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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
Figure 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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:
“a tool transfer device which transfers the tool between the first tool storage magazine and the second tool storage magazine” in claim 1;
“a moving mechanism configured to move in a radial direction” in claim 6; and
“the moving mechanism” in claim 7 (noting that the term “moving” is a function such that claim 7 recites a mechanism for performing the function of moving, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of moving).
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “a machine tool” should be changed to “[[a]] the machine tool”. 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 and 4-7 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 12-14 of claim 1 state, “a center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine is disposed below each of a tool change position of the first tool storage magazine and a tool change position of the tool storage magazine.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to which tool change position of the first tool storage magazine that “a tool change position of the first tool storage magazine” is intended to reference. It is noted that the first tool storage magazine seeming has two change positions, one at which a tool is exchanged between the first tool storage magazine and the spindle, and another at which a tool is changed between the first tool storage magazine and the second tool storage magazine.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel (U.S. Patent No. 4,780,952 A) in view Haus (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0331157 A1).
Be advised that Babel was cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 1/16/2025.
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Babel shows therein a machine tool for the machining of workpieces by milling, drilling, and turning in a forward working region which is covered by a hood (1) [column 2, line 67 – column 3, line 2]. Please be advised that Figure 1 shows the machine tool as further comprising a tool changer for performing tool changes, the tool changer comprising a first tool storage magazine (3) and a second tool storage magazine (10).
Regarding the first tool storage magazine (3), it (3) is configured to store a tool. As to the second tool storage magazine (10), it (10) is configured to store the tool stored by the first tool storage magazine (3).
Next, in order to perform milling and drilling, for example, in the forward working region, the machine tool of Babel inherently comprises a spindle that is supported by corresponding structure. This is because milling and drilling [column 2, line 67] operations each utilize a rotating cutting tool that is brought into contact with a given workpiece for removing material from said given workpiece, and if the machine tool of Babel didn’t comprise a supported spindle, then the machine tool of Babel would not have the means necessary for setting the cutting tool into rotation for carrying out (milling and drilling) machining of the given workpiece. Thus, the machine tool of Babel inherently comprises a spindle that is supported by corresponding structure.
Babel though, does not provide disclosure on, “the tool is directly mounted onto the spindle from the first tool storage magazine, the tool is directed transferred to the first tool storage magazine from the spindle.” Please note that the first tool storage magazine (3) comprises an endless chain (5) that is driven such that it is able to circulate [column 3, lines 6-7].
Figures 1 and 2 of Haus though, show each of a tool spindle (9) and a first tool storage magazine (18), wherein the first tool storage magazine (18) comprises an endless chain (23) that is driven for circulation by means of a chain drive motor (41). As can also be seen in Figures 1 and 2, the first tool storage magazine (18) comprises a horizontal plate portion (20) as well as a vertical plate portion (21). It is at the vertical plate portion (21) (please see Figure 2) that direct tool exchange is performed between the tool spindle (9) and the chain magazine (18). Please be advised that the tool spindle (9) is supported by a corresponding x-slide (4) and y-slide (7), and said slides (4, 7) enable the tool spindle (9) to be displaced such that a tool (12) can be directly mounted onto the tool spindle (9) from the first tool storage magazine (18), and also such that the tool (12) is directly transferred to first tool storage magazine (18) from the tool spindle (9).
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 replaced the generic spindle supported by corresponding structure of Babel with the tool spindle (9) and the corresponding slides (4, 7) of Haus, and to have further replaced the first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel with the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus, so as to provide the machine tool of Babel with the advantage of the tool spindle (9) of Haus that not only is able to, for example, perform machining operations such as milling and drilling, but is additionally able to perform direct tool exchange with the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus.
In making the above modification, the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool of Babel is “configured to store a tool mounted into the [tool] spindle [9] of [the] machine tool.” Furthermore, in the modified machine tool of Babel, “the tool is directly mounted onto the [tool] spindle [9] from the first tool storage magazine [18], the tool is directed transferred to the first tool storage magazine [18] from the [tool] spindle [9].”
Also, in making the above modification, the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus is positioned such that the horizontal plate portion (20) thereof faces the second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel and the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel. By being positioned as such, the endless chain (23) of said first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool is accessible to the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel such that the second tool storage magazine (10) is able to store the tool that was stored by the first tool storage magazine (18).
