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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 30, lines 10, it appears that “cam mechanism 37” should be changed to –cam mechanism 36— in order to be consistent with page 13, line 2, page 13, line 24, page 14, lines 2 and 21, page 33, and Figure 3; and
on page 32, line 9, , it appears that “cam mechanism 37” should be changed to –cam mechanism 36—to be consistent with in order to be consistent with page 13, line 2, page 13, line 24, page 14, lines 2 and 21, page 33, and Figure 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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):
all of the configurations encompassed by the limitation “the transfer position or transfer device being located directly on, above or below a change position of a workpiece spindle” as set forth in claim 5 (see Figures 1-2, noting that the workpiece spindles 101, 11 are both below the transfer device 60 and is below, for example, a position at which a workpiece 2 can be “transferred” to or from 60, though it is noted that such is but one example of a transfer position as broadly recited; see also page 16, lines 19-21, and page 25, lines 19-21; see also Figure 2 and page 27, lines 3-8, which teaches that level E1, shown as passing through the workpiece spindles 101, 11, is below the plane or level E2 at which the “lens transfer/handover of the transfer device 60 and/or loading device 40 takes place”).
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.
Comment on Claim Language
It is noted that throughout the present claims, the claims utilize a number of alternative limitations. It is noted that meeting only one of the alternatives (i.e., with prior art) is sufficient to meet the claim. That said, it is noted that wherein a base claim recites plural alternatives, and then a claim dependent therefrom recites a more specific version of one of those alternatives without expressly saying that the claim requires that particular alternative, the dependent claim is merely reciting a more specific alternative.
For example, claim 1 recites “wherein the processing apparatus comprises at least one of the following features:
the workpiece spindles or their chucks face one another and/or the changing device is arranged therebetween,
the milling station and the turning station each have only a maximum of two stacked movement axes, or
the changing device has a double gripper which is rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis and/or which is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement”.
Dependent claim 6 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein the double gripper has two gripping members or suckers which point parallel to each other in the same direction”.
Noting that claim 1 does not actually require the double gripper in order to be met (since the double gripper limitation is not required by all of the alternatives set forth in claim 1), and noting the present language of claim 6, it is noted that claim 6 is merely a shorthand way of writing claim 1 with a more specific alternative re the double gripper. In other words, claim 6 is merely a shorthand way of writing:
wherein the processing apparatus comprises at least one of the following features:
the workpiece spindles or their chucks face one another and/or the changing device is arranged therebetween,
the milling station and the turning station each have only a maximum of two stacked movement axes, or
the changing device has a double gripper which is rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis and/or which is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement, wherein the double gripper has two gripping members or suckers which point parallel to each other in the same direction.
That being said, it is noted that in the event that one of the other alternatives of claim 1 (i.e., one of the alternatives not requiring the double gripper) is met, then it is noted that the limitations of claim 6 are merely optional, i.e., in the event that a prior art reference is found having (for example) a milling station and turning station that “each have only a maximum of two stacked movement axes”, then claim 6 is also met because claim 6 only requires one of the options of claim 1 to be met, and such a piece of art meets the option re the milling and turning station each having “only a maximum of two stacked movement axes”. Note that claim 6 does not set forth the “processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing device has the double gripper, and wherein the double gripper has two gripping members or suckers…”
A similar situation/discussion, mutatis mutandis, is applicable regarding any of the dependent claims (such as, for example, claim 8, noting that claim 8 does not actually require a double gripper, and such as, for example claim 19, noting that claim 19 does not actually require a second fast tool drive, given that claim 18 does not require a second fast tool drive,) that provide a more specific alternative regarding the options/alternatives from a previous claim in the dependency (without specifically reciting that a particular option is required), such that as long as one of the other options of the prior claim in the dependency is met by the reference, the reference meets the claim.
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:
“changing device” in claim 1 in all of the alternatives through line 10 of the claim (noting that the recitation of the structure “double gripper…” sufficient to perform the recited function is only required for alternatives/options re the last three lines, i.e., lines 11-13, of claim 1, and thus, for alternatives/options in which those last three lines are not required, the term “changing device” invokes 35 USC 112(f)); and
“gripping members” in claim 6.
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
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 4, line 1, it appears that “whereinthe” should be –wherein the--;
in claim 5, line 1, it appears that “whereinthe” should be –wherein the--.
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 1-20 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.
It is noted that any reference herein to a line number of a claim is with respect to the number of lines in the claim, and not to a line number of the page on which the claim is presented. For example, the last line of present claim 1 is claim 1, line 13, though it appears on line 15 of the page.
In claim 1, lines 4-5, the claim recites “with a changing device for changing the workpieces to be processed from the first workpiece spindle to the second workpiece spindle”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as being/occurring “from the first workpiece spindle to the second workpiece spindle”, e.g., the changing of the workpieces, or the processing (re “to be processed from…”).
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“their chucks” in claim 1, line 7;
“their parallel and/or coaxial rotation axes” in claim 9 (noting that no such parallel and/or coaxial rotation axes were previously recited in the claim, nor is it inherent that the first and second workpiece spindles have parallel and/or coaxial rotation axes); and
“the rotation axis of the milling drive” in claim 11, penultimate line, in claim 15, penultimate line, and in claim 20, penultimate line (noting that no such rotation axis of the milling drive was previously recited, nor is it inherent that the milling “drive”, as broadly recited, has a rotation axis as opposed to being a linear drive for linearly moving a milling tool, for example, nor is it inherent that the milling drive only has a single rotational axis, for example, as opposed to having plural rotational axes).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 7, the claim sets forth “the workpiece spindles or their chucks face one another”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “face one another” is intended to require a particular (unspecified in the claim) angular range of some (unspecified in the claim) axis or other frame of reference of the workpiece spindles or chucks in question relative to one another, or whether such is instead intended to require a particular (unspecified in the claim) degree of proximity of some (unspecified in the claim) portion or feature or surface or the like of the workpiece spindles or chucks relative to one another. Regardless of which meaning of “face one another” is intended, given that no such angular range and no such degree of proximity are set forth in the claim, it is unclear what configuration(s) of workpiece spindles or “their chucks” meet the limitation " the workpiece spindles or their chucks face one another” and what configuration(s) of workpiece spindles or “their chucks” are excluded by the limitation. The same issue exists in claim 10, lines 1-2, in the limitation “wherein the workpiece spindles or their chucks face one another”.
