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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the “closed-loop control circuit” of claim 21.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 20, line 2, it appears that “wherein the wherein the” should be changed to –wherein the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21 and 12-20 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.
In claim 21, line 16, the claim sets forth “a main spindle side (91) comprising a rotatable main spindle holder (92)…”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether (i) the term “rotatable main spindle holder” is intended to refer to a “holder” for a “rotatable main spindle” (without actually requiring the rotatable main spindle), vs. whether (ii) the term “rotatable main spindle holder” is instead intended to refer to a rotatable main spindle that holds something (something unspecified in the claim, such as a tool). Note that due to the ambiguity, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim actually requires a rotatable main spindle (re interpretation (ii)), or whether the claim merely requires a holder that is somehow “for” (capable of use with) a rotatable main spindle (re interpretation (i)). (It is noted that the term “main spindle holder” is also used in claims 17 and 20.)
In claim 21, lines 25-31, the claim recites “wherein pivoting motions of the foot lever (41) about the first main axis (11), the elbow lever (51) about the second main axis (12), and the machining unit (71) about the second subsidiary axis (13) are controlled in a closed-loop control circuit such that the multifunction side (72) can be moved relative to a working plane at a constant setting angle enclosed between the multifunction side (72) and the working plane”. However, noting the use of the term “in” in the limitation “in a closed-loop control circuit”, it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard actions can be controlled “in” (i.e., physically located “in”) a control circuit (as opposed to being controlled by a control circuit). (As a side note, it is noted that at least page 16, lines 3-9 and page 17, lines 19-20 of the unamended specification as filed 2/27/2023 serve to provide support for the limitation of there being a control circuit that is a closed-loop control circuit, i.e., given the teachings re programming of path control, there is a control “circuit”, and given the teaching re the sensor, in combination with other teachings re “closed-loop”, the control can be considered to be via a control circuit that is “closed loop”.)
In claim 13, in the limitation “an intersection point (18) an intersection of an elbow lever (17) length axis and the second subsidiary axis (13)…”, it appears there is some missing verbiage (e.g., between the limitation “an intersection point (18)” and “an intersection of an elbow lever (17) length axis…”), such that the relationship between the claimed intersection point and the claimed intersection of the elbow lever length axis and second subsidiary axis is unclear as claimed. For example, it is unclear whether such is intended to reference “an intersection point (18)” at or of “an intersection of an elbow lever (17) length axis and the second subsidiary axis (13)…”, whether such is instead intended to reference “an intersection point (18)” offset in some fashion from “an intersection of an elbow lever (17) length axis and the second subsidiary axis (13)…”, etc.
In claim 18, the claim sets forth “wherein the machining robot (10) is arranged on a bed (4) so as to be translationally movable and/or adjustable”, and further states that “translational movement and/or adjustment takes place in the longitudinal direction of a straight line containing the first main axis”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether the term “translationally” is intended to go only with “movable”, or whether “translationally” is also intended to go with “adjustable”, such that it is unclear as claimed whether the claim is met via adjustment capabilities of the robot that are not translational (as long as the adjustment takes place “in the longitudinal direction of a straight line containing the first main axis”). (The same situation exists in the last two lines of the claim re the limitation “translational movement and/or adjustment”).
Claims 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein the elbow lever (51) has a first partial arm (52) and a second partial arm (61), which are pivotable relative to one another about the first subsidiary axis (14)”. The specification does teach that the second partial arm (61) is pivotable relative to the first partial arm (52) about the first subsidiary axis (14) (see Figures 4, 1, and paragraph 0030 of the substitute specification filed 2/27/2023, which was paragraph 0029 of the specification as originally filed, which teaches “[T]he fork part (61) can be pivoted relative to the bearing part (52) about a working axis (14)”). However, the specification as filed does not describe (in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof) how or in what way the first partial arm (52) is able to pivot relative to the second partial arm (62) about the first subsidiary axis (14), as claimed, noting that the claim requires that both the first (52) and second (61) partial arms be “pivotable relative to one another” about axis (14), rather than requiring that the second partial arm (61) be pivotable relative to the first partial arm (51) about axis (14). Note that given the way that the elbow lever (51), and particularly the partial arm 52 thereof, is mounted to the foot lever 41 (i.e., with bearing collar 55 of partial arm 52 being seated in second bearing point 43 of foot lever 41 so that 51/52 are pivotable about pivot axis 12; see paragraph 0028 of the substitute specification filed 2/27/2023, which was paragraph 0027 of the specification as filed; see also at least Figures 1, 3, and 4), it does not appear that it would be possible for partial arm 52 to pivot about axis 14 relative to partial arm 61.
