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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1 -16 in the reply filed on 09/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (Pg 1): “Applicant notes the substantial overlap between claims 1 and 17.”
This is not found persuasive because Group 2 does not require: “wherein the transfer device comprises a double gripper that is arranged at the transfer carriage, and wherein the double gripper is pivotable about a pivot axis,” “wherein the transfer device comprises a stroke axis arranged at the transfer carriage, and wherein the stroke axis is coupled with at least one of the double gripper and the transfer receptacle, and configured to transfer the tools between the double gripper and the transfer receptacle,” “wherein the stroke axis is coupled to the double gripper and arranged between the double gripper and the transfer carriage, and wherein the stroke axis coincides with the pivot axis of the double gripper,” “wherein the transfer carriage projects at least temporarily into the working space,” “wherein the tool magazine comprises a scanner for tool identification, wherein the scanner is arranged in a fixed position, and wherein the tool magazine is configured to be moved along the magazine axis and rotated about the magazine axis to bring a selected holding location into a detection range of the scanner,” “wherein the tool magazine has an access door,” and “wherein the tool magazine is configured to be moved along the magazine axis and rotated about the magazine axis to position the selected plurality of holding locations at the access door.” While Group 1 does not require: “a selected holding location in the first transfer position, wherein the tool holder is movable relative to the frame to the second transfer position for a tool change,” “wherein the tool holder is movable in three or more axes relative to the workpiece holder,” and “a counter holder that is configured as a secondary workpiece holder and located opposite the workpiece holder that is configured as a primary workpiece holder.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17 – 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2 and Group 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/25/2026.
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows;
U.S. 2020/0331109 Lee et al. (‘Lee hereafter), App 16/766869 Filed 05/31/2018;
U.S. 2020/0230759 Nishida et al. (‘Nishida hereafter), App 16/785652 Filed 02/10/2020
U.S. 2013/0331244 Onsrud et al. (‘Onsrud hereafter), App 13/911506 Filed 06/06/2013
U.S. 2003/0125175 Myung Kook Seo (‘Seo hereafter), App 10/330343, Filed 12/30/2002
U.S. 2020/0156197 Tomohiro Oyamada (‘Oyamada hereafter), App 16/685005, Filed 11/05/2019
U.S. 4,922,591 Michael E. Campbell (‘Campbell hereafter), Filed 03/20/1984
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 24 are currently being examined.
Claims 17 – 24 have been withdrawn.
No Claims have been canceled.
Claims 14 & 16 are objected to for allowable subject matter.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: items 142 (Fig 5), 226 (Fig 13), are not recited in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 – 17 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.
Claim 1, recites: “a plurality of holding locations for tools that have a support shaft and a receiving groove, wherein at least some of the holding locations are arranged ‘offset relative to one another along the magazine axis,’ wherein at least some of the holding locations are arranged ‘offset relative to one another about the magazine axis,’ and wherein the holding locations are configured to hold the tools at the receiving
groove.” The limitation: ‘offset relative to one another about the magazine axis,’ is repeated, and the claims are unclear.
Claims 6, recites: “wherein the holding locations are formed at the segments,” and claim 10 recites: “wherein the transfer receptacle is formed at the offset slide,” it is unclear what Applicant’s limitation is claiming. Since both claims 6 and 10 are apparatus claims, Applicant is either using a product by process limitation (below) or the meaning of the word “formed” is used to mean something different.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “formed” in claim is used by the claim to mean “is/ are,” while the accepted meaning is “manufacturing method.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Examiner shall examine claims as best understood.
