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 .
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 use the word “means,” and as such, 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 the word “means” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the “means” is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: guiding means in claim 1.
The support in the specification can be found on page 7, lines 6-10 which discloses:
The guiding means that allow the translation or rotation of the various movable elements of the machining center may be provided by means of technologies commonly used in the industry, which are well known to the person skilled in the art, such as rotating supports or sliding supports using to rolling bearings, low-friction sliders, and the like.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10-13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haltmeyer et al. (DE 202020102545 U1, hereinafter “Haltmeyer” with English equivalent US 20220055163A1 used hereinafter) in view of Tullmann (US 8,181,321).
As applied to claim 10, Haltmeyer teaches a machining center (10, Figs. 1-3) comprising: two independent carriages (50, 52, paragraph [0077]) both supported to slide along respective longitudinal translation axes by a pair of parallel horizontal rails (88, 88, paragraphs [0047], [0081]) which extend along a longitudinal direction (left-right in Figs. 1-2) and are fixed in a raised position to a supporting structure (cross member 18 of frame 12), each one of said carriages supporting a respective machining head (46, 48, paragraph [0077]) configured to move along a respective transverse translation axis and along a respective vertical translation axis (64, 66) by means of respective guiding means (Z-guides 82, 84,paragraph [0081]), each one of said machining heads supporting a respective tool holding spindle (46, 48) arranged with a vertical axis (64, 66), said machining center (10) further comprising at least one workpiece holding table (work table 100 at locations 114, 116 includes rotary tables 118, 120, paragraph [0082]) supported at a base of said supporting structure in a rotatable manner about a first rotation axis (axis 130, 132) which extends in a horizontal and transverse direction (tables extend in horizontal and transverse direction), and two mechanized tool magazines (176, 178, paragraphs [0088]-[0089]) supported at opposite longitudinal ends of said supporting structure in order to be accessible by each one of said spindles.
Haltmeyer does not explicitly teach that the at least one workpiece holding table also is rotatable about a second rotation axis, which is perpendicular to the first rotation axis.
Tullmann teaches a machining center including a machine tool having a carrier device for workpieces or tools or tool spindle (abstract) wherein the machine center includes at least one workpiece holding table (workpiece rotary table 50 with plate 51) supported at a base of said supporting structure in a rotatable manner about a first rotation axis (Figs. 1A and 2A) which extends in a horizontal and transverse direction (tables extend in horizontal and transverse direction), and about a second rotation axis (Figs. 1B and 2B), which is perpendicular to the first rotation axis (col. 5, lines 31-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the rotary workpiece holding table of Haltmeyer to not only be rotatable about a first rotation axis but also about a second rotation axis perpendicular to the first rotation axis, as taught by Tullmann, for the advantage of providing maximum flexibility for the tool spindle to access different surfaces of the workpiece in need of machining.
Alternatively, modifying the rotary workpiece holding table of Haltmeyer to not only be rotatable about a first rotation axis but also about a second rotation axis perpendicular to the first rotation axis would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the use of a workpiece holding table that rotates about multiple axes (i.e., about a first rotation axis and about a second rotation axis perpendicular to the first rotation axis) would advantageously provide a maximum flexibility for the tool spindle to access different surfaces of the workpiece, as taught by Tullmann.
As applied to claim 11, the combination of Haltmeyer and Tullmann teaches the invention cited including Haltmeyer teaches the method further comprising two of said workpiece holding tables in mirror longitudinal positions (118, 120, Figs. 1-3).
As applied to claim 12, the combination of Haltmeyer and Tullmann teaches the invention cited including Haltmeyer teaches wherein said at least one workpiece holding table (118, 120) is arranged along a centerline axis of said machining center (centerline axes 130, 132 are along centerline axes 64, 66, Fig. 2).
As applied to claim 13, the combination of Haltmeyer and Tullmann teaches the invention cited including Haltmeyer teaches wherein said guiding means comprise, for each one of said carriages, a slider which slides along a respective horizontal guide which is integral with the carriage and extends in a transverse direction, and, for each one of said sliders, a vertical guide which is integral with the slider and is engaged slidingly by a respective one of the machining heads (Z-guides 82 and 84 with linear direct drive 90 allowing movement of spindles 46, 48 in vertical direction and also in horizontal direction along the horizontal rails 88, 88 on gantry 16, paragraph [0081]).
In addition, the examiner takes Official Notice that using guiding means with sliders which slides along a respective horizontal guide integral with the carriage and extends in a transverse direction, and, for each one of said sliders, a vertical guide integral with the slider and engaged slidingly by a respective one of the machining heads are well-known technologies which are commonly used in the industry and as such, well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (see also Instant Specification, page 7, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the method of Haltmeyer/Tullmann conventional guiding means, for each one of said carriages, a slider which slides along a respective horizontal guide integral with the carriage and extends in a transverse direction, and, for each one of said sliders, a vertical guide integral with the slider and engaged slidingly by a respective one of the machining heads as an effective means of moving the machining heads with respective spindles to desired position to provide desired machining operation on the workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanisch et al. (US 6,394,892) teaches a very versatile device for high precision machining operation (title, abstract, Figs. 1-6).
Baumbusch et al. (US 6,298,531) teaches a highly flexible machine tool with two machining units (abstract, Figs. 1-9).
Schmidt et al. (US 20080175684 A1) teaches a milling and drilling machine comprising a rotatably workpiece table including a tabletop for clamping a workpiece (abstract, Figs. 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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 571-272-3460. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/02/2025