In claim 1, line 10, it is unclear as claimed to what/where “therebetween” is intended to refer, i.e., between what/where? Between the workpiece spindles? Between “their” chucks? The same issue exists in claim 10, line 2, in the limitation “the changing device is arranged therebetween”.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, the claim recites “the milling station and the turning station each have only a maximum of two stacked movement axes”. However, it is unclear how or in what regard two such imaginary axes/lines can be considered to be “stacked”, noting that even for a direction of movement of the workpiece spindle 101 in the shown X direction in Figure 1, given that the workpiece spindle 101 is a three-dimensional object, there are an infinite number of axes or imaginary lines extending in/parallel to the shown X direction that pass through the workpiece spindle 101, including an infinite number of such imaginary lines that are vertically spaced from one another. In the event that such is instead actually intended to refer to some location or configuration of guide arrangements or movement drives, Applicant may wish to consider amending the claim to reflect such, taking care to make sure such is supported by the specification as originally filed.
In claim 1, lines 11-12, the claim sets forth “or the changing device has a double gripper which is rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis”. However, it is unclear as claimed with what “and is movable linearly along the turn axis” is intended to go, i.e., it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as being “movable linearly along the turn axis”, i.e., the double gripper, or the changing device.
In claim 1, last three lines, the claim sets forth “or the changing device has a double gripper which is rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis and/or which is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed to what “which” is intended to refer in the limitation “which is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement”, i.e., the double gripper, or the changing device. It is additionally unclear as claimed as to what the limitation “or which is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement” is intended to be alternative, i.e., “is movable linearly along the turn axis”, “rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis”, or “has a double gripper which is rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis”. Note that it is thus unclear as claimed whether or not the double gripper is required in order to meet the last three lines of claim 1 (e.g., in the event that “or which is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement” is intended to be alternative to “has a double gripper which is rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis”, then a reference meeting the limitation “the changing device…is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement” would meet the claim language, whether or not that changing device had a double gripper configured as recited in lines 11-12 of the claim).
In claim 2, the claim recites “wherein at least one of the first or second workpiece spindle is exclusively linearly displaceable in only one direction”. However, it is unclear as claimed what effect the term “exclusively” is intended to have on the scope of the claim. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether this limitation intends that “at least one of the first or second workpiece spindle” can only move linearly and that such linear movement is only in one direction. Alternatively, it is unclear as claimed whether this limitation does not preclude rotational movement “in” the one (linear displacement) direction, i.e., regardless of whether the spindle(s) is/are capable of rotational/pivotal movement, one or both of the two workpiece spindles can move linearly and can only move linearly in one direction. The same issues exist in claim 17, which similarly recites “wherein the workpiece spindle is exclusively linearly displaceable in only one direction”.
In claim 4, the claim recites “whereinthe (sic) changing device has a swivel axis for changing between the milling station and turning station and vice versa”. Firstly, it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard an imaginary line (i.e., a swivel axis) is to be considered to be capable of performing the function of “changing” anything, as claimed. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as being/occurring “between” the milling station and turning station…”, i.e., the location of some sort of (broadly recited) “changing” of something (unspecified in the claim), vs. the location of the swivel axis itself. It is additionally unclear as set forth in the claim what effect the term “vice versa” is intended to have on the claim, as the claim does not recite any particular order or sequence of elements or events to be reversed. Note that the term “between the milling station and turning station” does not require –from the milling station to the turning station--.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “whereinthe (sic) changing device is adapted for moving to a transfer position or transfer device for picking up an unprocessed workpiece and/or handing over a processed workpiece, the transfer position or transfer device being located directly on, above or below a change position of a workpiece spindle”. However, noting the four uses of the term “or” in claim 5, it is unclear as claimed what limitations (or combinations of limitations) are required in order to meet claim 5, i.e., it is unclear exactly what is alternative to what.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “whereinthe (sic) changing device is adapted for moving to a transfer position or transfer device for picking up an unprocessed workpiece and/or handing over a processed workpiece, the transfer position or transfer device being located directly on, above or below a change position of a workpiece spindle”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “for picking up an unprocessed workpiece” is intended to only go with “transfer device”, or whether “for picking up an unprocessed workpiece” is also intended to go with “transfer position, or whether, alternatively, “for picking up an unprocessed workpiece” is instead intended to go with “the changing device is adapted”.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “whereinthe (sic) changing device is adapted for moving to a transfer position or transfer device for picking up an unprocessed workpiece and/or handing over a processed workpiece, the transfer position or transfer device being located directly on, above or below a change position of a workpiece spindle”. However, it is unclear as claimed what claim element(s) is/are being set forth as for “handing over a processed workpiece”, i.e., the transfer device, the transfer position, or the changing device.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “whereinthe (sic) changing device is adapted for moving to a transfer position or transfer device for picking up an unprocessed workpiece and/or handing over a processed workpiece, the transfer position or transfer device being located directly on, above or below a change position of a workpiece spindle”. However, noting the lack of an Oxford comma, it is unclear whether “located directly on, above or below” requires “directly on” and one of “above or below”, or whether the claim requires one of “directly on”, “above”, or below” (in which case “directly on” is not required). It is additionally unclear how or in what regard a “transfer position”, per se, is to be considered to be “directly on” a “change position of a workpiece spindle”, as set forth in the last two lines of claim 5.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “the transfer position or transfer device being located directly on, above or below a change position of a workpiece spindle”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “a workpiece spindle” is intended to refer to one of the previously-recited workpiece spindles (i.e., the “first workpiece spindle” set forth in claim 1, line 2, or the “second workpiece spindle” set forth in claim 1, line 3), or whether “a workpiece spindle” in claim 5, last line, is instead intended to refer to a workpiece spindle that is additional to the previously-recited first workpiece spindle and second workpiece spindle.
