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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: changing apparatus (e.g. claims 2, 4, 5)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (e.g. a robot - paragraphs 25-26).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Practical Machinist Forum (NPL).
The subject invention of claim 1 was contemplated and “routinely done” by machinists per the Practical Machinist Forum. Specifically, [username] Plastic contemplates a method for machining a workpiece (“round bar”), the method comprising: a first attachment step of attaching a workpiece holder (“chuck”) holding a workpiece to a spindle (“spindle”) of a machine tool (“milling machine”); and a first machining step of machining (“turn”) the workpiece with a tool installed on a table of the machine tool (implied by “stationary secured tool, say in a vice”), while rotating the spindle, to which several users reply that they have performed such a method with varying degrees of success, and [username] bryan_machine confirms that such is “routinely done”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erik Colvin (YouTube Video).
Colvin demonstrates a method (starting about 20:55) for machining a workpiece (a cylindrical disc of material), the method comprising: a first attachment step of attaching a workpiece holder (three-jawed chuck) holding a workpiece to a spindle of a machine tool (mill); and a first machining step of machining (“mill turning” - 1:32) the workpiece with a tool installed on a table of the machine tool (a number of tools fixed into blocks on the table), while rotating the spindle.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miura (JPH05092302, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Miura discloses a method for machining a workpiece, the method comprising: a first attachment step of attaching a workpiece holder (7) holding a workpiece (11) to a spindle (4) of a machine tool (machining center 1); and a first machining step of machining the workpiece with a tool (13) installed on a table (2) of the machine tool, while rotating the spindle (e.g. paragraphs 18-20).
Claim 2: Miura further discloses a detachment step of detaching the workpiece holder from the spindle with a changing apparatus (automatic exchange device 16, which may be broadly considered a robot) installed outside the machine tool (depending on how one interprets “outside”, e.g. the changing apparatus 16 is mounted to an exterior portion of the machine tool), after completion of the first machining step (paragraph 21).
Claim 3: Miura further discloses a second attachment step of attaching the workpiece holder to a jig (6) installed on the table, after completion of the detachment step (paragraph 21); and a second machining step of machining the workpiece with the tool attached to the spindle or the tool installed on the table (i.e. as with “normal milling operations” - paragraph 21).
Claim 4: In the first attachment step, the workpiece holder (7) is attached to the spindle by a changing apparatus (13) provided outside the machine tool (depending on how one interprets “outside”, e.g. the changing apparatus 16 is mounted to an exterior portion of the machine tool).
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 2-4 are alternatively rejected, and claim 5 is rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Isobe (U.S. PGPub 2016/0184944).
Claims 2-4: To the extent that the changing apparatus is not sufficiently “installed outside the machine tool” and/or not sufficiently a robot per 112(f) as disclosed by Miura, then Isobe teaches a similar method employing a robotic arm changing apparatus (handling robot) installed outside the machine tool (e.g. paragraph 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a changing apparatus installed outside the machine as taught by Isobe in order to have provided a wider reach of the changing apparatus for supplying/retrieving tools beyond the machine tool, for example.
Claim 5: Miura further discloses a loading step of loading the workpiece holder into a changer (14) of the machine tool with a changing apparatus (16) provided outside the machine tool (implied in paragraph 21; also depending on how one interprets “outside”, e.g. the changing apparatus 16 is mounted to an exterior portion of the machine tool), before the first attachment step. Miura does not necessarily disclose in the first attachment step, the workpiece holder is attached to the spindle by the changer. However, Isobe teaches a changer (turret/magazine) for attaching tools to a spindle (e.g. paragraph 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a changer as taught by Isobe to have further improved access to tools by the machine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JPS63278748 discloses a machining method wherein either the workpiece or the tool is mounted to the spindle depending on the operation being performed, and including a tool changer as part of the machining center.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights