 change, and wherein the secondary function comprises a tool 7 change (Fig 4, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata as previously modified to utilize the robot hand of Murakami to function as a workpiece changer and a tool changer as taught by Klaiber (Klaiber, [0040]) in order to ensure an uninterrupted supply of workpieces and tools (Klaiber, [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 13. Takayama does not explicitly disclose the handling manipulator is arranged as a setup robot and provides a primary function and at least one secondary function, wherein the primary function comprises a tool change, and wherein the secondary function comprises a workpiece change.
However, Klaiber teaches the handling manipulator 9 is arranged as a setup robot (Figs 2 and 4) and provides a primary function and at least one secondary function ([0038]), wherein the primary function comprises a tool 7 change, and wherein the secondary function comprises a workpiece 8 change (Fig 4, [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 14. Takayama does not explicitly disclose the handling manipulator provides another secondary function, which involves a block setup with a tool kit.
However, Klaiber teaches the handling manipulator provides another secondary function, which involves a block setup with a tool kit. (The feeding device 9 is capable of providing the setup of a tool kit).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayama to substitute the articulated robot system of Klaiber in place of the tool changer used by Takayama in order to provide a continuous supply of workpieces and tools and reduce machining time (Klaiber, [0011-0012]) and/or as simple substitution of one known element for another leading to the predictable result of automated workpiece and tool changing. 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).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of Murakami as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Spacher et al. (US 4930976 A, hereinafter ‘Spacher’)
Regarding claims 16-17, Takayama as previously modified teaches the manufacturing system of claim 13. Takayama does not explicitly disclose the handling manipulator is arranged as a SCARA robot and comprises two or more pivoting axes that are parallel to each other. Takayama does teach the handling manipulator 42 is movable linearly along an axis parallel that is oriented parallel to the pivoting axes ([0072], where the arm rotates horizontally and moves vertically)
However, Spacher teaches the handling manipulator is arranged as a SCARA robot 10 and comprises two or more pivoting axes that are parallel to each other (around the axes through the centers of 12 and 14, Fig 1, Col 1 lines 47-59).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayama to utilize a SCARA robot as disclosed by Spacher as a simple substitution of one known element (the tool changing arm of Takayama) for another (the SCARA robot of Spacher) leading to the predictable result of automated tool changing. 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama, and further in view of Winkel (DE 202013008677 U1) and Murakami.
Regarding claim 20, Takayama teaches a manufacturing line for machining, comprising: a manufacturing system, comprising: a machine tool 1, which is arranged for multi-axis machining ([0052-0053]), and which comprises a tool holder 19 and a workpiece holder 20a that are movable relative to each other in at least three axes ([0052-0053]), wherein the tool holder 19 and the workpiece holder 20a are arranged at a rear side of a working space 10 of the machine tool 1 (Figs 3-4), a handling cell 62 comprising: a first interface 14a to the machine tool 1, which is laterally coupled to the working space 10 ([0056]), a second interface 62a for transfer purposes ([0088]), a handling unit 47, and at least one buffer storage 46, wherein the handling unit 47 is arranged for an automated workpiece change ([0074-0075]).
Takayama does not explicitly disclose a combined transfer and storage device, comprising: a storage level, comprising two or more storages that are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction and provided with storage spaces, which are arranged one above the other, for workpiece carriers for holding blanks or machined workpieces, a transfer device extending in the longitudinal direction, comprising a ground-side guide and a travelling column carrying a handling device, at least one machining interface, which is arranged adjacent to or between the storages, for direct or mediate coupling with a machine tool, at least one feeding interface, which is accessible for a driverless transport vehicle, wherein the transfer device accomplishes a workpiece transfer between the feeding interface, the storage level and the at least one machining interface, and wherein a workpiece transfer between the device and the machine tool takes place mediately by using the handling unit of the handling cell; and a handling unit, wherein the handling unit is a hanging articulated robot, and wherein a movement range of the handling unit encompasses the first interface, a workpiece transfer position with the workpiece holder, and the second interface.
However, Murakami teaches a handling unit 5, wherein the handling unit is a hanging articulated robot (Fig 1, [0061]), and wherein a movement range of the handling unit encompasses the first interface 30A, a workpiece transfer position with the workpiece holder 29, and the second interface 30B.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayama to include the hanging articulate robot of Murakami in the handling cell to increase the capability of the cell to include moving individual workpieces onto the pallets or directly to the workpiece holder, as would be readily understood to be a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art, in a manner that maximizes the space efficiency of the cell (Murakami, [0022]).
In addition, Winkel teaches a combined transfer and storage device ([0001]), comprising: a storage level (Fig 1, storage areas on the lower level), comprising two or more storages (22,24,26,28) that are spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction (Figs 1-3) and provided with storage spaces for workpiece carriers 30, which are arranged one above the other (Fig 1), for workpiece carriers holding blanks or machined workpieces ([0035]), a transfer device 32 extending in the longitudinal direction (see the movement of 32 in Figs 1-4) comprising a ground-side guide 38 and a traveling column 36 carrying a handling device 34 ([0034]), at least one machining interface 40 ([0035]), which is arranged adjacent to or between the storages (22,24,26,28), for direct or mediate coupling with a machine tool ([0035]), at least one feeding interface which is accessible for a driverless transport vehicle (further gripping device, [0035]), wherein the transfer device accomplishes a workpiece transfer ([0035]) between the feeding interface (with the further gripping device, [0035]), the storage level (Figs 1-4) and the at least one machining interface 40.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takayama to incorporate the transfer and storage device of Winkel in order to automatically feed the manufacturing system with workpieces (Winkel, [0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 08/22/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 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