In claim 9, the claim sets forth “wherein the first and second workpiece spindles are offset and/or spaced apart in the direction of their parallel and/or coaxial rotation axes”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “in the direction of their parallel and/or coaxial rotation axes” is intended to go only with “spaced apart”, or whether “in the direction of their parallel and/or coaxial rotation axes” is also intended to go with “offset”.
In claim 9, the claim references “parallel and/or coaxial rotation axes” of the first and second workpiece spindles. However, it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard such rotation axes can be both parallel and coaxial as encompassed by the “and” portion of “and/or”, noting that if the two axes are coaxial, they are not parallel, and noting that if they are parallel, they are offset and thus not coaxial.
In claim 10, last three lines, the claim sets forth “and the changing device has a double gripper which is rotatable about a central turn axis and is movable linearly along the turn axis”. However, it is unclear as claimed with what “and is movable linearly along the turn axis” is intended to go, i.e., it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as being “movable linearly along the turn axis”, i.e., the double gripper, or the changing device.
In claim 11, lines 2-3, the claim sets forth “wherein the milling station has a first carriage with the first workpiece spindle and a second carriage with a milling drive as well as a machine bed”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed with what “and a second carriage” is intended to go, i.e., “the milling station has”, vs. “first carriage with” (though it is noted that “first carriage with” is sufficiently broad as to encompass arrangements in which the first carriages is provided “with”, i.e., along with, the first workpiece spindle, and does not expressly require the first workpiece spindle be provided on the first carriage, for example). Additionally, it is unclear as claimed with what “as well as a machine bed” is intended to go, i.e., “the milling station has”, vs. “first carriage with”, vs. “second carriage with”. The same issues exist in claim 15, lines 2-3.
In claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the turning station has a first fast tool drive and a second fast tool drive which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive and/or which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed as to what “which” is intended to refer in the limitation “which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece”, i.e., the turning station, or the second fast tool drive (noting the use of the singular verb “is”, it appears that such is not intended to refer to “a first fast tool drive and a second fast tool drive”). Additionally, it is unclear as claimed to what the alternative limitation “which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece” is intended to be alternative, i.e., “wherein the turning station has a first fast tool drive and a second fast tool drive which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive”, or “which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive”. Note that for the former, the first and second fast tool drives are not required in order to meet the claim, whereas for the latter, the first and second fast tool drives are required in order to meet the claim (though it would not be required for the second fast tool drive to be “constructed differently from the first tool drive”, as long as the second fast tool drive is capable of performing/providing one of “alternative” or “sequential” processing of the same workpiece).
In claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the turning station has a first fast tool drive and a second fast tool drive which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive and/or which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece”. As already noted above, it is unclear as claimed to what “which” is intended to refer in the limitation “which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece”. However, regardless as to what “which” in this limitation is intended to refer, it is unclear as claimed what action(s) the element (referred to via “which”) is intended to be required to be capable of performing re “alternative or sequential processing”, i.e., alternative to what, sequential with what?
In claim 14, the claim recites “wherein the turning station has a fast tool drive, and wherein the fast tool drive has two tool holders or tools for alternative or sequential processing of a workpiece and/or has a tool cooling”. Firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether “for alternative or sequential processing of a workpiece” is intended to go only with “tools”, or whether “for alternative or sequential processing of a workpiece” is instead intended to also go with “two tool holders”. It is also unclear as claimed to what “or has a tool cooling” is intended to be alternative, i.e., wherein the turning station has “a fast tool drive, and wherein the fast tool drive has two tool holders or tools for alternative or sequential processing of a workpiece”; “sequential processing of a workpiece”; “wherein the fast tool drive has two tool holders or tools for alternative or sequential processing”; etc. That said, it is unclear as claimed whether a turning station having “a” tool cooling is, in and of itself, sufficient to meet claim 14.
In claim 14, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as having “a tool cooling”. Additionally, it is unclear how or in what regard the element (i.e., whatever is intended to be set forth as having “a” tool cooling) is to be considered to have “a” tool cooling, as opposed to having some sort of structure for causing tool cooling, or as opposed to being capable of performing the function of tool cooling, for example.
In claim 18, the claim recites “a turning station which has a workpiece spindle and a first fast tool drive, wherein the processing apparatus comprises at least one of the following features: the turning station has a second fast tool drive which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive and/or which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece…”. However, it is unclear as claimed as to what “which” is intended to refer in the limitation “which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece”, i.e., the turning station, or the second fast tool drive.
In claim 18, the claim recites (in one optional limitation) “the turning station has a second fast tool drive which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive and/or which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece”. As already noted above, it is unclear as claimed to what “which” is intended to refer in the limitation “which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece”. However, regardless as to what “which” in this limitation is intended to refer, it is unclear as claimed what action(s) the element (referred to via “which”) is intended to be required to be capable of performing re “alternative or sequential processing”, i.e., alternative to what, sequential with what?
In claim 18, the claim recites “Processing apparatus for processing optical workpieces, with a turning station which has a workpiece spindle and a first fast tool drive,
wherein the processing apparatus comprises at least one of the following features:
the turning station has a second fast tool drive which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive and/or which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece,
the turning station has a wedge adjustment for the first fast tool drive or for both the first and second fast tool drives, or …”
It is noted that in claim 18, line 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the processing apparatus comprises “at least one of the following features”, which is indicative that meeting only one of the “following features” is sufficient to meet the claim language. That said, in lines 7-8, the claim recites (as one of the aforementioned “following features”) “the turning station has a wedge adjustment for the first fast tool drive or for both the first and second fast tool drives”. However, the limitation re a “second fast tool drive” was only previously set forth in an optional limitation (i.e., in lines 4-6 of the claim) that is itself one of the aforementioned “following features”. That being said, it is unclear as set forth in claim 18, lines 7-8 whether meeting the option in which the wedge adjustment is for “both the first and second fast tool drives” likewise requires that another of the aforementioned “following features”, and specifically, that set forth in lines 4-6 of the claim, be met.