In claim 20, the claim depends from claim 21 and now sets forth “wherein the wherein the (sic) main spindle holder (92) comprises a torque support (95)”. However, the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide support for the main spindle holder (92) having the disclosed torque support (95), as now recited in claim 20. The specification does provide support for the main spindle side (91) having the torque support (95), though not for the main spindle holder (92) having the torque support (95) (as recited in claim 20). See page 2, lines 22-23, which teaches “[T]he main spindle side has a drivable main spindle holder and is designed with or without a torque support”. See also page 3, lines 9-12, which teaches “[A]n additional working side of the multifunction unit is a main spindle side” and “[T]his has both a main spindle holder and a torque support”. See also page 12, lines 16-18, which teaches “[O]utside the tool holder (92), the main spindle side (91) in the exemplary embodiment has a torque support (95)”. See also Figure 6, noting that the torque support (95) is not shown as part of the disclosed rotatable/drivable main spindle “holder” (92).
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 21 and 12-19, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2017 012 075 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘075”) in view of, for example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0309779 to Niu (hereinafter, “Niu”).
It is noted that DE ‘075 was cited on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 11/10/2022, and that a copy of a machine translation of DE ‘075 was provided with that IDS. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation re any references herein to paragraph numbers, line numbers, page numbers, and the like re DE ‘075.
It is noted that the following is but one (or more) exemplary interpretation(s) of DE ‘075 that is/are applicable with respect to the present claim language.
DE ‘075 teaches a machining robot (7/80) (see Figures 1, 18, and at least paragraphs 0013-0014) for machining workpieces (such as, for example, workpiece 9; see Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0011, 0016-0017) by chip removal (via one or more of the tools, such as drilling 51, 52, milling 53, or sawing 58, 57, 54 tools, of the multifunctional unit 8 that is attached to the robot via adapter 101 and counter adapter 121; see at least paragraphs 0017, 0022, 0024, 0027-0028, 0031-0033, 0039, and 0081, as well as at least Figures 1, 18, and 2-8), the machining robot (7/80) comprising:
a base frame (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 18 below as “BF”)
a “foot lever” (85) mounted in the base frame (BF) and pivotable about a first main axis (84) (see Figure 18 and paragraph 0014, for example);
an “elbow lever” (such as, for example, 87+89) mounted at a free end of the foot lever (85) and pivotable about a second main axis (86) (Figure 18, paragraphs 0014-0016, 0081), the second main axis (86) being parallel to the first main axis (84) (see Figure 18, as well as paragraph 014, for example), the elbow lever (87+89) extending in a longitudinal direction along a first subsidiary axis (88) (see Figure 18 as well as paragraphs 0014-0016 and 0081);
a machining unit (such as, for example, 8+92/94) mounted (via 101, 121) in the elbow lever (87+89) (see Figures 18, 1, 2-8, and at least paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0022, 0024, 0027-0028, 0031-0033, 0039, and 0081, for example, also noting also that 8 mounts to 92 via 101, 121; see Figures 18, 1, and 2-8 and at least paragraphs 0015 and 0031-0039, noting that the robot coupling flange 121 is provided on rotary plate 94, and 94 is provided on 92) and pivotable about a second subsidiary axis (91), the second subsidiary axis (91) passing through the machining unit (8+92) (see Figure 18),
wherein the machining unit (8+92/94) is a multifunction unit (see paragraphs 0012, 0017-0018, and Figures 2-8, for example) having at least two working “sides” (for example, see the annotated two reproductions of Figure 2 below, considering each of the lines L1 and L2 to be on the top surface of base body 20, and noting that the multifunction unit/machining unit has plural working sides, such as, for example, sides/halves S1 and S2, or alternatively, such as, for example, sides/halves S3, S4, noting that all of the foregoing sides S1, S2, S3, S4 can be considered to be “working” sides at least in that they each have one or more of the previously-described tools 51, 52, 53, 58, 57, and/or 54 provided thereat), including a multifunction “side” (e.g., the portion of 21 located at any one of S1, S2, S3, or S4, labeled below, which is a “multifunction” side at least in that plural ones of the aforedescribed tools are provided at each “side” S1, S2, S3, S4), and a ”main spindle side” (e.g., the portion of 21 located at any other one of the sides S1, S2, S3, S4 is a “main” spindle side, noting that all of the tools are rotary tools; see also paragraphs 0022, 0024, as well as at least Figures 2-8) comprising a rotatable main spindle holder (such as one for holding one of the aforedescribed spindle(s)),
