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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 13 of the claim, “a longitudinal direction” should be changed to “[[a]] the longitudinal direction”. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0168858 A1).
Please be advised that Choi was cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 mailed on 5/16/2025.
Please also be advised that the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 3/23/2020, while the effectively filed date of Choi is 3/8/2019. Thus, the effectively filed date of 3/8/2019 of Choi is prior to the effective filing date of 3/23/2020 of the claimed invention. Choi therefore constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Choi shows an apparatus (1) for exchanging a tool (T) of a boring bar, wherein the boring bar is the element that is mounted to a periphery of a tool post (30) and is the element to which the tool (T) is mounted. (Please note that at least Figure 8 shows the tool (T) being mounted to the boring bar).
Figure 1 shows the apparatus (1) as further comprising a magazine (130) configured to store the tool (T). With regards to the boring bar, it is configured to receive the tool (T) for machining a workpiece.
Figure 4 shows a frame (112) that is arranged under the magazine (130) with respect to a vertical direction. When there is no inclination part (111), the frame/coupling part (112) may be formed perpendicular to the horizontal direction [Choi, paragraph 0091].
Figure 4 of Choi also shows a guide rail (161) arranged on the frame (112), and the magazine (130) being connected to the guide rail (161). When there is no inclination part (111) [Choi, paragraph 0091], for example, the guide rail (161) is extended in a lateral direction, perpendicular to a vertical direction such that the magazine (130) moves on the guide rail (161) along the lateral direction.
Next, Figure 5 of Choi shows an actuator (135) configured to rotate the magazine (130).
Attention is now directed to Figure 2 of Choi, which points to a main shaft (20) that is configured to fix the workpiece. Be advised that a longitudinal center axis of the main shaft and a longitudinal center axis of the workpiece are aligned with one another along a longitudinal direction (Z), wherein the longitudinal direction (Z) extends perpendicular to the lateral direction and perpendicular to the vertical direction. For Applicant’s reference, the main shaft has been pointed to below in annotated Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the main shaft is disposed on one side of a cover (50) with respect to the longitudinal direction (Z), while the magazine (130) and the guide rail (161) are disposed, in their respective entireties with respect to the longitudinal direction (Z), on an opposing side of the cover (50). Based on the foregoing, the magazine (130) and the guide rail (161) are disposed, in their respective entireties with respect to the longitudinal direction (Z), on a first side of the main shaft. (For Applicant’s reference, the first side of the main shaft, and a second side of the main shaft have also been pointed to above in annotated Figure 1 of Choi). Please note that Examiner also refers Applicant to Figure 4 of Choi which shows each of the magazine (130) and guide rail (161) in detail. Between Figures 1 and 4, the magazine (130) and the guide rail (161) are shown as being positioned in their respective entireties on the opposing side of the cover (50) as compared to the main shaft, and thus “on a first side of the main shaft”.
Lastly, when the boring bar (which has also been pointed by Examiner within annotated Figure 1) is machining the workpiece with the tool (T), the boring bar is positioned with respect to the longitudinal direction (Z), on the second side of the main shaft opposite the first side of said main shaft.
Claim 2: Figures 5 and 6 of Choi show the magazine (130) as comprising a rotation plate (133), which is rotated by the actuator (135) by means of a rotary shaft (132) [paragraphs 0130-0135]. Figure 6 of Choi also shows a plurality of holders (134) arranged at an outer surface of the rotation plate (133), each of the plurality of holders (134) capable of holding the tool (T).
Claim 3: When the actuator (135) is actuated, the magazine (130) is rotated with respect to the longitudinal direction.
Claim 5: The apparatus (1) further comprises a cylinder (163), e.g. a hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder, installed at the frame (112) (please see Figure 4) to move the magazine (130) along the guide rail (161).
Claim 6: The apparatus (1) further comprises a bracket (131, 162) movable connected to the guide rail (161) [paragraph 0126], the magazine (130) being rotatable connected to the bracket (131, 162), and the actuator (135) being installed at the bracket (131, 162) (please see Figure 5).
Claim 7: The actuator (135) comprises a servo motor [paragraph 0134].
Claim 8: With respect to at least the vertical direction, the magazine (130) is arranged between a spindle exchange apparatus (240) and the main shaft.
Claim 9: Choi discloses a method of exchanging a tool (T) of a boring bar using the apparatus (1) of claim 1, the method comprising the following steps:
Arranging the magazine (130) along the lateral direction, wherein the magazine (130) includes a plurality of holders (134) to store tools (T);
Rotating the magazine (130) by actuating the actuator (135) so as to locate one of the plurality of holders (134) holding/having a new tool (T) at an exchange positions;
Arranging the boring bar, to which is attached the tool (T), at a front of the magazine (130) (please see Figure 8 of Choi); and
Exchanging the tool (T) attached to the boring bar for the new tool (T) (please see Figures 8-20 of Choi).
Claim 10: With regards to the method step of arranging the magazine (130), please be advised that arranging the magazine (130) comprises moving the magazine (130) in the lateral direction along the guide rail (161).