In claim 18, the claim recites “with a turning station which has a workpiece spindle and a first fast tool drive, wherein the processing apparatus comprises at least one of the following features: …the first fast tool drive has two tool holders or tools for alternative or sequential processing of a workpiece and/or has a tool cooling”. Firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether “for alternative or sequential processing of a workpiece” is intended to go only with “tools”, or whether “for alternative or sequential processing of a workpiece” is instead intended to also go with “two tool holders”. It is also unclear as claimed to what “or has a tool cooling” is intended to be alternative, i.e., “sequential processing of a workpiece”; “for alternative or sequential processing”, “wherein the fast tool drive has two tool holders or tools for alternative or sequential processing”; etc. That said, it is unclear as claimed whether a turning station having a workpiece spindle (set forth in line 2), a first fast tool drive (set forth in line 2), and having “a” tool cooling (re lines 9-10 of claim 18) is, in and of itself, sufficient to meet claim 18.
In claim 18, last line, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as having “a tool cooling”. Additionally, it is unclear how or in what regard the element (i.e., whatever is intended to be set forth as having “a” tool cooling) is to be considered to have “a” tool cooling, as opposed to having some sort of structure for causing tool cooling, or as opposed to being capable of performing the function of tool cooling, for example.
In claim 20, lines 2-4, the claim sets forth “wherein the processing station further comprises a milling station having a first carriage with a milling workpiece spindle and a second carriage with a milling drive as well as a machine bed”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed with what “and a second carriage” is intended to go, i.e., “a milling station having”, vs. “first carriage with” (though it is noted that “first carriage with” is sufficiently broad as to encompass arrangements in which the first carriages is provided “with”, i.e., along with, the milling workpiece spindle, and does not expressly require the milling workpiece spindle be provided on the first carriage, for example). Additionally, it is unclear as claimed with what “as well as a machine bed” is intended to go, i.e., “the processing apparatus further comprising”, “a milling station having”, vs. “first carriage with”, vs. “second carriage with”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-13, and 18-19, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0260448 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter, “Fiedler”).
Fiedler teaches a processing apparatus (10; Figure 2; paragraphs 0024-0025, for example) for processing optical workpieces (such as, for example, spectacle lenses L; see paragraph 0024, for example),
with a milling station (the “station”/location at which 12 and 24’ are located, for example) comprising a first workpiece spindle (24’) (see Figures 2 and 5-6 and at least paragraphs 0025, 0036-0038, noting that 52 is described as a “cutter spindle”, and 54 as a “cutting tool” that is driven by the cutting spindle 52, and furthermore, paragraph 0038 teaches that the cutting tool 54 has cutting edges that produce “an annular trough-like recess at least in the region of the outer edge of the spectacle lens L’”, and thus, 54 is a milling tool; see also paragraph 24’ which teaches that 24’ is a workpiece spindle),
with a turning station (the “station”/location at which 11 and 24 are located, for example) comprising a second workpiece spindle (24) (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0026-0030, for example), and
with a changing device (such as, for example, 46; see Figure 2 and at least paragraphs 0041-0043, for example) for changing the workpieces (L, L’) to be processed “from” the first workpiece spindle (24’) to the second workpiece spindle (24) (see Figures 6-10; see also paragraphs 0041-0042, noting that paragraph 0042 expressly teaches the claimed functional/intended use limitation re “changing the workpieces to be processed form the first workpiece spindle to the second workpiece spindle”),
wherein the processing apparatus comprises at least one of the following features (note that it is only necessary to meet one of the limitations in order for the claim to be met):
the workpiece spindles (24, 24’) or their chucks (of 24, 24’) “face one another” (see Figure 2, noting that as broadly claimed, the spindle 24’ is on an end of the spindle unit 44 that is closest to/”facing” the spindle 24, and noting that the spindle 24 is on an end of the spindle unit 27 that is closest to/”facing” the spindle 24’, and thus, for at least such reasoning, the workpiece spindles 24, 24’ “face one another” as broadly claimed; the same logic applies regarding the chucks of the workpiece spindles 24, 24’ which grip the workpieces L, L’) and/or the changing device (46) is arranged therebetween (see Figure 6, for example, noting that the changing device 46 is located at least vertically “between” the spindles 24, 24’),
the (aforedescribed) milling station and the (aforedescribed) turning station each have only a maximum of two stacked movement axes (as broadly claimed and as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, the turning station has a maximum of two “stacked” movement axes in that the guide rails 20 are “stacked” on top of the guide rails 18, and the milling station has no “stacked” movement axes as best understood, at least since the guide rails for the Y’ movement of 24’ are not vertically stacked on top of the guide rails for the movement of 24’ in Z; see Figure 2, for example), or
the changing device (46) has a double gripper (such as two or more of the suction cups 58, 58; see paragraph 0042, for example, and/or two of the suction cups 58 in combination with the rotating disk 56; see paragraph 0042; see also Figure 3 and Figure 2, for example) which is rotatable about a “central” (as broadly claimed) turn axis (D; see Figure 2 and paragraph 0047, for example) and is movable linearly along the (vertical) turn axis (via cylinders 57; see Figures 2, 6-10, and paragraph 0042); and/or which is constructed for superimposed rotary and linear movement (as just noted via the description of the rotary and linear movements about and in the vertical direction D).
Regarding claim 3, the (aforedescribed) milling station and the (aforedescribed) turning station each have a separate machine bed (see Figures 2, 11, and 6, noting that the aforedescribed milling station has bed 14, and noting that the aforedescribed turning station has bed 13; see also paragraphs 0025-0026 and 0036-0037, as well as 0040, for example) and wherein the changing device (46) is mounted “independently of” (see Figure 11) and/or “between” (such as in the horizontal left/right direction re Figure 11, noting the gap labeled “Q1” in the annotated reproduction of Figure 11 below, which gap Q1 is “between” the machine beds 13, 14 in the horizontal left/right direction re Figure 11, and noting that the changing device 46 is located extending in the area “between” 13, 14 in that horizontal left/right direction re Figure 11) the machine beds (13, 14) (though of course noting the use of the term “and/or”, it is only necessary to meet one alternative in order to meet the claim language).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
730
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Q1)]
Regarding claim 4¸ the changing device (46) has a swivel axis (D and/or S) for “changing between” the milling station and turning station (such as for moving a workpiece L, L’ “between” the aforedescribed milling and turning stations; see Figures 2 and 6-10, as well as at least paragraphs 0041-0048, and particularly paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0047, for example) and “vice versa” (as broadly claimed and as best understood, note that 46 is capable of moving a workpiece L or L’ from 24 and to 24’, and is also capable of moving a workpiece L or L’ from 24’ to 24, simply by appropriately rotating 46 about S and then by the appropriate amount about axis D; see Figures 2 and 6-10 as well as paragraphs 0041-0048, for example).
Regarding claim 5, the changing device (46) is adapted for moving to a “transfer position” (as broadly claimed, any position to which 46 moves is a position at which transfer of something, whether that something is 46 or whether that something is a workpiece L, L’, is capable of occurring in some fashion, whether by further movement of 46, whether manually by an operator taking a workpiece from or providing a workpiece to 46, or whether by a workpiece being automatically transferred to/from 46 from/to conveyor belt 62 or whether by a workpiece being automatically transferred to/from 46 from/to 24 or 24’, for example; see Figures 2 and 6-10, as well as paragraphs 0041-0019, for example) or transfer device (such as 60 and/or 62, for example; see Figures 2 and 6-10 and paragraphs 0048-0049 and 0042-0043) “for” (i.e., capable of) picking up an unprocessed workpiece and/or handing over a processed workpiece (Figures 2 and 6-10, paragraphs 0041-0049), the transfer position or transfer device being located directly on, above or below a change position of a workpiece spindle (see, for example, Figure 8, noting that the position at which 46 transfers workpieces L, L’ to or from 24 is “directly on” a “change position”, as best understood in view of the above rejections under 35 USC 112, of the workpiece spindle 24; see also Figure 8, noting that the position at which 46 transfers workpieces L, L’ to or from 24 is “above” a “change position” of workpiece spindle 24, for example, or conversely, see Figure 8 noting that the position at which 46 transfers workpieces L, L’ to or from 24’ is “below” a “change position” of workpiece spindle 24, for example).
Regarding claim 6, the (aforedescribed) double gripper has two gripping members or suckers (58, 58) which “point parallel to each other in the same direction” (as broadly claimed; see Figure 2, for example, noting that the longitudinal extension axis of the suction cups 58 are all parallel to one another, and specifically, in Figure 2, are all vertical, and in Figure 7, are horizontal; see also paragraph 0042, which teaches that 58 are suction cups that grip/hold the workpieces L, L’).
Regarding claim 7, the changing device (46) is constructed to transfer the workpieces (L, L’) in such a way that the workpieces are “processable” on the same flat side both in the milling station and in the turning station. As broadly claimed, note that when 56 is rotated about axis D when 46 is in the position/orientation depicted in Figures 7 and 9, such rotation does not change which side/face of a workpiece L/L’ is exposed to the tools 54, 40, 42, and thus, for at least this reasoning, the changing device 46 is considered to be capable of transferring the workpieces in such a way that the workpieces L, L’ are able to be processed on the same side both in the (aforedescribed) milling station and in the (aforedescribed) turning station, and that the tools are blind as to whether that common workpiece side/face is flat, but rather, will machine whatever workpiece side/surface with which they come into operative machining contact (including a side that happens to be “flat”) such that the workpieces are able to be processed “on the same flat side” both in the (aforedescribed) milling station and in the (aforedescribed) turning station.
It is noted that claim 8 is met by virtue of claim 1 having been met by other alternatives (i.e., alternatives not requiring a double gripper) described above, noting that claim 8 does not actually require a double gripper, given the “at least one of the following features” language of claim 1. See the above discussion under the heading “Comment on Claim Language”. Note that claim 8 is merely a shorthand way of providing a more specific alternative re the last three lines of claim 1, but that claim 8 is met by virtue of the fact that the alternatives in lines 7-10 of claim 1 are met as described above.
Regarding claim 9, the first (24’) and second (24) workpiece spindles are offset (such as in the direction of axis Z re Figure 6, for example), and/or spaced apart in the direction of their parallel rotation axes (B, B’) (see Figures 2-3 and 6, as well as at least paragraphs 0036 and 0038, as well as 0045 and 0028-0030; in particular, spindles 24’, 24 are independently movable in the directions Y’, Y, respectively, and thus, the workpiece spindles 24’, 24 are capable of being offset in the direction B/B’, which is parallel to Y, Y’, of their parallel rotation axes B, B’, simply by appropriately actuating the drives of 24’ and/or 24 such that one of 24’, 24 is offset at least slightly from the other in B/B’).
