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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
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:
“a restriction member that restricts the motion of the structure from the second position to the first position” in claim 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.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “extending in a longitudinal direction being perpendicular to the machine front direction” should be changed to “extending in a longitudinal direction which is perpendicular to the machine front direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 3-4 of the claim, “extends in a longitudinal direction being perpendicular to the machine front direction” should be changed to “extends in a longitudinal direction which is perpendicular to the machine front direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “a workpiece” should be changed to “[[a]] the workpiece”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “a rotation axis” should be changed to “[[a]] the rotation axis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 2-3 of the claim, “extending in a longitudinal direction being perpendicular to the machine front direction” should be changed to “extending in a longitudinal direction which is perpendicular to the machine front direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Lines 3-4 of claim 1 state, “a door configured on the opening being a plane parallel to the rotation axis and perpendicular to a machine front direction.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if it is the door or the opening that is “being a plane parallel to the rotation axis and perpendicular to a machine front direction.” Regardless, what does it mean for the door or opening “being a plane parallel to the rotation axis and perpendicular to a machine front direction”? Does this mean that the door or opening extends, for example, in a plane parallel to the rotation axis and perpendicular to a machine front direction?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second axis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 2-3 of claim 10 state, “the coolant tank is configured to be pulled by the user from the first to second positions in the machine front direction.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it is unclear if the coolant tank is configured to be pulled by the user from a singular first position to a singular second position, or if instead, the coolant tank is configured to be pulled by the user from a singular first position to plural second positions. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it unclear as to how the coolant tank is configured to be pulled in the machine front direction (which is a horizontally extending direction) from a first position (which is disposed at one height) to second position(s) (disposed at another height that is located above the first position). (Be advised that in claim 1 on which claim 10 directly depends Applicant set forth, “a first position in front of the coolant tank” and “a second position higher than the coolant tank”). If the coolant tank was to be pulled by the user in the machine front direction (which again is a horizontally extending direction), how is it possible for the coolant tank to be pulled from the lower first position to the higher second position(s)? By pulling the coolant tank in the machine front direction, shouldn’t the coolant tank only incur horizontal displacement in the machine front direction?
Claim 2-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based upon their dependency upon claim 1.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is 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.
Lines 2-3 of claim 10 state, “the coolant tank is configured to be pulled by the user from the first to second positions in the machine front direction.”
With regards to the coolant tank, Applicant discloses the following in the specification filed on 11/10/2022:
[0023] According to the machine tool configured as described above, by retracting the structure from the first position to the second position, it is possible to pull the coolant tank in the machine front direction.
[0068] On the contrary, in the machine tool 100 according to the present embodiment, by retracting the wire/pipe housing box 51 from the first position J in front of the coolant tank 46 to the second position K higher than the coolant tank 46, it is possible to easily pull out the coolant tank 46 through the space 141 to the machine front position, which makes it possible to improve the workability of the coolant tank 46 during maintenance.
[0072] Fig. 6 is a side view illustrating a machine tool according to a comparative example. Fig. 6 corresponds to Fig. 3. With reference to Fig. 6, in this comparative example, a wire/pipe housing box 251 is supported by a support arm 271 at a position in front of the tool rest 36 in the machine front direction. A space 146 for drawing out the coolant tank 46 is provided between the floor FL and the wire/pipe housing box 251.
As can be seen in the above excerpts from the specification, while the coolant tank (46) is indeed able to be pulled out by a user in the machine front direction, there isn’t any disclosure in the above excerpts, or elsewhere in the specification, for the coolant tank (46) being “configured to be pulled by the user from the first to second positions in the machine front direction” (emphasis added). As can be seen in the above excerpts, the structure/housing box (51) is able to be retracted from the first position (J) to the second position (K), the second position (K) being higher than the coolant tank (46). In being retracted, the structure/housing box (51) is being pivoted, for example, from the first position (J) into the second position (K).
There isn’t any disclosure; however, in the above excerpts or elsewhere in the specification on the coolant tank (46) being able to be pulled by the user in some manner from the first position (J) to the second position (K) in the machine front direction. Rather, Applicant discloses the coolant tank (46) being able to be pulled out in the machine front direction, and the structure/housing box (51) being configured to be retracted from the first (J) to the second position (K). Lastly, since the first position (J) is in front of the coolant tank (46) (see paragraph [0068]) and since the second position (K) higher than the coolant tank (68) (second paragraph [0068]), it wouldn’t even appear to be possible for the coolant tank (68) to be able to be pulled by the user in the machine front direction (noting that the machine front direction extends linearly), from the first position (J) into the higher, second position (K). Based on the foregoing, the specification filed on 11/10/2022 does not provide disclosure for, “the coolant tank is configured to be pulled by the user from the first to second positions in the machine front direction.”