(Note that the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel was horizontally positioned such that the endless chain (5) thereof was accessible to the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel such that, for example, the second tool storage magazine (10) is able to store the tool that was stored now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel).
Next, be advised that lines 8-9 of claim 1 set forth therein, “a tool transfer device which transfers the tool between the first tool storage magazine and the second tool storage device.” Noting this, “a tool transfer device” is 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. Please be advised that “a tool transfer device” is interpreted as comprising the structure that is disclosed in paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification filed on 11/22/2022, as well as equivalents thereto.
Regarding the prior art, Babel shows in Figure 1 the tool changing mechanism (17) which functions to transfer the tool between the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool and the second tool storage magazine (10). Please be advised that from column 3, line 39 to column 4, line 20 of Babel, discussion is provided on the structure and the function of the tool changing mechanism (17), and how it (17) exchanges a tool between the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel and the second tool storage magazine (10). Noting this, because in the modified machine tool of Babel the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus replaced the first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel and is positioned such that the horizontal plate portion (20) thereof faces the second tool storage magazine (10) and the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel, said tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel functions to transfer the tool between the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool and the second tool storage magazine (10). Thus, the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel is an equivalent of the “tool transfer device” of lines 8-9 claim 1. This is because the tool changing mechanism (17) carries out the function specified in lines 8-9 of claim 1, the function being, “transfers the tool between the first tool storage magazine and the second tool storage device.” The tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel is also not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “tool transfer device (9)” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel will hereinafter be referred by Examiner as “the tool transfer device (17).”
Also, a center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine (10) is disposed below each of a tool change position of the first tool storage magazine (18) and a tool change position of the second tool storage magazine (10). For Applicant’s reference, Figure 1 of Babel has been annotated and provided on the following page of this office action. In doing so, the approximate location of the center of gravity and the approximate location of the tool change position of the second tool storage magazine (9) have each been pointed to.
Please also note that Figure 1 of Babel of course shows the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel rather than the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool. Even though this is case, since the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool has assumed the location of the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3), the approximate location (which can be seen below in annotated Figure 1) of the tool change position of the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) is substantially the same as the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool. Since the tool change position of the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) is clearly and without question disposed above the center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine (10), it follows that the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool is also clearly and without question disposed above the center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine (10). Based on the foregoing, Babel/Haus read on, “a center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine is disposed below each of a tool change position of the first tool storage magazine and a tool change position of the second tool storage magazine.”
PNG
media_image1.png
556
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, with respect to the second tool storage magazine (10), it comprises a corresponding endless chain (12) and seven chain wheels (11). Since the rotation axes of these seven chain wheels (11) extend horizontally, the second tool storage magazine (10), specifically the endless chain (12) thereof, is rotatable about an axis that extends parallel to a horizontal plane. As such, Babel does not provide disclosure on, “the second tool storage magazine being rotatable about an axis inclined with respect to a horizonal plane.”
Noting the above, Babel discloses that the second tool storage magazine (10) “may be oriented in some direction other than vertical” and that the second tool storage magazine (10) and the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel “need not be arranged at 90° with respect to each other” [Babel, column 4, lines 36-40]. Thus, the second tool storage magazine (10) can instead be oriented at an angle (θ) 0° ≤ θ < 90°. This angle (θ) can be seen below in version 2 of annotated Figure 1 of Babel. Please note that the second tool storage magazine (10) “may be oriented in some direction other than vertical” [Babel, column 4, lines 36-38] means that with respect to a horizontal plane the second tool storage magazine (10) need not be oriented vertically.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please note that in order for the second tool storage magazine (10) to be rotatable about an axis inclined (emphasis added) with respect to a horizonal plane, the rotation axes of the seven chain wheels (11) of Babel must not extend either parallel to a vertical plane nor extend parallel to the horizontal plane. Should the second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel be oriented within the range of 0° < θ < 90°, for example, the rotation axes of these seven chain wheels (11) do not extend either horizontally or vertically, but rather are inclined with respect to the horizontal plane. (It is reiterated that per Babel, the second tool storage magazine (10) “may be oriented in some direction other than vertical” and that the second tool storage magazine (10) and the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel “need not be arranged at 90° with respect to each other” [Babel, column 4, lines 36-40]).
