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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claim 5 has been
cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-16 remain pending in the application. New claims 36-38 are also pending in the application.
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, 3, 4, 6-9, 15, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don Ouyang et al. (US 20210362346 A1 - hereinafter Ouyang) in view of Chuan-dong Xu (CN 214644118 U - hereinafter Xu) and OpenStax.org (See attached webpage – hereinafter OpenStax).
Regarding claim 1, Ouyang teaches a system for moving a gantry on a material processing machine, the system comprising: a mounting structure (Fig. 10, Arms 118) configured to be operably coupled to the gantry; and a drive assembly (Fig. 6, assembly comprising Slave Robot 82, Claw 112 and Working Robot 80), the drive assembly including- a chassis (Fig. 6, Slave Robot 82); one or more chassis guides (Fig. 6, Cables 98 and Pulleys 96) coupling the chassis to the mounting structure ([0045] – Cables 98 couple to Slave Robot 82, which is attached to 118, so therefore cables are also coupled to the 118); a motor (Fig. 5, Motor 50 nested in 82) operably mounted to the chassis; a first wheel (Fig. 6, Drive Wheel 72) drivably coupled to the motor ([0035]) and configured to contact a first side of a gantry guide shaft (Fig. 6, Guide Rail 108 and Sub-rail 104); and a second wheel (Fig. 6, Guide Wheel 68) operably mounted to the chassis and configured to contact a second side of the gantry guide
shaft substantially opposite the first side, wherein- the motor is configured to drive the first wheel to move the mounting structure in a first direction relative to the gantry guide shaft [0035], and the chassis is configured to move along the one or more chassis guides ([0045]) in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, relative to the mounting structure ([0049] – Arms 118 can move inwards).
Ouyang fails to teach wherein at least one of the first wheel or the second wheel is biased toward the other of the first wheel or the second wheel to press the gantry guide shaft therebetween.
However, Xu teaches a gantry system with a wheel (Fig. 4, Limit Wheel 216) which is biased against a guide surface (Fig. 4, top of Main Body 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the system for moving a gantry of Ouyang such that one of the first or second wheel is biased such that the gantry guide shaft is pressed between the two as taught by Xu. Doing so is beneficial as the wheels need to be biased such that they press against the guide wheel in order to generate a static friction which would allow the wheels to move along the guide shaft while minimizing slippage (OpenStax; Page 1, para 4).
Regarding claim 3, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the second wheel is configured to move in the second direction independently of the first wheel ([0044] - examiner interprets independently to mean that movement of the second wheel in the second direction is not caused by or influenced by any action of the first wheel).
Regarding claim 4, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the motor is
configured to drive the first wheel to move the mounting structure back and forth in a horizontal direction relative to the gantry guide shaft ([0045] – traversing the Gap 110), and wherein the chassis is configured to move up and down in a vertical direction relative to the mounting structure ([0049] – when one of the arms 118 move inwards, the chassis is moving relative to the mounting structure).
Regarding claim 6, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the one or more chassis guides include a first chassis guide (Fig. 5, topmost Cable 98 and corresponding Pulley 96) positioned on a first side of the motor and a second chassis guide (Fig. 5, bottommost Cable 98 and Corresponding Pulley 96) positioned on a second side of the motor, opposite the first side (Fig. 5, Cables 98 are located on opposite sides of the Motor 50).
Regarding claim 7, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 6 wherein the chassis define a first chassis guide bore (Fig. 6, hole in Slave Robot 82 at Terminus 102 of Cables 98) configured to slidably receive the first chassis guide and a second chassis guide bore configured to slidably receive the second chassis guide.
Regarding claim 8, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 6 wherein the first chassis guide includes a first chassis guide shaft (Fig. 5, topmost Cable 98) and the second chassis guide includes a second chassis guide shaft (Fig. 5, bottommost Cable 98), and wherein the chassis is slidably mounted to the first and second chassis guide shafts.
Regarding claim 9, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the drive assembly further includes a wheel carrier (Fig. 6, Claw 112) movably coupled to the chassis, wherein the second wheel is rotatably mounted to the wheel carrier.
Regarding claim 15, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the gantry carries a cutting device ([0051] – the tool is intended for cutting; therefore it is a cutting device).
Regarding claim 36, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the chassis is configured to move passively along the one or more chassis guides in the second direction ([0045] – Cables 98 couple to Slave Robot 82, which is attached to 118, so therefore cables are also coupled to the 118. Merriam Webster defines passive as “acted upon by external agency”. The arms do not move of their own accord, rather in response to the external agency of Motor 114, and so are found to passively move along the Cables 98).
