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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/ 09/2025 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1 and 5 – 10 are amened. Claim 3 is cancelled. Thus, claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 10 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered (please see “Response to Arguments” section) and the following Final rejection is made herein.
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 1 – 2 and 4 – 10 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim is now amended to recite “A processing machine capable of performing additive manufacturing and subtractive manufacturing for a workpiece (lines 1 - 2 of the claim) … a tool spindle that holds a rotating tool for the subtractive manufacturing for a workpiece (lines 5 – 6 of the claim) …” and it is not clear whether the first and second recited “workpiece” are the same or different workpieces, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 2 and 4 – 10 inherit this rejection by virtue of their dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, and 4 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otawa et al. (JP 2017189843 A, recited in the IDS filed on 10/19/2022), hereinafter "Otawa", in view of Yamamato (JP 2005059114 A) and hereinafter "Yamamato".
Regarding claim 1, Otawa discloses a processing machine capable of performing additive
manufacturing and subtractive manufacturing for a workpiece (a processing machine 100, FIG. 1), the processing machine comprising:
a splash guard (a splash guard 210, FIG.1) that defines and forms a processing area (the splash guard 210 defines the processing area 200, (0027, and see FIG.1));
a tool spindle (a removal processing head 121 with a tool spindle, see annotated FIG.5
below)) that holds a rotating tool for the subtractive manufacturing for a workpiece (the removal processing head 121 has a tool spindle that holds and rotates a rotary tool during subtractive processing (milling) the workpiece using the rotary tool, (0030)) and is movable inside the processing area in an axial direction of a first axis parallel to a horizontal plane and an axial direction of a second axis parallel to the horizontal plane and orthogonal to the first axis (the removal processing head 121 is movable in the Y-axis as indicated by the arrow 243 that is parallel to a horizontal plane defined by the Y-Z axis and is movable in the Z-axis as indicated by the arrow 241 and orthogonal to the Y-axis and parallel to the horizontal plane, please see annotated FIG.5);
an additive-manufacturing head (an additive processing head 21, FIG.5) that is connected to the tool spindle (the additive processing head 21 is connected to the tool removal processing head 121, annotated FIG.5), discharges material powder to the workpiece, and irradiates the workpiece with a laser beam (the additive processing head 21 ejects material powder onto the workpiece and irradiates the workpiece with a laser, (0036)); and
a workpiece spindle that holds the workpiece and rotates the workpiece about a rotation axis parallel to the first axis (a first spindle 112 and a second spindle 117 for rotating the workpiece about the first axis (Y-axis), (0028)); and
a line body (a cable 31, annotated FIG.5) that extends from the additive-manufacturing
head is drawn from an inside to an outside of the processing area (the cable 31 that extends from additive processing head 21 is drawn from the inside to an outside of the processing area 200, see annotated FIG.5), and supplies the material powder and the laser beam to the additive-manufacturing head (the cable 31 is provided as a line body for supplying the laser beam and the material powder to the additive processing head 21, (0041)), the line body including an optical fiber guiding the laser beam and including a gas pipe serving as a flow path of inert gas (the cable 31 is provided as a line body including an optical fiber for guiding laser beam and a pipe for guiding material powder and a carrier gas from a supplying device, (0040 – 0041)),
wherein
a drawing direction of the line body from the inside to the outside of the processing area
is a direction intersecting the axial direction of the first axis in top view (the drawing direction of
the cable 31 from the inside to the outside of the processing area 200, indicated by arrow 245,
intersects the Y-axis (the first axis), indicated by arrow 246, as seen from the top, see annotated
FIG.5)).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Otawa does not explicitly teach a maximum movement amount of the tool spindle in the
axial direction of the second axis is shorter than a maximum movement amount of the tool spindle in the axial direction of the first axis.
However, Yamamato teaches a maximum movement amount of the tool spindle in the
axial direction of the second axis is shorter than a maximum movement amount of the tool spindle in the axial direction of the first axis (a tool spindle 51 is relatively moved to have the max distance between the spindle 51 and a rotary work table 53 in the X-axis direction to be a predetermined distance ΔХ and the max distance between the spindle 51 and a rotary work table 53 in the Z-axis direction to be a predetermined ΔZ, wherein the positional relationship of ΔZ and ΔХ is set such that the distance ΔХ in the X-axis direction is the smallest value, (last paragraph, page4 -first paragraph, page 6 and please see FIG.13)).