A recitation of “product by process” claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
A recitation of “product by process” claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 – 9, 11 - 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0230759 Nishida et al. (‘Nishida hereafter), and in view of U.S. 2003/0125175 Myung Kook Seo (‘Seo hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 1, ‘Nishida discloses all the claim limitations including: A tool changing device for a machine tool (‘Nishida, Para 0004, “Machine tools (combined multi-functional machine tools) are equipped with a configuration to perform
automatic tool exchange. An example of such configuration includes: a tool magazine that stores a plurality of kinds of tools; and an automatic tool changer (ATC) that includes transfer mechanism to transfer a tool stored in the tool magazine with the spindle. An example of a machine tool that uses such automatic tool changer is disclosed in JP 6-741A, for example. In the configuration disclosed in JP 6-741A, one reference tool magazine selected from among N tool magazines is connected to the machine tool, and the rest of the tool magazines is connected to the reference tool
magazine through a tool carrier. JP l-257541A discloses a machine tool that includes: an endless chain located in the machine tool and including a plurality of tools receivers;
tool storages located outside the machine tool and made up of a plurality of endless chains; and a guide shoe that receives and transfers a tool between the endless chain and the tool storage.”), comprising:
a tool magazine (‘Nishida, Figs 3, 5a, 5b. 5c, #50 & #112 (second and first tool magazine/ tool magazine)) comprising:
a magazine axis (‘Nishida, #51 (second axis), #111, #111a, #111b (first rotational axis)),
wherein the tool magazine is rotatable about the magazine axis by a rotary drive (‘Nishida, #115 (drive mechanism), Para 0026, “The tool magazine support mechanism 110 includes: a support member (a first shaft) 114, which supports the first tool magazine 112; a drive mechanism 115, which makes the first tool magazine 112 rotate about the first rotation axis 111 of the first shaft 114; and a support platform 116, which supports the support member 114 and the drive mechanism 115.”), and a plurality of holding locations for tools that have a support shaft and a receiving groove,
wherein at least some of the holding locations (‘Nishida, Fig 5a (below) holding positions/ holding locations) are arranged offset relative to one another along the magazine axis (‘Nishida, Fig 5a (below) shows holding locations offset to one another along axis #111 (first rotation axis)),
wherein at least some of the holding locations are arranged offset relative to one another about the magazine axis (‘Nishida, Fig 5a (below) shows holding locations offset to one another along axis #111 (first rotation axis)), and
wherein the holding locations are configured to hold the tools at the receiving groove (‘Nishida, Figs 5A & 4 (below) shows #T (tool), and Fig 4 (below) shows Tt (Gripped Groove)), a transfer device (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #120 (tool carrier/ transfer device)) comprising a transfer carriage (‘Nishida, Fig 3, #124 (lift/ transfer carriage)), wherein the transfer device (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #120 (tool carrier/ transfer device)) is movable between a first transfer position (‘Nishida, Fig 5a, #P3 (transfer position/ first position)) in relation to the tool magazine (‘Nishida, Fig 5a, #112 (first tool magazine)) and a second transfer position (‘Nishida, Fig 5c, #P4 (transfer position/ second position)) to transfer tools between the tool magazine and a tool holder of the machine tool (‘Nishida, Fig 3, shows the tool #T (Tool) is capable of being transferred from #112 (first tool magazine) to #50 (second tool magazine) and then to #26 (tool spindle/ tool holder) of #1 (machine tool)),
Except ‘Nishida, except is silent regarding: a linear drive for the tool magazine that is configured to move the tool magazine along the magazine axis relative to the transfer device to provide, together with the rotary drive, a selected holding location in the first transfer position,
However, ‘Onsrud teaches: a linear drive for the tool magazine that is configured to move the tool magazine along the magazine axis relative to the transfer device to provide, together with the rotary drive, a selected holding location in the first transfer position (‘Seo, Abst, “An automatic tool changer for machine tool comprises a machine frame with a changer frame portion, and a spindle rotatably attached to the machine frame and adapted to removably grip a tool in position. An up-down carriage is mounted to the changer frame portion of the machine frame for elevational movement between a raised position and a lowered position. A magazine carriage is laterally movably mounted to the up-down carriage for movement between a home position far away from the spindle and an operative position close to the spindle. A tool storage magazine is carried by the magazine carriage and has a plurality of tool holders for changeably holding different kinds of tools. A vertical magazine actuator serves to cause the up-down carriage, the magazine carriage and the tool storage magazine to move in a vertical direction. A horizontal magazine actuator is adapted to cause the magazine carriage and the tool storage magazine to move in a horizontal direction.” Para 0006, ” As one example of armless automatic tool changers, U.S. Pat. No. 5,300,006 to Tanaka et al. teaches a machine tool having an automatic tool changer including a single drive motor for rotation and lateral movement of a tool storage magazine of the automatic tool changer. The single drive motor is connected to a transmission for selectively moving the magazine between a withdrawn storage position and an advanced position whereby a selected tool holder may be brought into engagement with the spindle. A carriage frame supports the magazine on a trackway for lateral movement and a track gear extends parallel to the trackway. A speed reducer is connected to the drive motor and has an output shaft that supports a pinion gear positioned to engage the rack and a casing that is connected to the magazine. A locking pin is mounted to the carriage frame for selected movement between a first position wherein the magazine is locked and the rotation of the output shaft causes the carriage frame and magazine to advance along the trackway and a second position wherein the output shaft is locked and the rotation of the casing causes the magazine to rotate.” #22 (linear motion guides), #22b (slider), #22a (changer frame portion), #50 (horizontal magazine actuator), #52 (cylindrical housing), #54 (cylinder rod), #30 (vertical magazine actuator), #32 (cylinder housing), #34 (cylinder rod), linear drives in both X and Y directions, rotary driver #70 (electric motor))
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Nishida with a
a linear drive for the tool magazine that is configured to move the tool magazine along the magazine axis relative to the transfer device to provide, together with the rotary drive, a selected holding location in the first transfer position as taught by ‘Seo in order to provide an automatic tool changer for machine tool capable of accomplishing the tool changing operation without having to use any tool change arm and with no need to cause movement of the spindle (‘Seo Abst).