Please be advised that the disclosure by Babel that the second tool storage magazine (10) “may be oriented in some direction other than vertical” includes, for example, the second tool storage magazine (10) being oriented fully horizontally such that the rotation axes of the seven chain wheels (11) of Babel extend parallel to the vertical plane. As such, Babel discloses the angle (θ) being 0° ≤ θ < 90°. In the instance that the angle (θ) = 0° though, there is no inclination, because the rotation axes of the seven chain wheels (11) of Babel would extend parallel to the vertical plane. (It is reiterated that the angle (θ) corresponds to an orientation of the second tool storage magazine (10), and said angle (θ) can be seen on the preceding page of this office action in version 2 of annotated Figure 1 of Babel). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle (θ) of Babel from 0° ≤ θ < 90° to 0° < θ < 90°, as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on a value or range of the claimed inclination between the claimed angle and the horizontal plane (noting that in Applicant’s specification, it is simply stated in paragraph [0060] thereof that the predetermined angle is “> 0”) and because it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Based on the foregoing, with the second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel being oriented such that the angle (θ) between the second tool storage magazine (10) and the horizontal plane is 0° < θ < 90°, the result is the rotation axes of the seven chain wheels (11) of the second tool storage magazine (10) being inclined with respect to the horizontal plane. Since the axis of rotation of the endless chain (12) of Babel corresponds to the rotation axes of these seven chain wheels (11), the result is the endless chain (12) being rotatable about an axis that is inclined with respect to the horizontal plane. As such, due to modified orientation of the second tool storage magazine (10), said second tool storage magazine (10), by way of the endless chain (12) thereof, is “rotatable about an axis inclined with respect to a horizonal plane.”
Claim 6: With regards to the tool transfer device (17) of Babel, it comprises two pots (22, 23). Figure 1 of Babel shows pot 22 at the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine and further shows pot 23 at the tool change position of the second tool storage magazine.
Next, with respect to the claimed tool transfer device of claim 6, be advised that line 3 of claim 6 sets forth therein the claimed tool transfer device as comprising, “a moving mechanism configured to move in a radial direction.” Please note that “a moving mechanism” is 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 of “move in a radial direction,” and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Please be advised that “a moving mechanism” is interpreted as comprising the structure that is disclosed in paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification filed on 11/22/2022, as well as equivalents thereto.
Regarding the prior art and Babel, the tool transfer device (17) is shown in Figure 1 of Babel as comprising an angle carrier (19) in which the two pots (22, 23) are provided. Figure 1 also shows the angle carrier being carried by a saddle (18) that movable along guide means (24). Per Babel, the tool transfer device (17) is movable along the guide means (24) in the direction of arrow 25 by means of a drive mechanism that is disclosed but not shown [column 3, lines 44-47]. Please note that the direction of arrow 25 is “a radial direction,” because it is corresponds to a radius of the whichever one of the two pots (22 or 23) is provided at the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine. Noting this, upon actuating the drive mechanism, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) provide for displacement of the two pots (22, 23). With this actuation, the one of the two pots (22 or 23) that is provided/disposed at the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine is movable in the radial direction (see arrow 25) toward and away from the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine.
Thus, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) of Babel is an equivalent of the “moving mechanism” of line 3 of claim 6. This is because the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) carry out the function specified in line 3 of claim 6, the function being, “move in a radial direction.” Also, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said combination produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “moving mechanism” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) of Babel will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the moving mechanism.”
Thus, the tool transfer device (17) of Babel comprises the moving mechanism, which is configured to move in the radial direction (see arrow 25 in Figure 1 of Babel). Furthermore, the tool transfer device (17) includes the two pots (22, 23), each (22, 23) of which is provided in the angle carrier (19) of the moving mechanism, and each of which is configured to grip the tool.
Claim 7: As can be seen in Figure 1 of Babel, the second tool storage magazine (10) comprises seven chain wheels (11), each (11) of which constitutes a respective “support disk.” Please note that each chain wheel (11)/support disk has a central axis that corresponds to the respective rotation axis thereof. For the sake of discussion, the chain wheel (11)/support disk shown in the bottom left corner of the second tool storage magazine (10) is considered to correspond to the “support disk of the second tool storage magazine” of claim 7. Noting this, because the entirety of the tool transfer device (17) and the guide means (24) is disposed above this chain wheel (11)/ support disk (even with the inclination of the second tool storage magazine (10) as explained above in the rejection of claim 1), it follows that the moving mechanism of Babel is indeed positioned on an upper side of the central axis of the chain wheel (11)/support disk of the second tool storage magazine (10).
