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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-21 of co-pending Application No. 18/564,949 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recited in the co-pending application anticipate the claimed invention. The only difference being the claim limitation of 17 current application is recited in claim 11 of co-pending application and thus is anticipated.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12-13, 17-19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al. US 6655884 in view of Tanoue et al. US 2006/0291971 and Hoppe et al. US 6428453.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ferrari discloses a machining center (100, see Fig. 1 above) comprising: an two independent carriage (1, 1’) supported to slide along respective longitudinal translation axes (X-axis) by a pair of parallel horizontal rails (12/24, 13/25) which extend along a longitudinal direction and are fixed in a raised position to a supporting structure (14) having opposite longitudinal ends, each one of said carriages supporting a respective machining head (4, 5) which is configured to move along a respective transverse translation axis (Y-axis) and along a respective vertical translation axis (Z-axis) by respective guiding means (col. 2, lines 30-59), each one of said machining heads supporting a respective tool holding spindle (8, 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ferrari does not specify wherein each one of said machining heads supports a respective tool holding spindle in a rotatable manner about a horizontal rotation axis by rotary support means. However, Tanoue teaches a machining head (2, see Fig. 10 above) supporting a respective tool holding spindle (T) in a rotatable manner (A-axis, C-axis) about a horizontal rotation axis by a rotary support means (13). The rotary support means (13) being able to rotate about a respective vertical axis (Rotary support means 13, rotates about A-axis, C-Axis, see Fig. 10 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the machining heads of Ferrari to have tool holding spindles supported in a rotatable manner by a rotary support means as taught by Tanoue in order to provide additional degrees of freedom to the machining heads for processing and/or machining complex workpieces.
PNG
media_image3.png
646
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
660
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ferrari discloses a base (16) for support workpieces (see Figs. 4-10; 35, 36, 37) but does not disclose wherein said machining center further comprising a workpiece holding table which is supported at a base (16, floor) of said supporting structure, and a mechanized tool magazine supported at said opposite longitudinal ends of said supporting structure in order to be accessible by said spindle. However, Hoppe teaches a machining center (see Figs. 1 and 3 above) comprising a workpiece holding table (10, 61, 62, 65, 66) which is supported at a base (9) of said supporting structure (2, 3) and a mechanized tool magazine (69, 70) supported at an opposite longitudinal end (see Fig. 3 above) of said support structures (2, 3) in order to be accessible by a spindle (26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the machining center of Ferrari to include the workpiece holding table and mechanized tool magazine as taught by Hoppe in order to provide additional degrees of freedom for the machining center to use to process and/or machine complex workpiece geometry while also providing access to quickly change to different tools for different machining processes. It furthermore, would have been obvious to provide the mechanized tool magazine on opposite ends of the support structures to provide the different tools to both machine carriages to access through mere duplication of parts as there is no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
As for claim 13, the modified Ferrari teaches wherein said guiding means comprise, for each one of said carriages (Ferrari; 1, 1’), a slider (Ferrari; 10, 11) configured to slide along a respective horizontal guide (Ferrari; 2, 3) which is integral with the carriage (1, 1’) and extends in a transverse direction, and, for each one of said sliders, a vertical guide (Ferrari; 6, 7) which is integral with the slider (see Ferrari, Figs. 1-3) and is engaged slidingly by a respective one of the machining heads (see Ferrari, Figs. 1-3). The prior art of Tanoue further teaches in Fig. 10, wherein said guiding means comprise, for each one of said carriages (9), a slider (Tanoue, 10, see Fig. 3 and 10) configured to slide along a respective horizontal guide (Tanoue, 26, see Figs. 3 and 10) which is integral with the carriage (Tanoue, 9, see Fig. 3) and extends in a transverse direction, and, for each one of said sliders, a vertical guide (Tanoue, 29, Figs. 3 and 10) which is integral with the slider (Tanoue, 10) and is engaged slidingly by a respective one of the machining heads (Tanoue, 2).
As for claim 17, the modified Ferrari teaches wherein said workpiece holding table (Hoppe, 10) is configured to rotate about a vertical axis (Hoppe col. 5, lines 10-13).
As for claim 18, the modified Ferrari teaches wherein said workpiece holding table is arranged in a position that is longitudinally centered and transversely offset (see Hoppe, Fig. 3).
As for claim 19, the modified Ferrari teaches wherein at least one of said two mechanized tool magazines (Hoppe, 69, 70) comprises a rotating tool holding drum (see Hoppe, Fig. 3), which is arranged so that an axis thereof is horizontal and transverse and supports peripherally a plurality of tools (see Hoppe, Fig. 3; col. 5, lines 45-60).
As for claim 22, the modified Ferrari teaches wherein each one of said rotary support means (Tanoue, 13) is configured to rotate about an axis (Tanoue, Fig. 10, A-axis and C-axis) that is parallel to, or coincides with, a respective vertical translation axis (Tanoue, Fig. 10, Y-axis and Z-axis respectively).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al. US 6655884 in view of Tanoue et al. US 2006/0291971 and Hoppe et al. US 6428453 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Seo et al. US 2016/0167182.
As for claims 15 and 16, the modified Ferrari discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein said supporting structure is provided with a base which comprises two longitudinally mutually opposite chutes which lead into a chip discharge area. However, the use of chutes and discharge areas for removing debris being machines is well known in the art as evidence by Seo who teaches a machining center having a support structure with a base (11) comprising two longitudinally mutually opposite chutes (13b) which lead into a chip discharge area (13c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the machining center of Ferrari to include two opposite chutes which lead to a chip discharge area as taught by Seo in order to provide a means to minimize the accumulation of chips and decrease machining accuracy due to thermal expansion of the machine (Seo, ¶0048).
PNG
media_image5.png
512
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al. US 6655884 in view of Tanoue et al. US 2006/0291971 and Hoppe et al. US 6428453 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Azema WO 97/41997 A1.
PNG
media_image6.png
532
732
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As for claims 20 and 21, the modified Ferrari teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein each one of said two mechanized tool magazines is provided with a shield that is adapted to shelter, during machining, a respective tool magazine from machining chips and wherein said shield is fixed to a respective rotating tool holding drum. However, Azema teaches a machining center having a mechanized tool magazine (500) wherein the mechanized tool magazine is a rotatable drum (510) and is provided with a shield (520) that is adapted to shelter, during machining, a respective tool magazine from machining chips and wherein said shield is fixed to a respective rotating tool holding drum (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the mechanized tool magazine of Ferrari to include a shield as taught by Azema to protect the various tools not in use from being damaged from debris during machining of the workpiece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-13 and 15-22 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 TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights