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 .
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, “a single tool being mounted on each of the plurality of attachments surfaces” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). (The drawings, e.g. Figure 1, do not show a single tool being mounted on any of attachments surfaces 31e, 31f, 31h, and 31i). 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of the claim, “the selected tool” should be changed to “the selected one of the tools”. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lines 3-4 of claim 1 states, “a turret including a peripheral surface, the peripheral surface being attached around a turret axis.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the peripheral surface is “attached”. Isn’t the peripheral surface of the turret integral with the turret? By using the term “attached”, is this to mean, for example, that the peripheral surface is a separate entity from the turret and is attached/ connected to the turret in some manner?
Lines 12-14 of claim 1 state, “respective distances of the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it is unclear if each respective attachment surface of the attachment surfaces (other than the at least one attachment surface) have “respective distances”, or if instead the attachment surfaces (other than the at least one attachment surface) as a collective have “respective distances”. In other words, is Applicant setting forth that each singular respective attachment surface of the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface have plural “respective distances”? If so, how or in what way is this possible?
Lines 1-4 of claim 2 state, “the tool respectively attached to the at least one attachment surface having the shorter distance is disposed to be shifted toward the end surface relative to the tools attached to the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “the tool respectively attached to the at least one attachment surface” being “disposed to be shifted toward the end surface relative to the tools attached to the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface.” In other words, in what way is “the tool respectively attached to the at least one attachment surface…disposed to be shifted”? What is this shift?
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurimoto (U.S. Patent No. 3,725,987 A).
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Kurimoto shows a machine tool comprising a main spindle (3) that holds a workpiece; and a turret (12). Regarding the turret (12), it includes a peripheral surface that is attached around a turret axis. Please be advised that the turret axis is coincidental with a longitudinal axis of a shaft (20) (see Figure 3) to which the turret (12) is mounted. Please further be advised that the turret (12) further comprises an end surface orthogonal to the turret axis. For Applicant’s reference, Figure 3 of Kurimoto has been annotated by Examiner (see below) so as to point to each of the (centrally located) turret axis and the end surface of the turret (12).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the peripheral surface, it is divided into a plurality of attachment surfaces, a single tool (14a, 14b, 14c, 14d) being mounted on each of the plurality of attachment surfaces. Next, for Applicant’s reference, Figure 1 of Kurimoto has been annotated and provided below (next page). Examiner has done this to point to each of the four/plurality of attachment surfaces.
With regards to a given workpiece held by the main spindle (3), the given workpiece is machined with a selected one of the tools (14a, 14b, 14c, 14d), the selected one of the tools (14a, 14b, 14c, 14d) being selected by turning/indexing the turret (12) about the turret axis such that the selected one of the tools (14a, 14b, 14c, 14d) faces the given workpiece.
PNG
media_image2.png
685
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lastly, at least one attachment surface of the plurality of attachment surfaces of the turret (12) has “a distance” (as broadly claimed) from the turret axis that is shorter than “respective distances” (as broadly claimed) of the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface from the turret axis. Please be advised that Applicant hasn’t set forth any requirements in claim 1 as to how or in what way that the claimed “distance” and the claimed “respective distances” are required to extend. Applicant, for example, doesn’t set forth any limitations in claim 1 concerning a point on each attachment surface from where the corresponding distance is to be measured.
Noting this, in version 2 of annotated Figure 1, “a distance” (corresponding to “D1” in the annotated figure) is shown extending from the turret axis to at least one attachment surface, wherein this distance is shorter than “respective distances” (corresponding to “D2”, “D3”, “D4” in the annotated figure) from the turret axis to attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface. (In order to more clearly show these distances, Examiner has zoomed in and only shown a portion of Figure 1 such that the turret (12) is more prominent). Please be advised that distance D1 is a distance from the turret axis to a laterally inside portion of the “at least one attachment surface”. (The “at least one attachment surface” is the attachment surface to which tool 14a is mounted). Please be advised that distances D2, D3, and D4 are distances from the turret axis to a laterally outer portion of each of the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface. (The “attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface” correspond to the surfaces to which tools 14b, 14c, and 14d are mounted).
PNG
media_image3.png
542
707
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Please be advised that tool 14a corresponds to the tool attached to the at least one attachment surface having the shorter distance. Also, tools 14b, 14c, and 14d correspond to the tools attached to the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface.
Lastly, at a given point in time, a portion of the tool (14a) attached to the at least one attachment surface is disposed closer to the end surface than is another portion of the tool (14a). (To better explain this, Examiner briefly directs attention to Figure 3. From the perspective of Figure 3 of Kurimoto, at the given point in time captured therein, a bottom portion of tool 14d is disposed farther from the end surface of the turret (12) than is a top portion of tool 14d). Noting this, by rotating the tool (14a) that is attached to the at least one attachment surface about its axis of rotation, it is possible to angularly adjust/shift the another portion of the tool (14a) toward the end surface of the turret (12) relative to the tools (14b, 14c, 14d) that are attached to the attachment surfaces other than the at least one attachment surface.
Claim 3: Please be advised that the tool (14a) attached to the at least one attachment surface having the shorter distance is a rotation tool [column 3, line 1] turning about an axis orthogonal to the at least one attachment surface.
Claim 4: Through movement of a cross slide (9) due to an actuation of a pulse motor (10), the turret (12) is movable in a plane orthogonal to an axis direction of the main spindle (3).
Next, be advised that a rotation tool (14a) [column 3, line 1] attached to the at least one attachment surface having the shorter distance is rotatable when the turret (12) is turned to a “position different from a current position”. For example, if a current position of the turret (12) was such that this rotation tool (14a) was disposed at the position that tool 14c is shown as occupying within Figure 1, upon the turret (12) turning about the turret axis to a position different from this current position, e.g. to a position in which the rotation tool (14a) faces the workpiece like in Figure 1, in this position that is different, the rotation tool (14a) is rotatable.
Lastly, a phase of the workpiece is able to be adjusted by rotating the main spindle (3) in accordance with an inclination of the rotation tool (14a) when the turret (12) is turned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722