Regarding Claim[s] 2, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the transfer device is movable along a transfer axis between the first transfer position and the second transfer position, wherein the transfer axis is oriented perpendicular to the magazine axis, and wherein the transfer axis comprises a frame-fixed guide, along which the transfer carriage of the transfer device is movable (‘Seo Abst, Paras 0006, 0008).
Regarding Claim[s] 3, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the first transfer position is fixed with respect to a frame (‘Seo, #1 (machine frame), Fig 1).
Regarding Claim[s] 4, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the transfer device directly transfers the tools to and from the holding locations of the tool magazine (‘Nishida, Fig 2).
Regarding Claim[s] 5, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the tool magazine comprises two or more segments that are distributed about the magazine axis, and wherein the segments have holding locations that are arranges in series and offset from one another along the magazine axis (‘Nishida, Fig 5a (below)).
Regarding Claim[s] 6, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the holding locations are formed at the segments, and wherein the holding locations have outwardly open recesses that are adapted to the receiving grooves of the tools (‘Nishida, Figs 4 & 5a (below)) .
Regarding Claim[s] 7, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the transfer device comprises a transfer receptacle (‘Nishida, Figs 5a (below), #126a (first grippers /transfer receptacle)) and wherein the transfer receptacle is configured to embrace the support shaft of the tools (‘Nishida, Figs 4 & 5a (below)).
Regarding Claim[s] 8, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein an offset axis having an offset slide is provided at the transfer carriage of the transfer device (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #120 (tool carrier/ transfer device)), and wherein the offset axis moves the transfer receptacle between a retracted position and an extended position (‘Nishida, Figs 4 & 5a (below) show #126a (first grippers /transfer receptacle), transferring between retracted and extended positions).
Regarding Claim[s] 9, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the transfer receptacle comprises resilient locking elements to secure a received tool (‘Nishida, Para 0029, “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the tool intermediate device 40 is partially located in the base 20. The tool intermediate device 40 includes, for example, a second tool magazine 50, which temporarily holds a plurality of tools T.” ‘Nishida holds/ locks the received tool).
Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the transfer device (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #120 (tool carrier/ transfer device)) comprises a double gripper that is arranged at the transfer carriage, and wherein the double gripper is pivotable about a pivot axis (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #126 (gripper arm) of #120 (tool carrier) has two arms at the end of the gripping arm that pick up the tool).
Regarding Claim[s] 12, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the transfer device (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #120 (tool carrier/ transfer device)) comprises a stroke axis arranged at the transfer carriage (‘Nishida, Fig 3, #124 (lift/ transfer carriage)), and wherein the stroke axis (‘Nishida, Fig 2 (below)) is coupled with at least one of the double gripper (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #126 (gripper arm) of #120 (tool carrier) has two arms at the end of the gripping arm that pick up the tool) and the transfer receptacle (‘Nishida, Figs 5a (below), #126a (first grippers /transfer receptacle), Fig 2 (below) stroke axis is coupled to #126), and configured to transfer the tools between the double gripper and the transfer receptacle (‘Nishida, Fig 2 (below)).
Regarding Claim[s] 13, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the stroke axis is coupled to the double gripper and arranged between the double gripper and the transfer carriage (‘Nishida, Fig 3, #124 (lift/ transfer carriage)), and wherein the stroke axis (‘Nishida, Fig 2 (below)) coincides with the pivot axis of the double gripper (‘Nishida, Fig 2, #126 (gripper arm) of #120 (tool carrier) has two arms at the end of the gripping arm that pick up the tool, Fig 2 (below) shows #126 pivoting on the stroke axis).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0230759 Nishida et al. (‘Nishida hereafter), and in view of U.S. 2003/0125175 Myung Kook Seo (‘Seo hereafter), and in further view of U.S. 2020/0156197 Tomohiro Oyamada (‘Oyamada hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 10, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: wherein at least some of the holding locations of the tool magazine are coupled to a retaining spring that secures the received tool with a locking element in the holding location, wherein the transfer receptacle is formed at the offset slide, and wherein the offset slide is configured to deflect the retaining spring in order to deposit a tool in the holding location or to release it from the holding location.