Yamamato relates to a horizontal machining center and the movement of the tool spindle
(page 1). Thus, Yamamato is analogous to the processing machine of Otawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make the maximum movement of the tool spindle of Otawa to be shorter in one axis than the other axis as the movement of the tool spindle in the X-axis direction is made shorter than the movement of the tool spindle of the Z-axis direction. Yamamato further discusses that this axial dimensioning for the movement of the spindle provides a reduced installation area of the horizontal machining center, maximizing compactness and space efficiency of the spindle machining tool that is increasingly required during the tool changing operation of the machining tool, (see page 5 - 6). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because a reduced installation area of the horizontal machining center, maximizing compactness and space efficiency of the spindle machining tool that is increasingly required during the tool changing operation of the machining tool is advantageous as taught in Yamamato (see page 5 – 6).
Regarding claim 2, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to
claim 1, wherein the drawing direction of the line body from the inside to the outside of the
processing area is a direction orthogonal to the axial direction of the first axis in top view (the
drawing direction of the cable 31 viewed from the top (Z-axis) is orthogonal to the axial direction
of the first axis (Y-axis), see Otawa's annotated FIG.5)).
Regarding claim 4, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising a support that supports the line body outside the processing area and is movable in the axial direction of the first axis (support member 51 supports the cable 31 outside the processing area 200, in the interference region 90, and is movable in the first axis (Y-axis), see Otawa's annotated FIG.5).
Regarding claim 5, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to claim 4, further comprising a first guide mechanism and a second guide mechanism that are provided apart from each other in the axial direction of the second axis and guide the support along the axial direction of the first axis (linear guide portion 58 and guide member 65 are provided apart from each other in the axial direction of the second axis (Z-axis) and guide a connection portion 52 of the support member 51 along the first axis (Y-axis) see Otawa's annotated FIG.5), the first guide mechanism including a first rail and a slider (the linear guide portion 58 has a moving body/slider 54 and rail support 57, (0060 and see Otawa's annotated FIG.5)) , the second guide mechanism including as second rail and a roller (the guide member 65 has a roller portion and rail 61, see Otawa's annotated FIG.5)
Regarding claim 6, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to claim 4, wherein the additive-manufacturing head is detachably provided with respect to the tool spindle (the additive processing head 21 is detachably attached to the removal processing head 121 with a spindle Otawa (0042) and see Otawa's FIG.3 showing the two processing heads detached from each other), and
the processing machine further comprises a coupling that is operable between a first state in which the tool spindle and the support are coupled to each other by the coupling when the additive-manufacturing head is mounted on the tool spindle and the additive manufacturing for the workpiece is performed, and a second state in which the coupling between the tool spindle and the support is released when the additive- manufacturing head is removed from the tool spindle and the subtractive manufacturing for the workpiece is performed (the removal processing head 121 is provided with a clamp mechanism wherein, in one state, when the additive processing head 21 is attached to the removal processing head 121 and additive processing on the workpiece is performed, and in another state, the additive processing head 21 is detached to the removal processing head 121 by the clamping mechanism operating and the removal processing head121 is operating on the workpiece, the clamping mechanism is a mechanism that obtains a clamped state by a spring force and obtains an unclamped state by hydraulic pressure, Otawa (0045)).
Regarding claim 7, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to claim 4, further comprising a tensioner that is mounted on the support and applies tension to the line body in a direction away from the additive- manufacturing head (pulley portion 63 mounted on the guide member 65 is applying tension to the line body 30 due to the weight of the pulley away from the additive processing head, Otawa (0020, 0083 and see annotated FIG.5).