Alternatively, Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel (U.S. Patent No. 4,780,952 A) in view Haus (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0331157 A1), and further in view of Sipek (U.S. Patent No. 4,164,810 A).
Be advised that Sipek was cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 1/16/2025.
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Babel shows therein a machine tool for the machining of workpieces by milling, drilling, and turning in a forward working region which is covered by a hood (1) [column 2, line 67 – column 3, line 2]. Please be advised that Figure 1 shows the machine tool as further comprising a tool changer for performing tool changes, the tool changer comprising a first tool storage magazine (3) and a second tool storage magazine (10).
Regarding the first tool storage magazine (3), it (3) is configured to store a tool. As to the second tool storage magazine (10), it (10) is configured to store the tool stored by the first tool storage magazine (3).
Next, in order to perform milling and drilling, for example, in the forward working region, the machine tool of Babel inherently comprises a spindle that is supported by corresponding structure. This is because milling and drilling [column 2, line 67] operations each utilize a rotating cutting tool that is brought into contact with a given workpiece for removing material from said given workpiece, and if the machine tool of Babel didn’t comprise a supported spindle, then the machine tool of Babel would not have the means necessary for setting the cutting tool into rotation for carrying out (milling and drilling) machining of the given workpiece. Thus, the machine tool of Babel inherently comprises a spindle that is supported by corresponding structure.
Babel though, does not provide disclosure on, “the tool is directly mounted onto the spindle from the first tool storage magazine, the tool is directed transferred to the first tool storage magazine from the spindle.” Please note that the first tool storage magazine (3) comprises an endless chain (5) that is driven such that it is able to circulate [column 3, lines 6-7].
Figures 1 and 2 of Haus though, show each of a tool spindle (9) and a first tool storage magazine (18), wherein the first tool storage magazine (18) comprises an endless chain (23) that is driven for circulation by means of a chain drive motor (41). As can also be seen in Figures 1 and 2, the first tool storage magazine (18) comprises a horizontal plate portion (20) as well as a vertical plate portion (21). It is at the vertical plate portion (21) (please see Figure 2) that direct tool exchange is performed between the tool spindle (9) and the chain magazine (18). Please be advised that the tool spindle (9) is supported by a corresponding x-slide (4) and y-slide (7), and said slides (4, 7) enable the tool spindle (9) to be displaced such that a tool (12) can be directly mounted onto the tool spindle (9) from the first tool storage magazine (18), and also such that the tool (12) is directly transferred to first tool storage magazine (18) from the tool spindle (9).
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 replaced the generic spindle supported by corresponding structure of Babel with the tool spindle (9) and the corresponding slides (4, 7) of Haus, and to have further replaced the first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel with the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus, so as to provide the machine tool of Babel with the advantage of the tool spindle (9) of Haus that not only is able to, for example, perform machining operations such as milling and drilling, but is additionally able to perform direct tool exchange with the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus.
In making the above modification, the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool of Babel is “configured to store a tool mounted into the [tool] spindle [9] of [the] machine tool.” Furthermore, in the modified machine tool of Babel, “the tool is directly mounted onto the [tool] spindle [9] from the first tool storage magazine [18], the tool is directed transferred to the first tool storage magazine [18] from the [tool] spindle [9].”
Also, in making the above modification, the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus is positioned such that the horizontal plate portion (20) thereof faces the second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel and the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel. By being positioned as such, the endless chain (23) of said first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool is accessible to the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel such that the second tool storage magazine (10) is able to store the tool that was stored by the first tool storage magazine (18).
(Note that the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel was horizontally positioned such that the endless chain (5) thereof was accessible to the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel such that, for example, the second tool storage magazine (10) is able to store the tool that was stored now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel).
Next, be advised that lines 8-9 of claim 1 set forth therein, “a tool transfer device which transfers the tool between the first tool storage magazine and the second tool storage device.” Noting this, “a tool transfer device” is 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. Please be advised that “a tool transfer device” is interpreted as comprising the structure that is disclosed in paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification filed on 11/22/2022, as well as equivalents thereto.