wherein the multifunction unit (8+92/94) comprises at least two chip removal tools (any two of the aforedescribed tools 51, 52, 53, 58, 57, and/or 54, and it is noted that there are plural 51s, as well, for example; see Figures 2-8 and at least paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0081, for example),
wherein the at least two chip removal tools (any two of the aforedescribed tools 51, 52, 53, 58, 57, and/or 54, and it is noted that there are plural 51s, as well, for example; see Figures 2-8 and at least paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0081, for example) can be driven for rotation in groups (such as a group containing all of the tools, via the common drive motor 30, see Figures 2-8 and paragraphs 0018-0022, and the translation of claim 5, for example), and
wherein each of the (aforedescribed) at least two chip removal tools (for example, note that 75 indicates tools that have been retracted to a “recessed” parking position, and 76 indicates tools that have been extended relative to the portion of 21 of 8 at S1, S2, S3, and/or S4; see Figure 2 and at least paragraphs 0022, 0025) can be raised and lowered relative to the multifunction side (i.e., the portion of 21 of 8 at S1, S2, S3, and/or S4) by a respective tool carrier (e.g., pneumatically operated sleeves, such as 61; see at least paragraphs 0017, 0022, 0024-0027, and Figure 2, for example) receiving a respective one of the (aforedescribed) at least two chip removal tools.
[AltContent: textbox (F2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (F1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (BF)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
696
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (S2)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (L1)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
490
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (S1)]
[AltContent: textbox (S4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (L2)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
490
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, while DE ‘075 does teach that the pivoting motions of the foot lever (85) about the first main axis (84), the elbow lever (87+89) about the second main axis (86), and the machining unit (8+92/94) about the second subsidiary axis (91) are automatically controlled in a freely programmable manner (see, for example, paragraph 0005 and the translation of claim 1 of DE ‘075), and teaches that by appropriately coordinating the control of the pivoting about the individual axes 82, 84, 86, 88, 91, 93, almost any straight stretch or curved trajectory can be traveled in the working area of the robot 80 and can be achieved via a robot/handling device of a variety of configurations and a variety of movement types (translatory and/or rotary) (see paragraphs 0016, 0013-0014.), DE ‘075 does not expressly teach that the pivoting motions of the foot lever (85) about the first main axis (84), the elbow lever (87+89) about the second main axis (86), and the machining unit (8+92/94) about the second subsidiary axis (91) are controlled “in a closed-loop control circuit” (as such is best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112).
However, it is noted that the use of servo control/closed-loop control (and thus, a “closed-loop control circuit” therefor) involving the use of feedback is well-known and widely used in the controlling of the pivoting movements of pivotable/articulated robot arms. For example, attention is directed to Niu.
Niu teaches a robot system (10) having a robot (1), and also having a robot control device/control unit (20) that controls the actuation of the robot (1). See Figures 1-4 and paragraph 0079, for example. The shown robot (1) includes a base (11), four arms/links (12, 13, 14, 15), a wrist/link (16), and six driving sources (401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406). See paragraph 0080 and Figures 1-4, for example. The arm 12 is driven to rotate about a horizontal axis O1 (parallel to axis O2) via motor 401M of a first driving source 401. See paragraphs 0082-0083 and Figures 1-4, for example. The arm 13 is driven to rotate about horizontal axis O2 via motor 402M of second driving source 402. See paragraph 0083 and Figures 1-4, for example. The arm 14 is driven to rotate about a further horizontal axis O3 (parallel to axis O2) via a motor 403M of a driving source 403. See paragraph 0084 and Figures 1-4, for example. The arm 15 is driven to rotate about axis O4, which is parallel to a center axis direction of arm 14, via a motor 404M of driving source 404. See Figures 1-4 and paragraph 0085, for example. The wrist 16 is driven to rotate (relative to the arm 15) about axis O5 via a motor 405M of a further driving source 405. See paragraph 0086 and Figures 1-4, for example. The wrist 16 is additionally driven to rotate about axis O6 via motor 406M of driving source 406. See paragraph 0086 and Figures 1-4, for example. (That said, it is noted that Niu also teaches that the robot can be differently configured with different numbers of rotation axis than what is shown re Figures 1-4, for example; see at least paragraphs 0199-0201, for example).