With respect to the drawings filed on 11/10/2022, between Figures 4 and 5, it can be seen that the structure/housing box (51) is retracted/pivoted from the first position (J) into the second position (K) higher than the coolant tank (46). Figure 5 then shows an arrow pointing to the left, which represents the coolant tank (46) configured to be pulled in the machine front direction. While Figure 5 shows the coolant tank (46) being configured to be pulled by the user in the machine front direction, neither Figure 5 nor any other figure shows the coolant tank (46) being “configured to be pulled by the user from the first to second positions in the machine front direction” (emphasis added).
Note that at least Figure 5 of the drawings filed on 11/10/2022 shows the coolant tank (46) as having tires (48). Due to these tires, the coolant tank (46) is able to be pulled by the user in the machine front direction. These tires (48) though, don’t provide for the coolant tank (46) being able to be pulled in some manner in the linear machine front direction from the first position (J) into the higher, second position (K). For the sake of completeness, be advised that Figures 7 and 8 of the drawings filed on 11/10/2022 show a second embodiment (which Applicant did not elect) in which the structure/foot stool (76) is lifted upward from a first position (J) (see Figure 7) to a second position (K). As can be seen in Figure 8, the tires (48) provide for the coolant tank (46) to be pulled in the machine front direction. Like with the first embodiment of Figures 1-5 of the drawings though, these tires (48) don’t provide for the coolant tank (46) being able to be pulled by the user in some manner in the linear machine front direction from the first position (J) into the higher, second position (K). Based on the foregoing, the drawings filed on 11/10/2022 do not provide disclosure for, “the coolant tank is configured to be pulled by the user from the first to second positions in the machine front direction.”
Since neither the drawings nor the specification are in agreement with or provide support for the claimed subject matter, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0121113 A1) in view of Tooyama (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2019/0030671 A1).
Please be advised that Yasuda was previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 6/10/2025.
Claim 1: Figures 1-3 of Yasuda show therein a machine tool (1) for machining a workpiece (3), the machine tool (1) having a work spindle (4) configured to rotate the workpiece (3) about a rotation axis (CL2) [paragraph 0087]. The machine tool (1) further has an opening (SP) (which is formed as a machining area), and a plurality of doors (71) configured on the opening [paragraph 0132]. Please note that both the opening (SP) and the plurality of doors (71) extend in a plane parallel to the rotation axis (CL2). Regarding the rotation axis (CL2), it (CL2) extends perpendicular to a machine front direction. Please note that the machine front direction extends parallel the Y-axis (see Figure 2) of the machine tool (1).
The machine tool (1) further has a bed (17), a coolant tank (80), and a chip conveyor (81) (see Figure 2), wherein the coolant tank (80) and the chip conveyor (81) are provided in front of the bed (17) in the machine front direction.
According to Yasuda, the coolant tank (80) is housed in a space (Sc) (see Figure 4), and as indicated by arrow J (see again Figure 4), the coolant tank (80) can be taken into and out of the space (Sc) [paragraph 0122]. Noting that arrow J extends in the machine front direction, the coolant tank (80) is configured to be pulled by a user in the machine front direction from the space (Sc) and through, for example, an insertion port/opening for said space (Sc).
Yasuda though, does not provide disclosure on the machine tool (1) further having “a structure provided at a first position in front of the coolant tank in the machine front direction; and a support capable of supporting the structure retracted from the first position to a second position higher than the coolant tank.”
Figure 1 of Tooyama though, shows a portion of a machine tool (1), the machine tool (1) having a bed (2) and a coolant tank (4). Please be advised that the coolant tank (4) is housed in a space (22), and as indicted by the arrow shown in Figure 2, the coolant tank (4) can be taken into and out of the space (22) [Tooyama, paragraph 0025]. Please note that the arrow of Figure 2 extends in a machine front direction of the machine tool (1). As such, the coolant tank (4) is configured to be pulled by a user in the machine front direction. Next, as can be seen in at least Figure 1 of Tooyama, the machine tool (1) comprises a support (51) and a coolant leakage prevention tool (5). Regarding the latter (5), it in turn has a structure (52) and a corresponding rotary piece (53). Please be advised that the coolant leakage prevention tool (5) is provided on the upper edge of an insertion port (21) of the bed (2). In the state where the coolant tank (4) is disposed in the space (22), the coolant leakage prevention tool (5) closes a gap generated at the insertion port (21) of the bed (2), thereby preventing the coolant and chips recovered in the coolant tank (4) from splashing to the outside [Tooyama, paragraph 0022].