Regarding the prior art, Babel shows in Figure 1 the tool changing mechanism (17) which functions to transfer the tool between the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool and the second tool storage magazine (10). Please be advised that from column 3, line 39 to column 4, line 20 of Babel, discussion is provided on the structure and the function of the tool changing mechanism (17), and how it (17) exchanges a tool between the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel and the second tool storage magazine (10). Noting this, because in the modified machine tool of Babel the first tool storage magazine (18) of Haus replaced the first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel and is positioned such that the horizontal plate portion (20) thereof faces the second tool storage magazine (10) and the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel, said tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel functions to transfer the tool between the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool and the second tool storage magazine (10). Thus, the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel is an equivalent of the “tool transfer device” of lines 8-9 claim 1. This is because the tool changing mechanism (17) carries out the function specified in lines 8-9 of claim 1, the function being, “transfers the tool between the first tool storage magazine and the second tool storage device.” The tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel is also not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “tool transfer device (9)” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the tool changing mechanism (17) of Babel will hereinafter be referred by Examiner as “the tool transfer device (17).”
Also, a center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine (10) is disposed below each of a tool change position of the first tool storage magazine (18) and a tool change position of the second tool storage magazine (10). For Applicant’s reference, Figure 1 of Babel has been annotated and provided on the following page of this office action. In doing so, the approximate location of the center of gravity and the approximate location of the tool change position of the second tool storage magazine (9) have each been pointed to.
Please also note that Figure 1 of Babel of course shows the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel rather than the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool. Even though this is case, since the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool has assumed the location of the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3), the approximate location (which can be seen below in annotated Figure 1) of the tool change position of the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) is substantially the same as the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool. Since the tool change position of the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) is clearly and without question disposed above the center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine (10), it follows that the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool is also clearly and without question disposed above the center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine (10). Based on the foregoing, Babel/Haus read on, “a center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine is disposed below each of a tool change position of the first tool storage magazine and a tool change position of the second tool storage magazine.”
PNG
media_image1.png
556
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, with respect to the second tool storage magazine (10), it comprises a corresponding endless chain (12) and seven chain wheels (11). Since the rotation axes of these seven chain wheels (11) extend horizontally, the second tool storage magazine (10), specifically the endless chain (12) thereof, is rotatable about an axis that extends parallel to a horizontal plane. As such, Babel does not provide disclosure on, “the second tool storage magazine being rotatable about an axis inclined with respect to a horizonal plane.”
Noting the above, Babel discloses that the second tool storage magazine (10) “may be oriented in some direction other than vertical” and that the second tool storage magazine (10) and the now-replaced first tool storage magazine (3) of Babel “need not be arranged at 90° with respect to each other” [Babel, column 4, lines 36-40]. The second tool storage magazine (10) “may be oriented in some direction other than vertical” [Babel, column 4, lines 36-38] means that with respect to a horizontal plane, the second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel need not be oriented vertically. Babel further discloses that, “Instead of a chain magazine it is also possible to mount a disk magazine with a drive mechanism of its own on support structure 16 or on other suitable supporting frames of the tool carriage” (emphasis added) [Babel, column 4, lines 29-32].
Figures 1-5 of Sipek though, show a disk magazine (42) in a machine tool, wherein the disk magazine (42) interfaces with a tool transfer device (44, 46) (see Figure 1) and wherein the disk magazine (42) is inclined with respect to a horizontal plane. More specifically, in Sipek, the disk magazine (42) is rotatable about an axis inclined with respect to the horizontal plane. This can be seen below in annotated Figure 1of Sipek. Please note that the disk magazine (42) is supported from below by an arm (see below annotated figure), as well as by an upright (24).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
968
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 the disk magazine (42) and the supporting arm of Sipek for the second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel, as this is a substitution of one known tool storage magazine which is configured to interface with a tool transfer device for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the disk magazine (42) of Sipek being supported by the arm of Sipek on the support structure (16) and corresponding slide (13) of Babel, such that said disk magazine (42) of Sipek stores therein the tool that was passed thereto from the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool of Babel by the tool transfer device (17).
In making the above substitution, the disk magazine (42) is supported/orientated at angle (as per the disclosure of Sipek) on the support structure (16) and the slide (13) of Babel by means of the arm of Sipek such that the axis about which the disk magazine (42) rotates is inclined with respect to a horizontal plane.
