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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1 – 15) in the reply filed on October 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 – 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Inventions II and III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 29, 2025.
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:
“slide translation mechanism” recited in claim 9
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.
The limitation “slide translation mechanism” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“mechanism”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“adapted to be driven to translate the slide along the longitudinal axis”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “slide translation mechanism” is being interpreted so as to comprise ‘at least one gear motor assembly,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 20), or a functional equivalent thereof.
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 – 15 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.
Claim 1 recites “optionally the machine tool being a milling machine or a gantry boring machine.” The phrase "optionally" renders the limitation indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the ‘machine tool’ is not required to be a ‘milling machine’ or ‘gantry boring machine.’
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the sun gear is ... engaged with the motor axis of the torque motor.” It is generally unclear as to how a ‘sun gear’ can be “engaged” with an ‘axis.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the sun gear is ... engaged with the torque motor.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the table rotation mechanism comprises two rotation assemblies.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘two rotation assemblies’ to refer to, and further define, the ‘at least one rotation assembly’ previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends to set forth ‘two rotation assemblies’ which are separate and independent from the ‘at least one rotation assembly’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the at least one rotation assembly comprises two rotation assemblies.”
Claims 7 and 8 each recite the limitation “wherein two torque motors of the two rotation assemblies ...” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to the ‘torque motors of the rotation assemblies’ previously set forth, or whether Applicant intends the limitations to set forth an additional set of ‘torque motors’ which are separate and independent from those previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “wherein the two torque motors of the two rotation assemblies ...”
Claims 12 and 14 each recite the limitation “wherein the slide translation mechanism comprises two gearmotors assemblies.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘two gearmotors assemblies’ to refer to, and further define, the ‘at least one gearmotor assembly’ previously set forth in claim 10, or whether Applicant intends to set forth ‘two gearmotors assemblies’ which are separate and independent from the ‘at least one gearmotor assembly’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the at least one gearmotor comprises two gearmotors assemblies.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0266783) in view of Katsuma (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0220922).
As to claim 1, Yoshida teaches a table assembly for a machine tool (abstract), the table assembly comprising a slide translatable on command along a longitudinal axis (figure 1, element 10 being the ‘slide’ and element Y being the ‘longitudinal axis’; paragraphs 20 and 26), a table supported by the slide and rotatable with respect to a vertical axis (figures 1 and 2b, element 12 being the ‘table’ and element C being the ‘vertical axis’; paragraph 21), and a table rotation mechanism placed on board the slide and adapted to be driven to rotate the table about the vertical axis (figure 2b, elements 16 – 24 being the ‘table rotation mechanism’; paragraphs 21 – 25), wherein the table rotation mechanism comprises at least one rotation assembly engaged with a ring gear of the table and comprising a torque motor having a vertical motor axis and a reduction gear having an inlet, engaged with the torque motor, and an outlet pinion, engaged with the ring gear of the table (figure 2b, elements 19 – 24 being the ‘rotation assembly,’ element 18 being the ‘ring gear,’ element 22 being the ‘torque motor,’ element P being the ‘vertical motor axis,’ elements 21, 19, and 20 being the ‘reduction gear,’ lower shaft of element 19 being the ‘inlet,’ and element 20 being the ‘outlet,’ see below; paragraphs 21 – 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, while Yoshida teaches the vertical motor axis being parallel to the outlet pinion (figure 2b, elements P and 20), Yoshida does not teach the vertical motor axis being coaxial with the outlet pinion. Katsuma teaches a table assembly for a machine tool (abstract), the table assembly comprising a table rotatable with respect to a vertical axis (figure 1, element 41 being the ‘table’; paragraph 35), and a table rotation mechanism adapted to be driven to rotate the table about the vertical axis (figure 1, elements 10 and 20 being the ‘table rotation mechanism’; paragraph 35), wherein the table rotation mechanism comprises a rotation assembly engaged comprising a torque motor having a vertical motor axis and a reduction gear having an inlet, engaged with the torque motor, and an outlet pinion (figures 1 and 2, elements 10 and 20 being the ‘rotation assembly,’ element 10 being the ‘torque motor,’ element 20 being the ‘reduction gear,’ element 14 being the ‘inlet,’ and element 24 being the ‘outlet pinion’; paragraphs 44 – 46). Katsuma further teaches that the outlet pinion is coaxial to the motor axis (figure 1, elements 24 and 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the arrangement of the reduction gear and torque motor of Yoshida, wherein the reduction gear is offset from the torque motor, for the arrangement of Katsuma, wherein the reduction gear, including the outlet pinion of the reduction gear, is coaxial with the torque motor, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that either arrangement provides the benefit of the torque motor driving the reduction gear, as desired by Yoshida.
As to claim 2, Yoshida teaches that the reduction gear of the rotation assembly is an epicyclic reduction gear (figure 2b, element 19 being the ‘epicyclic reduction gear’; paragraph 22). Examiner notes that this can be found because Yoshida teaches the reduction gear being a “conventionally-known planetary gear train type speed reduction unit,” which is a known type of epicyclic reduction gear.
As to claim 3, while Yoshida teaches the reduction gear of the rotation assembly being a epicyclic reduction gear (figure 2b, element 19; paragraph 22), Yoshida does not teach the structure of the epicyclic reduction gear. Katsuma further teaches the reduction gear of the rotation assembly being an epicyclic reduction gear (figure 1, element 20; paragraph 44). Katsuma further teaches the epicyclic reduction gearing comprising a sun gear, planetary gears, a planetary carrier, and a ring gear for reduction gear (figures 1 and 2, element 21 being the ‘sun gear,’ elements 26a – 26d being the ‘planetary gears,’ element 23 being the ‘planetary carrier,’ and element 25 being the ‘ring gear’; paragraphs 44 – 54), and wherein the sun gear is rotatable and engaged with the torque motor (figure 1, elements 21 and 10; paragraph 44), the ring gear for reduction gear is fixed (figures 1 and 2, element 25; paragraph 44), the planetary gears roll on the sun gear and on the ring gear for reduction gear, (figures 1 and 2, elements 26a – 26d, 21, and 25; paragraphs 52 – 54), and the planetary carrier is engaged with the outlet pinion (figures 1 and 2, elements 23 and 24; paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to employ the epicyclic reduction gear of Katsuma for the epicyclic reduction gear of Yoshida, because Katsuma teaches that such an epicyclic reduction gear provides the benefit of reducing the rotation speed of the torque motor (figure 1, elements 20 and 10; paragraph 35), as desired by Yoshida (figure 2b, elements 19 and 22; paragraphs 22 – 23).
As to claim 4, Yoshida taches that the outlet pinion meshes directly with the ring gear of the table (figure 2b, elements 20 and 18; paragraph 22).
As to claim 5, Yoshida teaches an embodiment in which the rotation assembly comprises an idle gear for transmitting motion between the outlet pinion and the ring gear (paragraph 32).
As to claim 6, Yoshida teaches that the at least one rotation assembly comprises two rotation assemblies (figure 2b, elements 19 – 24; paragraph 22), each rotation assembly of the two rotation assemblies being arranged on a respective side of the slide (figure 2b, elements 19 – 24 and 10).
As to claim 7, Yoshida teaches that two torque motors of the two rotation assemblies are configured to be driven in concert (figure 2b, elements 22; paragraph 25).
As to claim 8, Yoshida teaches that the two torque motors of the two rotation assemblies are configured to be driven in opposition (figure 2b, elements 22; paragraph 25).
As to claim 9, Yoshida teaches a slide translation mechanism, comprising a pair of rails, placed on board the slide and adapted to be driven to translate the slide along the longitudinal axis (figure 1, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
662
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Katsuma as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schmidt (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0175684).
As to claim 10, Yoshida does not teach the slide translation mechanism comprising at least one gearmotor assembly. Schmidt teaches a table assembly for a machine tool (abstract), the table assembly comprising a slide translatable on command along a longitudinal axis (figure 1, elements 80 and 81 being the ‘slide’ and direction Y being the ‘longitudinal axis’; paragraph 28); and a slide translation mechanism placed on board the slide and adapted to be driven to translate the slide along the longitudinal axis (paragraph 29, wherein the ‘electrical linear motor’ is the ‘slide translation mechanism’). Schmidt further teaches that the slide translation mechanism comprises at least one gearmotor assembly (paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the slide translation mechanism of Yoshida with the gearmotor assembly of Schmidt, because Schmidt teaches that use of the gearmotor assembly acts to drive the table assembly along the longitudinal axis (paragraph 29), as desired by Yoshida.
As to claim 11, Schmidt teaches that the gearmotor assembly comprises a motor, having a motor axis orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and the vertical axis (paragraph 29), and a reduction gear having an inlet, engaged with the motor, and an outlet, engageable with a rack, coaxial to the motor axis (figures 2, 4, and 5, elements 82, 83, 37, and 38; paragraph 29).
As to claim 12, Schmidt teaches that the at least one gearmotor assembly comprises two gearmotors assemblies arranged on a same side of the slide (figures 2, 4, and 5, elements 82, 83, 37, and 38; paragraph 29).
As to claim 13, Schmidt teaches that the rotation assembly is arranged between said two gearmotor assemblies (figures 2, 4, and 5, elements 82, 83, 37, and 38; paragraph 29).
As to claim 14, Schmidt teaches that the at least one gearmotor assembly comprises two gearmotors assemblies, each of the gearmotor assemblies being arranged on a respective side of the slide (figures 2, 4, and 5, elements 82, 83, 37, and 38; paragraph 29).
As to claim 15, Schmidt teaches that two motors of the two gearmotor assemblies are configured to be driven in opposition (figures 2, 4, and 5, elements 82, 83, 37, and 38; paragraph 29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726