Regarding claim 10¸ the workpiece spindles (24, 24’) or their chucks (of 24, 24’) “face one another” (see Figure 2, noting that as broadly claimed, the spindle 24’ is on an end of the spindle unit 44 that is closest to/”facing” the spindle 24, and noting that the spindle 24 is on an end of the spindle unit 27 that is closest to/”facing” the spindle 24’, and thus, for at least such reasoning, the workpiece spindles 24, 24’ “face one another” as broadly claimed; the same logic applies regarding the chucks of the workpiece spindles 24, 24’ which grip the workpieces L, L’), the changing device (46) is arranged “therebetween” (see Figure 6, for example, noting that the changing device 46 is located at least vertically “between” the spindles 24, 24’), and the changing device (46) has a double gripper (such as two or more of the suction cups 58, 58; see paragraph 0042, for example, and/or two of the suction cups 58 in combination with the rotating disk 56; see paragraph 0042; see also Figure 3 and Figure 2, for example) which is rotatable about a “central” (as broadly claimed) turn axis (D; see Figure 2 and paragraph 0047, for example) and is movable linearly along the (vertical) turn axis (via cylinders 57; see Figures 2, 6-10, and paragraph 0042).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the (aforedescribed) turning station has a first fast tool drive (one of 32 or 34) and a second fast tool drive (the other of 34 or 32) (see Figures 2-3 and 5-6, for example, as well as at least paragraph 0031, for example) which is constructed differently from the first fast tool drive (while it is noted that Fiedler is silent as to the steps used to manufacture/construct 32, 24, it is noted that the present claims are apparatus/product claims, rather than claims directed to the method of making such apparatus/product, and that being said, it is noted that it is immaterial to the structure of 32 and 34 as to whether, say, a vertical side face was produced prior to a top face, or whether a top face was produced prior to a side face; product-by-process claims/limitations are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps; “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself” and “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production and “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); See MPEP section 2113) and/or which is provided for alternative or sequential processing of the same workpiece (it is noted that the two fast tool drives 32, 34 are capable of performing the claimed function/intended use of performing “alternate” processing of the same workpiece, and is also capable of performing the alternative claimed function or intended use of performing “sequential” processing of the same workpiece, simply by causing appropriate relative movements in Y and X of the workpiece mounted to workpiece spindle 24 and in F1, F2 of the tools 40, 42 in a manner so as to achieve either of “alternate” or “sequential” processing of a workpiece mounted to 24, e.g., by first causing 42 to machine the workpiece, and then causing 40 to machine the workpiece, for example; see paragraphs 0032-0036, 0029-0030, for example, as well as at least Figures 2-3 and 6, for example).
With respect to claim 22 in particular, note that claim 22 is a product-by-process claim.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, the (aforedescribed) turning station has at least one fast tool drive (either of 32, 34; see at least Figures 2-3, 5-6, as well as at least paragraph 0031, for example) and further has a wedge adjustment (i.e., the “wedge” that has an upper mounting surface that is tilted at an angle α with respect to the horizontal) for the at least one fast tool drive (either of 32, 34) or a common wedge adjustment (i.e., the “wedge” that has an upper mounting surface that is tilted at an angle α with respect to the horizontal) for two fast tool drives (32, 34). See Figure 3, Figure 6, and paragraph 0034, for example, noting that the provision of the fast tool drives 32, 34 on the aforedescribed “wedge”/”wedge adjustment” (as broadly claimed) serves to cause the axes of movement F1, F2 of the tools 40, 42 that are driven by the fast tool drives 32, 34 to be at an “adjusted” (as compared to what the angle would be without the wedge) angle that is non-zero with respect to the horizontal.
Regarding claim 19, as noted above in the section titled “Comment on Claim Language”, claim 19 is merely a shorthand way of writing claim 18 with a more specific version of the limitation found in the last two lines of claim 18. That said, in the event that another of the alternatives found in lines 3-8 of claim 18 are met (noting the “at least one of the following features” language in line 3 of claim 18), then claim 19 is met. In the instant case, the alternatives in lines 4-8 of claim 18 are all met, as discussed above, and thus, claim 19 is also met.
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 2, 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 U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0260448 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter, “Fiedler”) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Fiedler teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Regarding claim 2, the first workpiece spindle (24’) is movable in both Y’ and Z (relative to the above-described milling tool 54), and the second workpiece spindle (24) is movable in both Y and X (relative to the turning tools 40, 42; see Figure 6) (see Figures 2, 6, and paragraphs 0029-0030, 0034-0036, for example). That said, Fiedler does not expressly teach that “at least one of the first” (24’) “or second” (24) “workpiece spindle is exclusively linearly displaceable in only one direction” as set forth in claim 2.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have reversed the moving parts such that the aforedescribed relative movement(s) in Y’ and Z between the milling tool (54) and the workpiece (L or L’) held by the workpiece spindle (24’) were achieved via movement of the first workpiece spindle (24’) in either of Y’ or Z, and via movement of the milling tool (54) in the other of Z or Y’, and to have reversed the moving parts such that the aforedescribed relative movement(s) in Y and Z between the turning tools (40, 42) and the second workpiece spindle 24 were achieved via movement of the second workpiece spindle (24) in one of X and Y, and via movement of the turning tools (40, 42) in the other of Y or X, particularly since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Note that the resulting relative movements between the tools and workpieces are unchanged in the modification, i.e., there is still relative movement between the workpiece spindle 24’ and the milling tool 54 in Y’ and Z, and there is still relative movement between the workpiece spindle 24 and the turning tools 40, 42 in X and Y.
Claim 8, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0260448 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter, “Fiedler”) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Fiedler teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
It appears that claim 8 is met by Fiedler as discussed in the above rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), by virtue of the fact that claim 8 is merely a shorthand way of writing claim 1 with a more specific version of the alternative in the last three lines of claim 1 as discussed above (noting that claim 8 does not actually require a double gripper at all, and noting that claim 8 is met by virtue of others of the alternatives in lines 7-10 of claim 1 being met by Fiedler).
In the alternative, while Fiedler teaches a “double” gripper (in that the gripper includes two gripping elements 58, 58), and teaches that the double gripper is rotatable about and movable along a “central” turn axis (such as D, as discussed above), Fiedler is silent as to the details of the inherently present structure that causes that rotary and linear motion, and thus does not expressly teach a “cam mechanism” for causing the superimposed rotary and linear motion of the double gripper in the direction of axis D.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a cam mechanism to cause superimposed rotary and linear motion about and along an axis is well-known and widely available.
