DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 09/18/25 has been entered. Claims 15-29 are currently pending, with claim 29 being newly added. Despite the amendments and Applicant’s arguments, the rejections are maintained as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 15-29 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.
Claims 15-29 are rejected because both independent claims 15 and 29 recite “the vibration having a vibration maximum amplitude at the point,” but two “points have been previously recited – “a tool center point of a machine tool” and “a point of a machine element of the machine tool.” Which one is being referred to here?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Furuhashi
Claim(s) 15-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuhashi et al. (EP 1716969) (cited by Applicant). Furuhashi is directed to a machine tool with an active vibration suppression means. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion.
Claim 15: Furuhashi discloses a machine tool (1) [Fig. 1], comprising: a machine element (4); and a vibration damper (8) arranged on the machine element to damp vibration that occurs during operation of the machine tool at a tool center point (at 7) of the machine tool and at a point (top of 4) of the machine element, said vibration damper arranged on the point of the machine element, with the vibration having a vibration maximum amplitude at the point [para. 0012, 0033; see also 112 rejection]. See Fig. 1.
The newly added limitation concerning how the point of the machine element is “determined” is not a structural limitation of this apparatus claim, hence it need not be addressed here. Regardless (and for the sake of the claim 29 rejection, infra), Furuhashi discloses that the machine element point is determined before attachment of the vibration damper by exciting a vibration and measuring the machine element with vibration sensors. See para. 0024 (“it is required to previously measure vibration information that is generated during movement of the moving body of the machining tool. For this reason, as shown in Fig. 3, detectors 19a, 19b that detect vibration are previously mounted on a double-column machining center 1”).
Claim 16: Furuhashi discloses that the vibration mode is at at least two different points of the machine element, and further comprising a further vibration damper, with the vibration damper and the further vibration damper arranged at the different points.
Claim 17: Furuhashi discloses that the vibration damper is arranged in one of three ways, a first way in which the vibration damper is arranged on an outer surface of the machine element, a second way in which the vibration damper partially protrudes into the machine element, a third way in which the vibration damper is integrated in the machine element in such a way that the vibration damper does not protrude beyond an outer surface of the machine element. See Fig. 1 (8 on top of 4).
Claim 18: Furuhashi discloses that the vibration damper is embodied to damp a spatial component of the vibration mode. See Fig. 1.
Claim 19: Furuhashi discloses that the vibration damper is embodied as an active vibration damper. See Abstract (vibration suppression controlling means 15); Fig. 2.
Claim 20: Furuhashi discloses a further machine element (5) supported by the machine element and movable with respect to the machine element. See Fig. 1; para. 0018.
Claim 21: Furuhashi discloses that the machine element is embodied as a machine-tool-side machine element. See Fig. 1 (tool 6, 7).
Claim 22: Furuhashi discloses that the machine-tool-side machine element includes a first end and a second end opposite the first end, said vibration damper being arranged at the second end. See Fig. 1 (8 on top end of 4).
Claim 23: Furuhashi discloses that the first end of the machine-tool-side machine element is formed with a receptacle for receiving a machining head. See Fig. 1. (4, 5 holds 6).
Claim 24: Furuhashi discloses that the machine element is embodied as a workpiece-side machine element. See para. 0034 (applied to table 3).
Claim 25: Furuhashi discloses that the machine element is embodied as a fixed machine element. See Fig. 1.
Claim 26: Furuhashi discloses that during operation of the machine tool, two or more vibration modes are manifested at the machine tool. See Fig. 1 (two dampers 8).
Claim 28: Furuhashi discloses that the vibration damper is aligned in a main direction of of the vibration. See Fig. 1 (up-down direction).
Claim 29: see claim 15 above.
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.
Furuhashi in view of Berthiez
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhashi in view of Berthiez (FR 2447776) (cited by Applicant). Berthiez is directed to vibration damping for a vertical machine tool. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion.
Claim 27: Furuhashi is relied upon as in claim 15 above but does not disclose the use of at least 4 dampers. Berthiez disclose a machine tool (1, 4) with vibration damping, wherein there are two or more vibration dampers for each of the two or more vibration modes. See Figs. 2, 3. It would have bene obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include additional dampers in Furuhashi because this further achieves the objective of counteracting vibrations during machining. Additional dampers better ensure proper functionality, and is ultimately a design choice based on cost/availability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the conclusory statement that Furuhashi fails to disclose the newly added limitation concerning how the machine element point is “determined.” See Remarks, pages 6-7. With regard to claim 15, this feature is not a structural limitation of this apparatus claim, hence it need not be addressed. Regardless, despite Applicant’s contention, Furuhashi does disclose that the machine element point is determined before attachment of the vibration damper by exciting a vibration and measuring the machine element with vibration sensors. See para. 0024 (“it is required to previously measure vibration information that is generated during movement of the moving body of the machining tool. For this reason, as shown in Fig. 3, detectors 19a, 19b that detect vibration are previously mounted on a double-column machining center 1”). While disclosure of this limitation is not actually required for the claim 15 apparatus claim, it is required for the claim 29 method claim, so it applies there. Thus, the rejections are maintained as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 September 29, 2025