Claim 11: The method further comprises returning the magazine (130) to an original position (through actuation of a cylinder (163)) along the guide rail (161) after exchanging the tool (T) attached to the boring bar for the new tool (T).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Choi, Applicant argues the following:
The Office relied on Figures 1, 4, 5 and 7 of Choi to find a magazine 130, a frame 112 arranged under the magazine in the vertical direction, a guide rail 161 along which the magazine moves laterally, an actuator 135 for rotating the magazine, and a main shaft 20 fixing a workpiece with the workpiece aligned along a longitudinal direction. The Office then asserted that Figures 1 and 7 show the magazine and guide rail positioned, in their entireties, on a side of the main shaft opposite the tool post/boring bar 30 along the longitudinal direction.
Choi does not disclose the “first side / second side when machining” structure
As discussed above, amended claim 1 now requires that:
The magazine and guide rail lie, in their entireties, on a first side of the main shaft with respect to the longitudinal direction; and
When the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool, the boring bar is positioned on a second side of the main shaft opposite the first side.
This limitation captures the specific structural configuration of Applicant’s machine where the tool exchange apparatus is located between the main shaft and the spindle exchange apparatus (on the first side), and the boring bar extends through the main shaft to machine the workpiece on the opposite side (the second side).
The Office’s discussion of Choi does not identify, and Choi does not clearly disclose, such an arrangement:
1. The Office Action states only that “Figures 1 and 7 show each of the magazine (130) and the guide rail (161) being positioned, in their respective entireties, on a side of the main shaft (20) opposite the tool post/boring bar (30), along the longitudinal direction.”
This describes a static picture of component locations, but does not address the configuration when the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool.
2. The Examiner’s mapping does not establish that, in Choi’s machine, the machining state necessarily corresponds to the state shown in Figures 1 or 7, or that the apparatus is configured such that during machining the boring bar is on one side of the main shaft while the magazine and guide rail are entirely on the other side, in the sense required by the amended claim.
3. By contrast, the present specification explicitly ties the tool exchange apparatus’ position relative to the main shaft and spindle exchange apparatus to the machining position of the boring bar: after tool exchange, bracket 330 is returned along guide rail 320 to the original position and the boring bar B is returned to a machining position, with the magazine remaining between the main shaft and spindle exchange apparatus.
In other words, Applicant’s apparatus is structurally configured so that during machining the main shaft lies between the tool exchange apparatus (magazine and guide rail) and the cutting portion of the boring bar, along the longitudinal direction. Choi, as characterized in the Office Action, lacks such a teaching.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that “Choi does not clearly disclose, such an arrangement” in which arrangement “The magazine and guide rail lie, in their entireties, on a first side of the main shaft with respect to the longitudinal direction” and in which “When the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool, the boring bar is positioned on a second side of the main shaft opposite the first side.”
As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1 of Choi, Examiner has pointed to the main shaft and has also delineated a first side of the main shaft from a second side of the main shaft. Noting this, on the first side of the main shaft, with respect to the longitudinal direction (Z), (and disposed behind the cover (50), for example) is the respective entireties of the magazine (130) and the guide rail (161). (Please note that Examiner also refers Applicant to Figure 4 of Choi which shows each of the magazine (130) and guide rail (161) in detail. Between Figures 1 and 4, the magazine (130) and the guide rail (161) are shown as being positioned in their respective entireties on an opposing side of the cover (50) as compared to the main shaft, and thus “on a first side of the main shaft”). Moreover, when the boring bar (which has also been pointed by Examiner within annotated Figure 1) is machining the workpiece with the tool (T), the boring bar is positioned with respect to the longitudinal direction (Z), on the second side of the main shaft opposite the first side of said main shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, with respect to Applicant’s argument that Figures 1 and 7 do “not address the configuration when the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool,” please be advised of the following. While neither Figure 1 nor Figure 7 of Choi show the workpiece actually being machined by the tool (T), it is inherent that the workpiece to be machined will project at least some distance from the main shaft on the “second side” of said main shaft. For Applicant’s reference, Examiner has drawn an exemplary workpiece (having a cylindrical shape) below in annotated Figure 1 of Choi. This exemplary workpiece is projecting from the main shaft in the area of the second side of the workpiece.