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 a specific (well-known) cam mechanism for the generic and inherently present structure for causing the aforedescribed superimposed rotary and linear movement of the double gripper in and about the direction of axis D taught by Fiedler, noting that such amounts to the simple substitution of one known element (cam mechanism) for another (the generic and inherently present drive structure arrangement for causing the rotary and linear movement) to obtain the predictable result of the double gripper being movable with a superimposed rotary and linear movement (about and in the direction of axis D of Fiedler).
Claims 11 and 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 U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0260448 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter, “Fiedler”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of EP 0758571 A1 (hereinafter, “EP ‘571”).
Fiedler teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claims 11 and 20¸ Fiedler teaches that the (aforedescribed) milling station has a first carriage (such as either of the two “carriages” of the cross table arrangement of the workpiece spindle unit 44, which two carriages are labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as C1, C2) “with” (such as “having”) the first/milling workpiece spindle (24’) and a milling drive (such as electric motor 50; see paragraph 0037 and Figures 2 and 6, for example) “as well as” a machine bed (14, see Figures 2, 6, and 11, as well as paragraphs 0025-0026, 0036-0037, and 0040, for example),
wherein the machine bed (14) supports the first carriage (C1 or C2) on a first (vertical) bearing surface (i.e., on which the vertical guide rails are provided, for example; see Figures 2, 11, and 6, which bearing surface is labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “BS1”).
[AltContent: textbox (BS2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (BS1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (C2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (C1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
460
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, while Fiedler teaches that the cutter spindle unit 48 is mounted on an upper surface of the machine frame 14 (and it is noted that the upper surface of the machine frame 14 on which 50 is supported is horizontal, as shown in at least Figures 2-3 and 6), and teaches that the cutter spindle unit has a structure and function that is “known in principle from EP 0 758 571 A1 by the Applicant”, Fiedler does not expressly teach that the milling drive (50) is provided (along) with (or on) a “second carriage”, as set forth in claims 11 and 20.
It is noted that EP ‘571 is not in the English language. However, it is noted that EP ‘571 is in the same patent family as U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,381 to Diehl et al., and thus, U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,381 to Diehl et al. is being relied upon as an English-language equivalent to EP ‘571. That said, attention is directed to U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,381 to Diehl et al. regarding any references herein to column numbers or line numbers or the like re EP ‘571.
Note that in EP ‘571, the tool spindle unit includes a tool spindle 4 (for rotationally driving the tool 2) and an electric motor 5 for rotating the tool spindle 4. See Figures 1-2 and col. 3, lines 14-40, for example. Notably, the spindle 4 is provided on a bracket/carriage 9+10 that is linearly movable on a bed 11 of the machine via a threaded adjustment spindle 12 so as to cause the tool 2 to advance or retreat relative to the workpiece 1, and particularly relative to the rotation axis and center of the workpiece 1. See Figure 1 and col. 3, lines 51-65.
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 tool spindle 52 and electric motor 50 drive therefor of Fiedler to a carriage (9/10 of EP ‘571) as taught by EP ‘571 that is configured to move towards or away from (as taught by EP ‘571) the center/rotational axis B’ of the workpiece L’ of Fiedler (along with the necessary appurtenances thereof in order to cause 9/10 to be so movable), noting that Fiedler expressly teaches that the tool spindle unit 48 of Fiedler is known from EP ‘571, and for the purpose of expanding the functionality of Fiedler’s device by providing an additional capability, i.e., an additional degree of freedom of movement between the milling tool 54 and workpiece, thereby increasing the complexity of the parts and machining operations that the milling tool 54 is capable of performing/creating.
Note that resultantly, Fiedler (in view of EP ‘571) includes a second carriage (9/10 of EP ‘571) with a milling drive (50 of Fiedler). Additionally, note that resultantly, the second carriage 9/10 is “on” the horizontal second bearing surface (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 above as BS2) taught by Fiedler, and the two bearing surfaces (BS1, BS2 of Fiedler) are inclined to each other by more than 45 degrees, noting that BS1 and BS2 are inclined by 90 degrees (given that BS1 is vertical and BS2 is horizontal). Additionally, the second bearing surface (BS2) runs parallel to the (horizontal) axis (C; see Figure 3) of rotation of the milling drive 50. See Figures 2, 3, 6, and at least paragraphs 0037-0038 of Fiedler.
Claim 14 is, and claim 18 alternatively is, 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 U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0260448 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter, “Fiedler”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0366692 to Schmidt et al. (hereinafter, “Schmidt”).
Fiedler teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claims 14 and the alternative limitation in the last two lines of claim 18 (which is not required in order to meet claim 18, given that others of the alternative limitations set forth in lines 4-8 of claim 18 are met by Fiedler, as described in the above rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(a) based on Fiedler), it is noted that Fiedler teaches that the (aforedescribed) turning station has a fast tool drive (32, 34; see Figures 2-3 and 5-6, as well as at least paragraph 0031).
However, Fiedler does not expressly teach that either one of the two fast tool drives 32, 34 has two tool holders or tools, or alternatively, Fiedler does not expressly teach that either of the fast tool drives “has a tool cooling”.
It is noted that it is only necessary to meet one of the alternatives in order for claim 14 (and the alternative found in the last two lines of claim 18) to be met.
That said, regarding, for example, the tool cooling, attention is directed to Schmidt.
Schmidt teaches a fast-tool lathe for machining spectacle lenses (see paragraphs 0022 and 0035, for example), which lathe includes a turning station having a workpiece spindle 34 (Figure 1, paragraph 0038) and fast tool servo drive 18 used to drive a lathe tool 14 in direction F (see Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0035). The turning station/fast tool drive arrangement is provided with a device 10 for supplying a liquid cooling lubricant to a cutting edge 12 of the lathe tool 14. See Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0035.
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 a respective one of the “tool cooling” arrangements 10 taught by Schmidt (that is for cooling the cutting edge of a lathe tool 14 of a fast tool arrangement, as taught by Schmidt) to each of the tools 40, 42 of the fast tool drives 32, 34 taught by Fiedler, for the purpose reducing friction and wear of the lathe tool, avoiding material damage in the workpiece that would be caused by high temperatures, and for achieving controlled chip breakage, all as taught by Schmidt (see paragraph 0010 of Schmidt, for example).