Regarding claim 37, Ouyang further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the chassis does not move relative to the gantry guide shaft in the second direction (Fig. 10, the Slave Robot 82 does not move relative to Guide Rail 108 and Sub-rail 104 when 114 is not active. At times when 114 is not actuating Arms 118 to move inwards or outwards, the chassis does not move relative to the gantry guide shaft in the second direction).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don Ouyang et al. (US 20210362346 A1 - hereinafter Ouyang) in view of Chuan-dong Xu (CN 214644118 U – hereinafter Xu) and OpenStax.org (See attached webpage – hereinafter OpenStax) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jun-jun Qiao (CN 214879701 U - hereinafter Qiao).
Regarding claim 2, Ouyang teaches wherein the chassis is configured to move in the second direction relative to the mounting structure ([0044]).
The combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax does not explicitly teach that it is configured to float.
However, Qiao teaches a gantry system wherein a component (Fig. 3, Bumper 111) of the gantry system is configured to float (Page 3, para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the chassis of the combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax such that it is configured to float in the second direction relative to the mounting structure as taught by Qiao. Doing so is beneficial as it accommodates operation in rugged conditions (Qiao; Page 3, para 1).
Claims 10-12 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don Ouyang et al. (US 20210362346 A1 - hereinafter Ouyang) in view of Chuan-dong Xu (CN 214644118 U - hereinafter Xu) and OpenStax.org (See attached webpage – hereinafter OpenStax) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao-qiang Cai (CN 112643766 A – hereinafter Cai).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax fails to teach the system of claim 9 wherein the wheel carrier includes one or more carrier guides, and wherein the chassis includes one or more carrier guide bores configured to movably receive the one or more carrier guides.
However, Cai teaches a gantry system with a wheel carrier (Fig. 4, Eccentric Wheel 72) including one or more carrier guides (Fig. 4, Slide Rails 61 and Mounting Plate 5), and wherein a chassis (Fig. 4, Connecting Plates 63) includes one or more carrier guide bores (Fig. 4, rectangular cutouts at the bottom of Connecting Plates 63) configured to movably receive the one or more carrier guides.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the gantry system of the combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax to include the aforementioned features of claim 10 as taught by Cai. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the gantry system to execute continuous, repeatable, and equidistant movements (Cai ; Page 3, Para 1).
Regarding claim 11, the existing combination of Ouyang, Xu, OpenStax, and Cai already teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the wheel carrier includes one or more carrier guide shafts (Cai; Fig. 4, Slide Rails 61), and wherein the chassis (Fig. 4, Connecting Plates 63) includes one or more carrier guide bores (Cai; Fig. 4, rectangular cutouts at the underside of Connecting Plates 63) configured to slidably receive the one or more carrier guide shafts (See the rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 12, the existing combination of Ouyang, Xu, OpenStax, and Cai does not explicitly teach the system of claim 11 wherein the one or more carrier guide shafts include a first carrier guide shaft and a second carrier guide shaft spaced apart from the first carrier guide shaft, wherein the one or more carrier guide bores include a first carrier guide bore positioned on a first side of the motor and a second carrier guide bore positioned on a second side of the motor, opposite the first side, and wherein the first carrier guide bore is configured to slidably receive the first carrier guide shaft and the second carrier guide bore is configured to slidably receive the second carrier guide shaft.
However, Cai further teaches that the one or more carrier guide shafts include a first carrier guide shaft (Cai; Fig. 4, topmost Slide Rail 61) and a second carrier guide shaft (Cai; Fig. 4, bottommost Slide Rail 61) spaced apart from the first carrier guide shaft, wherein the one or more carrier guide bores include a first carrier guide bore (Cai; Fig. 4, top two rectangular cutouts at the underside of Connecting Plates 63) positioned on a first side of a motor (Fig. 4, Motor 4) and a second carrier guide bore (Cai; Fig. 4, bottom two rectangular cutouts at the underside of Connecting Plates 63) positioned on a second side of the motor, opposite the first side, and wherein the first carrier guide bore is configured to slidably receive the first carrier guide shaft and the second carrier guide bore is configured to slidably receive the second carrier guide shaft (Page 4, para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the gantry system of the existing combination of Ouyang, Xu, OpenStax, and Cai to include the aforementioned features of claim 12 as taught by Cai. Doing so is beneficial as it contributes to the improvement of cutting speed and quality (Cai, Abstract).