Regarding the structure (52), as can be seen in Figure 1, it is positioned in a first position in front of at least a portion of a tank body (41) and a chip pan (42) of the coolant tank (4) and in front of a raised part (43) of the coolant tank (4). Next, as can be seen in Figure 3 of Tooyama, the support (51) is capable of supporting the structure (52) retracted from the first position (as in Figure 1) to a second position higher than the coolant tank (4). (It is noted that Figures 3-4 show the structure (52) in said second position). Lastly, as can be seen in Figure 3, the coolant tank (4) is configured to be pulled by a user in the machine front direction when the structure (52) is at the second position. For example, when the structure (52) is disposed at the second position, the user has clearance to keep pulling the coolant tank (4) so as to pull it out from the footprint of the machine tool (1) for maintenance.
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 machine tool (1) of Yasuda with the coolant leakage prevention tool (5), support (51), and raised part (43) of Tooyama, so as to provide the machine tool (1) of Yasuda with the advantage of being able to close a gap at the insertion port/opening for the space (Sc) of Yasuda, thereby preventing coolant and chips of the coolant tank (80) and chip conveyor (81) from splashing to the outside.
In making the above modification, it is noted that in accordance with the disclosure of Tooyama, that the coolant tank (81) of Yasuda is provided with the raised part (43) of Tooyama. Moreover, as per the disclosure of Tooyama, the coolant leakage prevention tool (5) is provided on the upper edge of the insertion port/opening of Yasuda. As such, the structure (52) of said coolant leakage prevention tool (5), when it (52) is disposed at the first position, is disposed in front of at least a portion of a tank body of the coolant tank (81) and in front of the raised part (43) of the coolant tank (81). Moreover, in the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda, the support (51) supports the structure (52) retracted from the first position to a second position higher than the coolant tank (81) (like what is shown in Figures 3-4 of Tooyama). Lastly, when the structure (52) is disposed at the second position (like what is shown in Figure 3 of Tooyama), the user has clearance to keep pulling the coolant tank (81) so as to pull said tank (81) out from the footprint of the machine tool (1) for maintenance. Based on the foregoing, the coolant tank (81) of the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda is configured to be pulled by the user in the machine front direction when the structure (52) is at the second position.
Claim 2: In the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda, the structure (52), in accordance with the disclosure of Tooyama, is connected to the support (51) so as to be operable between the first position and the second position. (At least Figure 3 of Tooyama shows this connection between the support (51) and the structure (52)).
Claim 3: In the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda, the structure (52), in accordance with the disclosure of Tooyama, is connected to the support (51) so as to be rotatable about a first axis extending in a longitudinal direction, which is perpendicular to the machine front direction. (Please note that this can be seen between Figures 2 and 3 of Tooyama).
Claim 4: Noting that the first axis corresponds to the shaft (511) of the support (51) (see at least Figure 3 of Tooyama), said first axis is disposed at a position higher than the coolant tank (80). It is reiterated that in the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda, that the coolant leakage prevention tool (5) is provided on the upper edge of the insertion port/opening of Yasuda in accordance with the disclosure of Tooyama.
Claim 5: Please be advised that lines 2-3 of claim 5 set forth therein, “a restriction member that restricts the motion of the structure from the second position to the first position.” Noting this, “a restriction member” is being interpreted by Examiner 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. Please be advised that “a restriction member” is interpreting as comprising the structure disclosed in paragraphs [0063-0065] of Applicant’s specification filed on 11/10/2022, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, the shaft (511) of the support (51) is able to hold the structure (52) in postures having arbitrary angles [Tooyama, paragraph 0024]. The shaft (511) therefore is able to restrict motion of the structure (52) from moving from the second position back into the first position unless the necessary force is applied. Thus, in at least this way, the shaft (511) “restricts the motion of the structure from the second position to the first position.” Please note that by being disposed on the structure (52) (see Figure 2 of Tooyama), that said structure (52) “includes” the shaft (511).
As such, the shaft (511) is an equivalent of the restriction member of the claim. This is because the shaft (511) carries out the function specified in lines 2-3 of the claim, the function being, “restricts the motion of the structure from the second position to the first position.” Also, the shaft (511) isn’t excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said shaft (511) produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “restriction member (81)” of Applicant. Thus, the shaft (511) of the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as the “restriction member (SC1).” Based on the foregoing, Yasuda/Tooyama discloses the structure (52) as including a restriction member (511) that restricts the motion of the structure (52) from the second position to the first position.
Claim 6: Regarding the structure (52) of the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda, it includes each of an upper surface and a lower surface. To explain this, Examiner now directs attention to Figure 1 of Tooyama. From the perspective of Figure 1 of Tooyama, it is noted that the upper half of the structure (52) (with respect to the vertical direction) corresponds to the “upper surface” of the structure (52). In contrast, the lower half of the structure (52) (with respect to the vertical direction) corresponds to the “lower surface” of the structure (52). As to the upper surface, it extends in a longitudinal direction, which is perpendicular to the machine front direction. Also, when the structure (52) is positioned at the first position (like in Figure 1 of Tooyama), it is noted that the upper surface of said structure (52) extends horizontally, and is therefore considered to be “a horizontal surface.”