A variety of sensors (31, 32, 411-416) are utilized (paragraphs 0087-0092, Figure 4) to provide feedback to the robot control device 20, and the robot control device 20 controls driving of the driving sources 401-406 on the basis of the detection results (i.e., from the sensors 31, 32, 411-416) (paragraph 0092; Figures 4 and 12-17; see also paragraphs 0141-0198 for a more detailed discussion re the control/feedback). Thus, the control arrangement is a closed-loop control arrangement/circuit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the specific robot (closed-loop, using feedback from a variety of sensors of the robot and robot driving sources) control and driving arrangement(s) (for a pivoting robot having plural pivot axes) as taught by Niu for the generic automatic/programmable control and driving arrangement(s) taught by DE ‘075 that controls the pivoting motions of DE ‘075’s robot, for the purpose of providing a control arrangement that is capable of easily and reliably suppressing vibration, as taught by Niu (see at least paragraphs 0008 and 0010, as well as at least paragraphs 0050-0057, for example). Resultantly, note that the claimed pivoting motions of the foot lever (85 of DE ‘075) about the first main axis (84 of DE ‘075), the elbow lever (87+89 of DE ‘075) about the second main axis (86 of DE ‘075), and the machining unit (8+92/94 of DE ‘075) about the second subsidiary axis (91 of DE ‘075) are controlled “in” (as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112) a closed-loop control circuit (of Niu) such that the multifunction side (i.e., the portion of 21 of 8 at S1, S2, S3, and/or S4 of DE ‘075) “can” (as broadly claimed) be moved relative to a working plane (such as, for example, a plane in which the largest planar surface of the workpiece 9 that is closest to the viewer in Figure 1 of DE ‘075 extends) at a “constant setting angle” enclosed between the (aforedescribed) multifunction side and the working plane, simply by causing the machining unit (8+92/94) (held on 7) to be pivoted relative to the workpiece 9 until a certain desired angle between the (aforedescribed) multifunction side and the aforedescribed working plane is reached, and (for example) then holding the machining unit (8+92/94) at that angle at certain points in time. Alternatively, noting that the pivot axes 84, 86 and 91 and pivoting arms are configured like those of the present invention, the pivoting motions of the foot lever (85 of DE ‘075) about the first main axis (84 of DE ‘075), the elbow lever (87+89 of DE ‘075) about the second main axis (86 of DE ‘075), and the machining unit (8+92/94 of DE ‘075) about the second subsidiary axis (91 of DE ‘075) (controlled “in a closed-loop control circuit” taught by Niu) “can” (i.e., are inherently capable of being) “moved relative to a working plane” (such as the aforedescribed plane re the workpiece 9, though such “working plane” is not so limited by the claim language) “at a constant setting angle” enclosed between the (aforedescribed) multifunction side and the (aforedescribed) working plane, simply by appropriately controlling the various drive sources to cause such to occur. Note also that the limitation “controlled in a closed-loop control circuit such that” the multifunction side “can” be moved in a particular way does not require anything further than the existence of a closed-loop control circuit and the mere capability of the claimed movement.
It is noted that hereinafter, the convention “DE ‘075/Niu” will be used to refer to “DE ‘075 in view of Niu”.
Regarding claim 14, the elbow lever (87+89 of DE ‘075 of DE ‘075/Niu) has a first partial arm (87) and a second partial arm (89), which are “pivotable relative to one another” (insofar as such is the case in the present specification in which only one of the partial arms is pivotable relative to the other, rather than both partial arms being pivotable relative to each other) about the first subsidiary axis (88) (noting that 89 is pivotable about its longitudinal axis 88 relative to 87; see Figure 18 and at least paragraphs 0014-0016, for example), wherein the first partial arm (87) is mounted in the foot lever (85), and wherein the second partial arm (89) supports the multifunction unit (8+92/94) (on 94; see Figures 1, 18, and at least paragraph 0015, for example).
Regarding claim 15, the second partial arm (89 of DE ‘075) of the elbow lever (87+89) is a fork part (having forks which are labeled in the above annotated reproduction of Figure 18 of DE ‘075 as F1 and F2) in which the multifunction unit (8+92/94) is mounted (see Figure 18).
Regarding claim 16, at least one of the at least two chip removal tools (two of the aforedescribed tools 51, 52, 53, 58, 57, and/or 54, and it is noted that there are plural 51s, as well, for example; see Figures 2-8 of DE ‘075 and at least paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0081, of DE ‘075 for example) is a rotatable sawing tool (either of 54 or 58, for example; see Figure 2, Figure 1, and at least paragraphs 0024, 0027-0028, all of DE ‘075, for example).