Regarding claim 8, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to claim 4, wherein the tool spindle is further movable in an axial direction of a third axis parallel to the vertical direction (the removal processing head 121 with the tool spindle is movable in a third axis (X-axis) parallel to the vertical direction, see Otawa's annotated FIG.5) and
the processing machine further comprises a first guide that is connected to the additive-manufacturing head so as to be able to revolve about a first revolving axis parallel to the first axis (the guide portion 43 is connected to the additive processing head 21 so as to be able to revolve about a first revolving axis 252 parallel to the first axis (Y-axis), see Otawa's annotated FIG.5), is connected to the support so as to be able to revolve about a second revolving axis parallel to the first axis (the guide portion 43 is also connected to support member 51 to be revolving about a second revolving axis 253 parallel to the first axis (Y-axis), see Otawa's annotated FIG.5)), and guides the line body between the additive- manufacturing head and the support (the guide portion 43 guides cable 30 between additive processing head 21 and support member 51, see Otawa's annotated FIG.5)
Regarding claim 9, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to
claim 8, wherein the first guide includes an expansion and contraction mechanism that
expands and contracts such that a distance between the first revolving axis and the second
revolving axis changes (the guide portion 43 has a multi-stage structure of a plurality of linear
guides combined so as to be extendable and contractible in the direction from the first revolving
axis 252 toward the second revolving axis 253, Otawa (0059 and see annotated FIG.5)).
Regarding claim 10, Otawa in view of Yamamato teaches the processing machine according to
claim 8, wherein
the tool spindle is turnable about a turning axis parallel to the axial direction of the second axis (the removal processing head 121 with a tool spindle is turnable about axis 251 that is parallel to the second axis (Z-axis), see Otawa's annotated FIG.5),
the processing machine further comprises a second guide that is provided
between the additive-manufacturing head and the first guide member on a path on which the line body is routed and that guides the line body extending from the additive-manufacturing head along a circumferential direction of the turning axis (the guide portion 43 has a second guide portion that extends between guide portion 43 and the additive processing head 21 on a path the cable 30 is routed to the additive processing head 21 and guides the cable 30 extending from the additive processing head 21 along a circumferential direction of turning axis 251, see Otawa's annotated FIG.5).
the second guide revolves relative to the tool spindle about the turning axis so as to maintain a posture of the turning axis in the circumferential direction during the turning of the tool spindle (the second guide portion is a tube portion the is disposed parallel to the turning axis 251 that turns in the circumferential direction of the removal processing head 121 with the tool spindle, see Otawa's annotated FIG. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/ 09/2025 have been fully considered, see Remarks pages 6 – 11, and the following response is given herein.
Regarding the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) and the indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The amendments made to the claims are sufficient to overcome the claim interpretation and the indefiniteness rejections in the Non-Final Rejection on 09/16/2025. As such, those interpretation and indefiniteness rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Objection made to Claim 1
Claim 1 was objected for minor typographical/grammatical error (the term "for the workpiece” to be replaced by the term "of the workpiece”) instead, the amendment appears to mistakenly replace the term “the workpiece” by the term “a workpiece” which raised an indefiniteness issue to the claim as indicated in the rejection herein.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant rolled up the rejected limitation of claim 3 into claim 1 and argued “However, claim 1, as now amended, requires the first axis parallel to the horizontal plane, the workpiece spindle that holds the workpiece and rotates the workpiece about the rotation axis parallel to the first axis, and the drawing direction of the line body from the inside to the outside of the processing area is the direction intersecting the axial direction of the first axis in top view. In contrast, while teaching the splash guard 210, the tool spindle, the additive processing head 21, and the cable 31, Otawa teaches a drawing direction of the cable 31 being quite different from the drawing direction in the claimed fashion.”
The examiner found this unpersuasive because:
Applicant should submit an argument pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s rejection. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Here, as indicated in the rejection and illustrated in annotated FIG 5, Otawa teaches the drawing direction of the line body (cable 31) from the inside to the outside of the processing area 200, indicated by arrow 245 intersects the Y-axis (the first axis) as indicated by arrow 246, as seen from the top and it is not clear how the applicant concluded “Otawa teaches a drawing direction of the cable 31 being quite different from the drawing direction in the claimed fashion”.
Absent explanation, how the drawing direction of the line body claimed differs from Otawa’s cable 31 drawing direction recited in the rejection, it is simply conclusory to say Otawa’s cable 31 drawing direction is “quite different from the drawing direction in the claimed fashion.” The examiner, submits Otawa’s cable 31 drawing direction teaches the claimed direction of the line body as recited in the rejection.
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 DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761