Claims 15-17, 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 U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0260448 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter, “Fiedler”) in view of EP 0758571 A1 (hereinafter, “EP ‘571”).
Fiedler teaches a processing apparatus (10; Figure 2; paragraphs 0024-0025, for example) for processing optical workpieces (such as, for example, spectacle lenses L; see paragraph 0024, for example),
with a milling station (the “station”/location at which 12 and 24’ are located, for example) having a workpiece spindle (24’) (see Figures 2 and 5-6 and at least paragraphs 0025, 0036-0038, noting that 52 is described as a “cutter spindle”, and 54 as a “cutting tool” that is driven by the cutting spindle 52, and furthermore, paragraph 0038 teaches that the cutting tool 54 has cutting edges that produce “an annular trough-like recess at least in the region of the outer edge of the spectacle lens L’”, and thus, 54 is a milling tool; see also paragraph 24’ which teaches that 24’ is a workpiece spindle).
Additionally, Fiedler teaches that the (aforedescribed) milling station has a first carriage (such as either of the two “carriages” of the cross table arrangement of the workpiece spindle unit 44, which two carriages are labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as C1, C2) “with” (such as “having”) the first workpiece spindle (24’) and a milling drive (such as electric motor 50; see paragraph 0037 and Figures 2 and 6, for example) “as well as” a machine bed (14, see Figures 2, 6, and 11, as well as paragraphs 0025-0026, 0036-0037, and 0040, for example),
wherein the machine bed (14) supports the first carriage (C1 or C2) on a first (vertical) bearing surface (i.e., on which the vertical guide rails are provided, for example; see Figures 2, 11, and 6, which bearing surface is labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “BS1”).
[AltContent: textbox (BS2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (BS1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (C2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (C1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
460
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, while Fiedler teaches that the cutter spindle unit 48 is mounted on an upper surface of the machine frame 14 (and it is noted that the upper surface of the machine frame 14 on which 50 is supported is horizontal, as shown in at least Figures 2-3 and 6), and teaches that the cutter spindle unit has a structure and function that is “known in principle from EP 0 758 571 A1 by the Applicant”, Fiedler does not expressly teach that the milling drive (50) is provided (along) with (or on) a “second carriage”, as set forth in claim 15.
It is noted that EP ‘571 is not in the English language. However, it is noted that EP ‘571 is in the same patent family as U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,381 to Diehl et al., and thus, U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,381 to Diehl et al. is being relied upon as an English-language equivalent to EP ‘571. That said, attention is directed to U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,381 to Diehl et al. regarding any references herein to column numbers or line numbers or the like re EP ‘571.
Note that in EP ‘571, the tool spindle unit includes a tool spindle 4 (for rotationally driving the tool 2) and an electric motor 5 for rotating the tool spindle 4. See Figures 1-2 and col. 3, lines 14-40, for example. Notably, the spindle 4 is provided on a bracket/carriage 9+10 that is linearly movable on a bed 11 of the machine via a threaded adjustment spindle 12 so as to cause the tool 2 to advance or retreat relative to the workpiece 1, and particularly relative to the rotation axis and center of the workpiece 1. See Figure 1 and col. 3, lines 51-65.
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 tool spindle 52 and electric motor 50 drive therefor of Fiedler to a carriage (9/10 of EP ‘571) as taught by EP ‘571 that is configured to move towards or away from (as taught by EP ‘571) the center/rotational axis B’ of the workpiece L’ of Fiedler (along with the necessary appurtenances thereof in order to cause 9/10 to be so movable), noting that Fiedler expressly teaches that the tool spindle unit 48 of Fiedler is known from EP ‘571, and for the purpose of expanding the functionality of Fiedler’s device by providing an additional capability, i.e., an additional degree of freedom of movement between the milling tool 54 and workpiece, thereby increasing the complexity of the parts and machining operations that the milling tool 54 is capable of performing/creating.
Note that resultantly, Fiedler (in view of EP ‘571) includes a second carriage (9/10 of EP ‘571) with a milling drive (50 of Fiedler). Additionally, note that resultantly, the second carriage 9/10 is “on” the horizontal second bearing surface (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 above as BS2) taught by Fiedler, and the (regarding both claims 15 and 16) two bearing surfaces (BS1, BS2 of Fiedler) are inclined to each other by more than 45 degrees, noting that BS1 and BS2 are inclined by 90 degrees (given that BS1 is vertical and BS2 is horizontal). Additionally, the second bearing surface (BS2) runs parallel to the (horizontal) axis (C; see Figure 3) of rotation of the milling drive 50. See Figures 2, 3, 6, and at least paragraphs 0037-0038 of Fiedler.
Additionally regarding claim 17, the workpiece spindle (24’) is movable in both Y’ and Z (relative to the above-described milling tool 54) (see Figures 2, 6, and paragraphs 0029-0030, 0034-0036, for example). That said, Fiedler does not expressly teach that “the workpiece spindle” (24’) “is exclusively linearly displaceable in only one direction” as set forth in claim 17.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have reversed the moving parts such that the aforedescribed relative movement(s) in Y’ and Z between the milling tool (54) and the workpiece (L or L’) held by the workpiece spindle (24’) were achieved via movement of the first workpiece spindle (24’) in either of Y’ or Z, and via movement of the milling tool (54) in the other of Z or Y’, particularly since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Note that the resulting relative movements between the tool (54) and workpiece (mounted to 24’) are unchanged in the modification, i.e., there is still relative movement between the workpiece spindle 24’ and the milling tool 54 in Y’ and Z.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, note that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0098584 to Meyer et al. teaches (among other things) a fast tool drive arrangement 36/38 that is used to drive two tools 48, 46 (see Figures 1-4 and paragraphs 0044-0045, for example).
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
November 12, 2025