PNG
media_image2.png
902
982
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In order to machine said workpiece with the tool (T), the boring bar when machining the workpiece with said tool (T), must be positioned on the second side of the main shaft opposite the first side. This is inherent, because as can be seen in at least Figure 4 of Choi, the tool (T) extends horizontally. Noting this, the tool (T) when mounted to the boring bar projects from the boring bar in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (Z). If the boring bar wasn’t positioned on the second side of the main shaft, the tool (T) wouldn’t have room to be in position to actually machine the workpiece. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Next, with respect to Applicant’s argument that, “The Examiner’s mapping does not establish that, in Choi’s machine, the machining state necessarily corresponds to the state shown in Figures 1 or 7, or that the apparatus is configured such that during machining the boring bar is on one side of the main shaft while the magazine and guide rail are entirely on the other side, in the sense required by the amended claim.” Applicant’s argument has been considered, but Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, as can be seen on the preceding page of this office action with annotated Figure 1 of Choi, during machining, the workpiece to be machined will project at least some distance from the main shaft on the “second side” of said main shaft. For Applicant’s reference, Examiner has drawn the exemplary workpiece (having the cylindrical shape) above in annotated Figure 1 of Choi. This exemplary workpiece is projecting from the main shaft in the area of the second side of the workpiece. Noting this, due at least in part to the length of the tool (T), if the boring bar wasn’t positioned on the second side of the main shaft, the tool (T) wouldn’t have room to be in position to actually machine the workpiece. Again, this is because the tool (T) when mounted to the boring bar projects from the boring bar in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (Z). Thus, during machining of the workpiece, the boring bar must be on one side of the main shaft, the one side being “the second side” of the main shaft. In contrast, during machining of the workpiece, the magazine (130) and guide rail (161) are disposed in their respective entireties on the first side of the main shaft behind the cover (50) and a door unit (60) thereof. As such, as it pertains to Choi, the apparatus is indeed configured such that during machining “the boring bar is on one side of the main shaft while the magazine and guide rail are entirely on the other side, in the sense required by the amended claim.” As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Lastly, as it pertain to Applicant’s argument that, “In other words, Applicant’s apparatus is structurally configured so that during machining the main shaft lies between the tool exchange apparatus (magazine and guide rail) and the cutting portion of the boring bar, along the longitudinal direction. Choi, as characterized in the Office Action, lacks such a teaching,” please be advised of the following. During machining of the workpiece in Choi, the main shaft does indeed lie “between the tool exchange apparatus (magazine and guide rail) and the cutting portion of the boring bar, along the longitudinal direction.” Again, during machining of the workpiece in Choi, the magazine (130) and guide rail (161) are disposed in their respective entireties on the first side of the main shaft behind the cover (50) and a door unit (60) thereof. However, the boring bar when machining the workpiece with said tool (T), must be positioned on the second side of the main shaft opposite the first side. This is inherent, because as can be seen in at least Figure 4 of Choi, the tool (T) extends horizontally. Noting this, the tool (T) when mounted to the boring bar projects from the boring bar in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (Z). If the boring bar wasn’t positioned on the second side of the main shaft, the tool (T) wouldn’t have room to be in position to actually machine the workpiece. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and Choi, Applicant also argues the following:
Distinguishing over the Office’s characterization
Even accepting the Office’s view that certain figures of Choi show the magazine and guide rail on a side of the main shaft opposite the tool post along the longitudinal direction, that view pertains to the illustrated configuration, not to the relation when boring is performed. Apparatus claims that recite functional language tied to a specific operating state (here, “when the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool’) require the structure to be arranged such that this state actually occurs as described. The Office Action’s description of Choi does not establish that Choi’s machine provides the same “first side / second side when machining” configuration as now claimed.
Given these differences, amended claim 1 is not anticipated by Choi.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Even accepting the Office’s view that certain figures of Choi show the magazine and guide rail on a side of the main shaft opposite the tool post along the longitudinal direction, that view pertains to the illustrated configuration, not to the relation when boring is performed. Apparatus claims that recite functional language tied to a specific operating state (here, “when the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool’) require the structure to be arranged such that this state actually occurs as described) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Please be advised that independent claim 1 doesn’t actually require the claimed magazine and the claimed guide rail to be positioned on the first side of the main shaft when the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool. Rather, the specific operating state that Applicant argues, only pertains to, for example, “when the boring bar is machining the workpiece with the tool, the boring bar is positioned with respect to the longitudinal direction, on a second side of the main shaft opposite the first side of the main shaft.”
Noting this, while the figures of Choi don’t actually show the workpiece being machined by the tool (T), this doesn’t prevent one from determining as to where the boring bar is positioned during machining of the workpiece with the tool (T), and where the magazine (130) and guide rail (161) are disposed during the machining of the workpiece with the tool (T). In order to better explain this, Examiner is again providing the annotated figure in which Examiner has drawn an exemplary workpiece (having a cylindrical shape). As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1 of Choi, this exemplary workpiece is projecting from the main shaft in the area of the second side of the workpiece.
PNG
media_image2.png
902
982
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In order to machine said workpiece with the tool (T), the boring bar when machining the workpiece with said tool (T), must be positioned on the second side of the main shaft opposite the first side. This is inherent, because as can be seen in at least Figure 4 of Choi, the tool (T) extends horizontally. Noting this, the tool (T) when mounted to the boring bar projects from the boring bar in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (Z). If the boring bar wasn’t positioned on the second side of the main shaft, the tool (T) wouldn’t be in position to actually machine the workpiece. Moreover, during machining of the workpiece in Choi, the magazine (130) and guide rail (161) are disposed in their respective entireties on the first side of the main shaft behind the cover (50) and a door unit (60) thereof. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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