Regarding claim 17, the multifunction unit (8+92/94 of DE ‘075 of DE ‘075/Niu) comprises a drive motor (30), and wherein the drive motor (30) is couplable to the at least two chip removal tools (two of the aforedescribed tools 51, 52, 53, 58, 57, and/or 54, and it is noted that there are plural 51s, as well, for example; see Figures 2-8 of DE ‘075 and at least paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0081, of DE ‘075 for example) and to the (aforedescribed) “main spindle holder” (such as one for holding one of the above-described spindle(s)). See Figures 2-8 and paragraphs 0018-0022, and the translation of claims 5-6, for example.
Regarding claim 18, the machining robot (7/80) is arranged on a bed (such as either 81, shown in Figure 18 of DE ‘075, or the bed labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 of DE ‘075 below as “B”), and wherein the machining robot (7/80) is “adjustable”, and wherein adjustment “takes place in the longitudinal direction of a straight line containing the first main axis” (84) (as broadly claimed; see Figure 18 of DE ‘075, for example, noting that as the robot base frame BF is pivoted about the vertical axis 82, the entire three-dimensional robot travels through a space that has a longitudinal direction of a straight line containing the “first main axis” 84, and it is noted that this pivoting about the axis 82 is an “adjustment” of the robot; see also paragraphs 0014, 0016, for example).
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
458
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, DE ‘075 (of DE’075/Niu) is silent as to whether an elbow lever (re elbow lever 87+89) length defined by a distance of the second main axis (86) from the second subsidiary axis (91) is greater than a foot lever (re foot lever 85) length defined by a distance of the first main axis (84) from the second main axis (86).
However, it is noted that there are only three possibilities: (i) the aforedescribed elbow lever length is greater than the aforedescribed foot lever length, (ii) the aforedescribed elbow lever length is equal to the aforedescribed foot lever length, or (iii) the aforedescribed elbow lever length is less than the aforedescribed foot lever length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the claimed elbow lever length (of DE ‘075 of DE ‘075/Niu) to be greater than the claimed foot lever length (of DE ‘075 of DE ‘075/Niu), since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, robot of DE ‘075 would not operate differently with the claimed relative lever lengths (i.e., with option (i) vs. options (ii) or (iii), the requisite pivoting and requisite relative movements is unchanged in the modification). Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed elbow lever length being greater than the claimed foot lever length. Additionally, the selection of option (i) of only three possible options {(i), (ii), or (iii) described above} amounts to the selection of one option from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., the salient pivoting and relative movement of the levers result for any of options (i), (ii), or (iii).
Regarding claim 13, an intersection point (at) an intersection of an elbow lever (87+89 of DE ‘075 of DE ‘075/Niu) length axis (such as 88) and the second subsidiary axis (91) can move only in a plane perpendicular to the first main axis (84) (e.g., is capable of being moved “only” in such a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the first main axis 84 simply by not pivoting the base frame BF about the vertical axis 82, and simply by only actuating the drives that cause movements of such point in the aforedescribed vertical plane). See Figures 18 and 1 of DE ‘075.
Regarding claim 19, DE ‘075/Niu does not expressly teach that the machining robot (7/80) is part of a robot cell that has an enclosure and external controls.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of enclosures to surround machining devices (creating a “cell”) (and the workpiece(s) being machined) are well-known and widely used in order to provide the well-known benefits of protecting the machine operator from flying debris generated by the machining operation, and of enhancing cleanliness by containing the chips/sward/debris generated by the machining operation. Examiner further takes Official Notice that the use of external controls, i.e., outside such enclosure, are well-known and widely used for the well-known purpose/benefit of enabling the machine operator to control the machining device at a location (outside the enclosure) that is protected (i.e., via the enclosure) from flying debris generated by the machining operation.
Therefore, regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machining arrangement and workpiece/workpiece supporting arrangement taught by DE ‘075 (of DE ‘075/Niu) with an enclosure that surrounds the machining robot(s) and workpiece/workpiece supporting arrangement of DE ‘075, as is well-known, for the purpose of providing the well-known benefits of protecting the machine operator from flying debris generated by the machining operation, and of enhancing cleanliness by containing the chips/sward/debris generated by the machining operation, and further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided external controls outside such enclosure, as is well-known, for the purpose of achieving the well-known purpose/benefit of enabling the machine operator to control the machining device at a location (outside the enclosure) that is protected (i.e., via the enclosure) from flying debris generated by the machining operation.