Please note that in making the above substitution the disk magazine (42) of Sipek becomes the “second tool storage magazine” of the modified machine tool of Babel. The disk magazine (42) of Sipek will therefore be referred to by Examiner as “the second tool storage magazine [42]” of the modified machine tool of Babel. Based on the foregoing, in the modified machine tool of Babel, the second tool storage magazine (42) thereof is rotatable about an axis that is inclined with respect to the horizontal plane. Please note that by virtue of being supported on the support structure (16) and slide (13) of Babel, the second tool storage magazine (42) remains disposed below the tool transfer device (17) of Babel. Thus, the center of gravity of the second tool storage magazine (42) of the modified machine tool remains “below each of a tool change position of the first tool storage magazine and a tool change position of the second tool storage magazine.”
Claim 6: With regards to the tool transfer device (17) of Babel, it comprises two pots (22, 23). Figure 1 of Babel shows pot 22 at the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine and further shows pot 23 at the tool change position of the second tool storage magazine.
Next, with respect to the claimed tool transfer device of claim 6, be advised that line 3 of claim 6 sets forth therein the claimed tool transfer device as comprising, “a moving mechanism configured to move in a radial direction.” Please note that “a moving mechanism” is 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 of “move in a radial direction,” and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Please be advised that “a moving mechanism” is interpreted as comprising the structure that is disclosed in paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification filed on 11/22/2022, as well as equivalents thereto.
Regarding the prior art and Babel, the tool transfer device (17) is shown in Figure 1 of Babel as comprising an angle carrier (19) in which the two pots (22, 23) are provided. Figure 1 also shows the angle carrier being carried by a saddle (18) that movable along guide means (24). Per Babel, the tool transfer device (17) is movable along the guide means (24) in the direction of arrow 25 by means of a drive mechanism that is disclosed but not shown [column 3, lines 44-47]. Please note that the direction of arrow 25 is “a radial direction,” because it is corresponds to a radius of the whichever one of the two pots (22 or 23) is provided at the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine. Noting this, upon actuating the drive mechanism, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) provide for displacement of the two pots (22, 23). With this actuation, the one of the two pots (22 or 23) that is provided/disposed at the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine is movable in the radial direction (see arrow 25) toward and away from the tool change position of the first tool storage magazine.
Thus, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) of Babel is an equivalent of the “moving mechanism” of line 3 of claim 6. This is because the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) carry out the function specified in line 3 of claim 6, the function being, “move in a radial direction.” Also, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and said combination produces substantially the same result as the corresponding “moving mechanism” of Applicant. Based on the foregoing, the combination of the drive mechanism, the saddle (18), the guide means (24), and the angle carrier (19) of Babel will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as “the moving mechanism.”
Thus, the tool transfer device (17) of Babel comprises the moving mechanism, which is configured to move in the radial direction (see arrow 25 in Figure 1 of Babel). Furthermore, the tool transfer device (17) includes the two pots (22, 23), each (22, 23) of which is provided in the angle carrier (19) of the moving mechanism, and each of which is configured to grip the tool.
Claim 7: As can be seen in Figure 1 of Babel, the entirety of the tool transfer device (17) and the guide means (24) is disposed above the support structure (16) and corresponding slide (13) of Babel on which the second tool storage magazine (42) of the modified machine tool is supported. Noting this, Figure 4 of Sipek shows a support disk (54) of the second tool storage magazine (42). It is noted that the central axis of said support disk (54) corresponds to the rotation axis thereof. Since the second tool storage magazine (42) and support disk (54) thereof are supported upon the support structure (16) and the slide (13) of Babel, and because these particular elements (13, 16) are disposed in their entirety below the tool transfer device (17) and the guide means (24) of Babel, it follows that the moving mechanism of Babel is positioned on an upper side of the central axis of the support disk (54) of the second tool storage magazine (42).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel (U.S. Patent No. 4,780,952 A) in view Haus (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0331157 A1), and further in view of Korea Pub. No. KR 2012/0071613 A (hereinafter KR '613).
Please be advised that KR '613 was previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 11/6/2025. Please also be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of KR '613 is relied upon below. This EPO Machine Translation of KR '613 was previously provided with the office action that mailed on 11/6/2025.
Claim 4: Babel does not provide disclosure on the second tool storage magazine (10) includes, “a support disk; and an arm provided in a peripheral edge portion of the support disk and configured to grip the tool, one end portion of the arm protruding outward in a radial direction of the support disk from the peripheral edge portion, and an opposite end portion of the arm being disposed at a position facing away from a center of the support disk.” As it pertains to the second tool storage magazine (10), Babel discloses that, “Instead of a chain magazine it is also possible to mount a disk magazine with a drive mechanism of its own on support structure 16 or on other suitable supporting frames of the tool carriage” (emphasis added) [Babel, column 4, lines 29-32].