Claim 7: Figures 2 and 3 of Yasuda show the work spindle (4) is oriented such that it (4) rotates the workpiece (3) about a rotation axis (CL2) [Yasuda, paragraph 0087] extending in a longitudinal direction.
Next, it is reiterated that in the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda, that the coolant leakage prevention tool (5) is provided on the upper edge of the insertion port/opening of Yasuda in accordance with the disclosure of Tooyama. Noting that this insertion port/opening is located adjacent the space (Sc) of Yasuda, said coolant leakage prevention tool (5) (and thus the components thereof) is disposed at a position that is lower than the rotation axis/second axis (CL2) at all times. Thus, the upper surface of the structure (52) is disposed at a position lower than the rotation axis/second axis (CL2) when the structure (52) is positioned at the first position. Also, when the structure (52) is positioned at the first position, the upper surface of said structure (52) is disposed at a position higher than, for example, the tank body of the coolant tank (81) (like what is shown in Figure 1 of Tooyama. Note that Figure 1 of Tooyama shows the upper surface of the structure (52) being disposed at position higher than the tank body (41) of the coolant tank (4) of Tooyama when the structure (52) is in the first position).
Claim 10: The coolant tank (81) of Yasuda is configured to be pulled by the user from the first position to the second position (as is best understood in view of the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph) in the machine front direction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0121113 A1) in view of Tooyama (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2019/0030671 A1), and further in view of Ganslein (U.S. Patent No. 2,793,972 A).
Claim 8: In the modified machine tool (1) of Yasuda, the coolant leakage prevention tool (5) of Tooyama is provided. Per Tooyama, the structure (52) is either made of sheet metal [Tooyama, paragraph 0025] or is made of other material than sheet metal [Tooyama, paragraph 0027]. It is noted that in pivoting the structure (52) (see Figures 1 and 2 of Tooyama) that said structure (52) is contacted each time by the raised part (43) of the coolant tank (81).
Yasuda though, does not provide disclosure upon, “the structure is formed with an internal space, the machine tool further includes at least one of a wire and a pipe housed in the internal space.”
Figures 1-3 of Ganslein though, show a structure, wherein the structure has an internal space disposed between metal face sheets (1). The metal face sheets (1) have local reinforcing with metal sheet portions (2), a honeycomb core (3) made of metal [Ganslein, column 1, line 70], and a layer of gauze (4). Regarding the honeycomb core (3) made of metal, it constitutes wire housed in the internal space. (Figure 1 shows the core’s (3) wire structure). This construction provides a structure that is light in weight, strong, and durable [column 1, lines 28-29].
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 formed the structure (52) of Yasuda to have the construction of Ganslein, said construction being metal face sheets (1) have local reinforcing with metal sheet portions (2), a honeycomb core (3), and a layer of gauze (4), so as to provide the structure (52) with the advantage of being light in weight (for easy shifting between the first and second positions) and being strong and durable for repeated contact with the raised part (43) when said coolant tank (81) is being pulled out from the space (Sc) in the machine front direction. In making this modification, it is noted that the modified structure (52) of Yasuda has an internal space (in accordance with the disclosure of Ganslein) disposed between the metal face sheets (1), and in said internal space the honeycomb core (3)/metal wire structure is housed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0121113 A1) in view of Tooyama (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2019/0030671 A1), and further in view of Xu (China Publication No. CN 206717529 U).
Please note that a previously provided Machine Translation of Xu is relied upon below. Also, Xu was previously cited on the PTO-892 that mailed on 6/10/2025.
Claim 9: Regarding the coolant tank (81) of Yasuda, it includes a tank body that has an elongated shape, which extends in a longitudinal direction [Yasuda, paragraphs 0041, 0128], the longitudinal direction being perpendicular to the machine front direction in a top view. Note that as a coolant tank, said coolant tank (81) is configured to store coolant in the tank.
Yasuda though, does not disclose the coolant tank (81) as including “a tire which is attached to the tank body.”
Xu though, shows in Figure 5 a coolant tank for a milling machine tool. Figure 5 of Xu shows the coolant tank as having a tank body (5) to which roller devices (8) are attached. As can be seen in Figure 2 of Xu, an exemplary roller device (8) comprises a tire (84). By means of the roller devices (8) and the tires (84) thereof, the coolant tank is made portable.
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 attached to the tank body of the coolant tank (81) of Yasuda the roller devices (8) with tires (84) of Xu, so as to provide the coolant tank (81) of Yasuda with the advantage of improved portability should the coolant tank (81) need to be pulled out of the space (Sc) for maintenance, for example.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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