Regarding claim 38, the existing combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax does not teach the system of claim 1 wherein the material processing machine includes a cutting table configured to support a workpiece relative to the gantry, and wherein the gantry guide shaft extends parallel to the cutting table.
However, Cai teaches a material processing machine which includes a cutting table (Fig. 2, Belt 9) configured to support a workpiece (Fig. 2, Bread 8) relative to a gantry. Cai does not teach that the cutting table extends parallel to a gantry guide shaft, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cutting table to be oriented in this way as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the material processing machine of the combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax to include the features of claim 38 above as taught by Cai. Doing so is beneficial as it is well known in the art that a cutting table provides a dedicated area to support a workpiece being cut, contributing towards cleanliness and stability of the workpiece.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don Ouyang et al. (US 20210362346 A1 - hereinafter Ouyang) in view of Chuan-dong Xu (CN 214644118 U – hereinafter Xu) and OpenStax.org (See attached webpage – hereinafter OpenStax) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zhen-ping Gu (CN 211077981 U- hereinafter Gu).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax fails to teach the system of claim 9 wherein the chassis further includes a biasing member configured to bias the wheel carrier toward the motor.
However, Gu teaches a gantry system with a chassis (Fig. 2, Friction Plate 12) which further includes a biasing member (Fig. 2, Disc Spring) configured to bias the wheel carrier (Fig. 2, First Shaft Sleeve 11) towards the motor (Fig. 2, Motor 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chassis of the combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax to include a biasing member configured to bias the wheel carrier towards the motor as taught by Gu. Doing so is beneficial as it secures the wheel carrier in a desired position for operation of the gantry system (Gu; Page 3, last paragraph and Page 4, para 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don Ouyang et al. (US 20210362346 A1 - hereinafter Ouyang) in view of Chuan-dong Xu (CN 214644118 U – hereinafter Xu), OpenStax.org (See attached webpage – hereinafter OpenStax), and Zhen-ping Gu (CN 211077981 U- hereinafter Gu) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhe-bo Jin (CN 112441506 A- hereinafter Jin).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ouyang, Xu, OpenStax, and Gu fails to teach the system of claim 13 wherein the biasing member includes a coil spring.
However, Jin teaches a gantry system which uses a coil spring (Fig. 3, Spring 17) to bias a wheel carrier (Fig. 2, Sliding Rod 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the biasing member of the combination of Ouyang, Xu, OpenStax, and Gu to be a coil spring as taught by Jin. Doing so would have required only the simple substitution of switching a disc spring for a coil spring. One of ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution and predicted that the spring would function in a similar manner whether it was a disc or coil spring.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Don Ouyang et al. (US 20210362346 A1 - hereinafter Ouyang) in view of Chuan-dong Xu (CN 214644118 U – hereinafter Xu), and OpenStax.org (See attached webpage – hereinafter OpenStax) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohamed Hashish et al. (US 20170015018 A1- hereinafter Hashish).
Regarding claim 16, Ouyang teaches wherein the gantry carries a cutting device ([0051] – the tool is intended for cutting; therefore it is a cutting device). The combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax fails to teach that the cutting device is a liquid jet cutting head.
However, Hashish teaches a gantry which carries a liquid jet cutting head ( - cutting head which generates a waterjet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cutting device of the combination of Ouyang, Xu, and OpenStax to be a liquid jet cutting head as taught by Hashish. Doing so is beneficial as the liquid jet cutting head allows for cutting the workpiece in a particularly precise manner (Hashish, [0066]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that Ouyang does not teach that the chassis (Robot 82) moves along the one or more chassis guides (Cables 98), since the chassis does not move relative to the chassis guide. However, according to the plain meaning of the claim language, the chassis is not required to move relative to the chassis guide. Merriam-Webster defines “along” as “in a line matching the length or direction of”. Robot 82 of Ouyang moves in a line matching the direction of the cables 98, and therefore teaches the limitation as claimed. No part of claim 1 requires that the chassis moves in a solely relative manner to the chassis guides. Similarily, Applicant asserts that the threaded shaft 84 and guide rods 88 of Ouyang do not qualify as the claimed chassis guides since the slave robot 82, which works as the claimed chassis, since they move with the slaver robot 82, not along. However, as discussed above, the slave robot 82 does by definition move along the threaded shaft 84 and guide rods 88, and therefore they still qualify as teaching the chassis guides of claim 1.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Boyer Ashley 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724