Figure 1a of KR '613 though, shows a disk magazine/tool storage magazine (110), which includes a support disk and an arm (111). Regarding the arm (111), it is provided in a peripheral edge portion of the support disk and is configured to grip a tool (T1). Please be advised that one end portion of the arm (111) protrudes outward in a radial direction of the support disk from the peripheral edge portion, and an opposite end portion of the arm (11) is disposed at a position facing away from a center of the support disk. For Applicant’s reference, the approximate location of the center of the support disk has been shown below within annotated Figure 1a of KR '613. Also, two exemplary options of the one end portion and two exemplary options of the opposite end portion have also been pointed to below by Examiner. It is noted that the dashed lines shown in the annotated figure demonstrate how each opposite end portion is at a position that is “facing away” from the center of the support disk.
Moreover, be advised that a driven slide (120) is provided that removes the tool (T1) from a selected arm (111) of the tool storage magazine (110) (see Figures 1a, 1b, and 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
704
941
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 the tool storage magazine (110) of KR '613 for the second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel, as this is substitution of one known tool storage magazine for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the tool storage magazine (110) being mounted such that when a given tool stored therein is required at the first tool storage magazine (18) of the modified machine tool of Babel, the driven slide (120) acts to remove the given tool from the corresponding arm (111) of the tool storage magazine (110) and to pass the given tool to the tool transfer device (17) such that the given tool is provided to the first tool storage magazine (18).
In making this substitution, it is noted that the tool storage magazine (110) of KR '613 assumes the position and orientation of the now substituted-out second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel. Thus, the tool storage magazine (110) of KR '613 is the “second tool storage magazine” of the modified machine tool of Babel, and is mounted in an orientation such that it (110) is rotatable about the axis inclined with respect to the horizontal plane.
Claim 5: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1a of KR '613, the arm (111) includes a support plate that is fixed to the (second) tool storage magazine (110), and further includes two support rods. Whereas a first one of the two support rods is configured to rotate on a left side of the support plate, a second one of the two support rods is configured to rotate on a right side of the support plate. (It is reiterated that in the rejection of claim 4 that in modifying Babel the tool storage magazine (110) of KR '613 assumed the position and orientation of the now substituted-out second tool storage magazine (10) of Babel. Thus, the tool storage magazine (110) of KR '613 is the “second tool storage magazine” of the modified machine tool of Babel).
PNG
media_image5.png
704
842
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lastly, as can be seen below in annotated Figure 1b, the first one of the two support rods has a first part (A) extending in a direction orthogonal to a center axis of the support disk of the second tool storage magazine (110), a first inclined portion extending toward one direction parallel to the center axis of the support disk from one end portion of the first part (A), and a first grip portion (113) provided on another end portion of the first part (A) that is opposite the one end portion of the first part (A), the first grip portion (113) being configured to grip the tool. Please be advised that as a 3D object, the first inclined part extends in any number of directions including extending at an at angle toward one direction that is parallel to the center axis of the support disk. Likewise, as a 3D object, the first part (A) extends in any number of directions including in a horizontal direction (from the perspective of Figure 1b of KR '613, for example) orthogonal to the center axis of the support disk of the (second) tool storage magazine (110).
PNG
media_image6.png
450
491
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Please be advised that Applicant provided no specific arguments for Examiner to address in the Applicant’s Arguments filed on 4/28/2026. Please note that in light of the amendments filed on 4/28/2026, the previous prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been overcome, and
Martin (CH 699221 A2) is no longer being utilized by Examiner as a base reference in rejecting any of claims 1 and 4-7. Rather, Babel (U.S. Patent No. 4,780,952 A) is now being applied by Examiner as the base reference in a new combination of art in rejecting claims 1 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Please also be advised that Kitamura (U.S. Patent No. 4,4546,532 A) is no longer being utilized by Examiner as a modifying reference. The only reference still being utilized by Examiner from the last office action is KR 2012/0071613 A (hereinafter KR '613). Having said that, KR '613 is being applied as a modifying reference in a new combination, and there are no arguments directed to KR '613 for Examiner to address. It is reiterated that Applicant provided no specific arguments for Examiner to address in the Applicant’s Arguments filed on 4/28/2026.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights