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 Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/31/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10 and 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (US Pub. No. 2003/0024358).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a machine tool comprising: a frame assembly; a first head (60) having a first rotatable workpiece holder; a second head (70) having a second rotatable workpiece holder; a first door (D1) of the frame assembly movable in a first direction between a first closed position (figure 4) and a first open position (figure 6); a second door (D2) of the frame assembly movable in a second direction transverse to the first direction between a second closed position (figure 4) and a second open position (figure 5); the frame assembly having an access opening sized to be closed by the first door in the first closed position and to permit access to the first and second heads with the first door in the first open position and the second door in the second closed position (figure 5); and the frame assembly having a larger access opening sized to be closed by the first door in the first closed position and the second door in the second closed position (figure 4) and to increase ease of user accessibility to the first and second heads with the first door in the first open position and the second door in the second open position (figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses wherein the first head (60) is configured to rotate the first rotatable workpiece holder around an axis; wherein the access opening of the frame assembly has a first maximum width (W1) along the axis with the first door in the first open position and the second door in the first closed position; and wherein the enlarged access opening of the frame assembly has a second maximum width (W2) along the axis with the first door in the first open position and the second door in the
second open position, the second maximum width (W2) being larger than the first maximum width (W1) (see below).
[AltContent: textbox (D1)][AltContent: textbox (D2)][AltContent: textbox (H1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (W1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
552
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (H2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (W2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
773
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses wherein the access opening of the frame assembly has a first maximum height (H1) perpendicular to the first maximum width; and wherein the enlarged access opening of the frame assembly has a second maximum height (H2) perpendicular to the second maximum width, the second maximum height being the same as the first maximum height (see figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses wherein the second door (D2) is movable from the second closed position to the second open position in a direction parallel to the axis (figures 4-6).
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses wherein the second door (D2) is linearly shiftable between the second closed position and the second open position (figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses wherein the first door (D1) is a first sliding door (slides in a curved path) and wherein the second door (D2) is a second sliding door (slides linearly).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the frame assembly includes a track, and the first door includes a guide bearing engaged with the track, the guide bearing movable along the track as the first door moves between the first closed position and the first open position, and wherein the second door includes at least a section of the track that is movable with the second door as the second door moves between the second closed position and the second open position (figures 4-6).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses wherein the movement of the first door (D1) in the first direction comprises movement upwardly and rearwardly and the movement of the second door (D2) in the second direction comprises movement of the second door laterally (figures 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US Pub. No. 2003/0024358) and further in view of Linn (USP 4,705,187).
Chang discloses all aspects of the invention as set forth in the rejection above. Chang does not disclose the first door including pivotally connected door sections configured to pivot relative to one another as the first door moves between the first closed position and the first open position. Linn discloses a machine tool frame with a door (19) with pivotally connected door sections configured to pivot relative to one another as the first door moves between the first closed position and the first open position (figures 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s first door so that it has sections that pivot, as taught by Linn for the purpose of simplifying the design since it avoids tracks/guides, reduces possible binding/jamming thus reducing downtime. It should also be noted that this is predictable substitution of one known door opening mechanism for another yielding the expected result of selectively opening and closing the compartments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 8/22/26
Prosecution Insights