Claim 20, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102017012075 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘075”) in view of, for example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0309779 to Niu (hereinafter, “Niu”) as applied to at least claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0012359 to Katoh et al. (hereinafter, “Katoh”).
DE ‘075 in view of Niu (hereinafter, “DE ‘075/Niu”) teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, DE ‘075/Niu does not expressly teach that the above-described “main spindle holder” (that holds one of the spindles of DE ‘075 of DE ‘075/Niu) comprises a “torque support”, nor does DE ‘075/Niu expressly teach a “tool unit” supported on such torque support, which tool unit has a spindle and at least one tool holder that can be received on the above-described “main spindle side” (e.g., the portion of 21 located at any other one of the sides S1, S2, S3, S4, i.e., a side other than the one considered the claimed “multifunction side”, is a “main” spindle side, noting that all of the tools are rotary tools; see also paragraphs 0022, 0024, as well as at least Figures 2-8).
However, Katoh teaches a tool (60) (i.e., “tool unit” re present claim 20), which tool (60) includes a cutting tool (100) and a tool holder (61) that holds the cutting tool (100). See Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0042 and 0053, for example. The tool holder (61) has a first holder (65), a second holder (85), and a mount (62). See Figure 2 and paragraph 0043, for example. The tool holder (61) is provided with a motor (180) that is built into the first holder (65) (Figure 4, paragraph 0043). The first holder (65) is provided with a holding member (66) that has a rotary shaft/spindle (68) that is driven in rotation via the motor (180). See Figure 4 and paragraphs 0049-0051, for example). Additionally, the mount (62) is provided with a taper shank (62b) and pull stud (62c) that are configured to be attached to and gripped by the tool spindle (46) of a machine tool (1, which machine tool is shown as a whole in Figure 1; see also at least paragraphs 0024-0032, as well as paragraphs 0043-0047, for example).
Furthermore, the tool holder (61) of the tool (60) is provided with a third member (90) that is provided with a lock pin (91). See Figure 2. When the taper shank (62b) and pull stud (62c) of the mount (62) are attached to and gripped by the tool spindle (46) of the machine tool (1), the lock pin (91) is received by an engagement hole (47a) formed in a non-rotating part (47) (i.e., “torque support”) of the ram (45) in which (ram) the tool spindle (46) is supported. See Figure 2, as well as at least paragraphs 0055, 0065-0066, 0082-0084. Due to the reception of the lock pin (91) into the torque support (47) of the ram, such that rotation of the spindle (46) of the machine tool (1) does not rotate the second holder (85) and the first holder (65) (paragraphs 0065-0066, Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the replaceable tool unit (60) taught by Katoh to any one or more of the rotatable tool spindles taught by DE ’075 (of DE ‘075/Niu), and to have provided the non-rotating portion (analogous to the ram of Katoh) of the multifunction unit of DE ‘075 with the mating torque support (47) taught by Katoh (and to have provided each of the spindles taught by DE ‘075 with the necessary appurtenances of Katoh for receiving/clamping a respective tool), firstly noting that DE ‘075 teaches tool change (paragraph 0040), and secondly noting that such allows the tools of DE ‘075 (of DE ‘075/Niu) to have enhanced capability to machine additional “hard-to-cut” materials by allowing the rotational speed of the cutting tool bit to be increased above the maximum rotational speed of the spindle(s) of DE ‘075 (to which the tools are attached), as expressly taught by Katoh (see, for example, paragraphs 0072-106 and 0116, and particularly, paragraphs 0083, 0091-0092, 0098, and 0116, for example). Resultantly, the main spindle holder of DE ‘175 includes a torque support (47 of Katoh) and a tool unit (60 of Katoh) supported on the torque support and having a spindle (68 of Katoh) can be received on “the main spindle side” of DE ‘175 (of DE ‘175/Niu).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a), Applicant indicates that the claims have been amended to address the concerns. However, attention is directed to the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) for any issues with respect thereto that either remain, or that newly arose via the amendment filed 12/3/2025.
It is additionally noted that new independent claim 21 (drafted to attempt to overcome many of the previous issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a) and/or (b) that were set forth particularly re previous independent claim 11) is of a different scope than the previous independent claim 11. That said, it is noted that the above new prior art rejections were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment(s).
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 ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
March 19, 2026