However, ‘Oyamada does teach: Abst, “A gripping device is provided in a turret-type tool magazine of a machine tool and grips a tool or a tool holder that holds
the tool. The gripping device includes: a pair of arms configured to grip the tool or the tool holder by pinching the tool or the tool holder between the arms, a main body part configured to support the pair of arms so that each of the paired arms swings in the pinching directions to pinch the tool or the tool holder between the arms; and an angle detector configured to detect a physical quantity indicating a swing angle of the arm.” Para 0032, “The gripping device 30 further includes an elastic body 38 arranged between each of the arms 34 and the main body part 30a so as to apply elastic force in directions which the tool holder 24 is pinched and gripped. A specific example of the elastic body 38 is a spring. Provision of the elastic bodies 38 enables the pair of arms 34 (34a, 34b) to produce a force required for gripping the tool holder 24. When no tool holder 24 is gripped, the arms 34 (34a, 34b) of the gripping device 30 are slightly closed toward the tool holder 24 to be inserted. In this state, the elastic bodies 38 are in
their natural length.” Para 0029, “FIG. 3 is a diagram showing the gripping device 30
when not gripping any tool holder 24. The gripping device 30 includes a pair of arms 34 (34a, 34b) for gripping the tool holder 24 by pinching the tool holder between the arms, and a main body part 30a that supports the pair of arms 34. The main body part 30a supports the pair of arms 34 at respective rotary axes 30b so that the pair of arms 34 can pivot (or swing around the respective rotary axes) in the pinching direction in order to grip the tool holder 24. A wheel-shaped roller 34c that can rotate freely is provided at the front end of each arm 34.” Rollers/ slides)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Nishida with a retaining spring securing the tool with a locking element as taught by ‘Oyamada in order to provide a a pair of arms configured to grip the tool or the tool holder by pinching the tool or the tool holder between the arms (‘Oyamada, Para 0006).”
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0230759 Nishida et al. (‘Nishida hereafter), and in view of U.S. 2003/0125175 Myung Kook Seo (‘Seo hereafter), and in further view of U.S. 4,922,591 Michael E. Campbell (‘Campbell hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 15, ‘Nishida and ‘Seo discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: wherein the tool magazine comprises a scanner for tool identification, wherein the scanner is arranged in a fixed position, and wherein the tool magazine is configured to be moved along the magazine axis and rotated about the magazine axis to bring a selected holding location into a detection range of the scanner.
However, ‘Campbell, does teach: Abst, “A system and method for storing and selectively transferring cutting tools to a tool holder of a machine tool comprising a bar coder for providing coded labels containing information such as the type of tool and their offsets and affixing the label to the cutting tools. The indexed cutting tools are placed in a tool storage magazine that presents the tools for transfer where a bar code reader scans the labels and selects the needed cutting tool. A tool changing mechanism grips the selected tool, removes it from the storage magazine and transfers it to the tool holder while concurrently transferring a cutting tool from the tool holder to the storage magizine.” Col. 3, ln 65 – Col. 4, ln 7, “The cutting tools 16 with the bar coded labels 14 affixed thereto are stored in the tool storage magazine 18. The magazine 18 is mounted on one end of the base 25 and can be either manually and/or automatically operated. In the illustrative embodiment shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the magazine 18 comprises a rotatable turret 50 that is mounted on and automatically rotated by an index table 51. The turret 50 has a central chamber 52, vertical apertures 54 and 56 therethrough, and a plurality of sockets 58 about its perimeter which extends therefrom in the horizontal plane.”
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Nishida with a scanner for tool identification as taught by ‘Campbell in order to provide system and method for storing and selectively transferring cutting tools to a tool holder of a machine tool comprising a bar coder for providing coded labels containing information such as the type of tool and their offsets and affixing the label to the cutting tools. (‘Campbell, Abst).
[AltContent: textbox (Segments)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tool)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Holding positions)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
586
1409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2020/0230759 Figure 5a
[AltContent: textbox (Tool)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gripped Groove)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
610
1005
media_image2.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2020/0230759 Figure 4
[AltContent: textbox (Stroke Axis Through #124 (lift))][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
791
1310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
U.S. 2020/0230759 Figure 2
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 14 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "wherein, upon the travel movement of the transfer carriage between the first transfer position and the second transfer position, the transfer carriage actuates a door that closes a working space of the machine tool, and wherein the transfer carriage projects at least temporarily into the working space.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Nishida, ‘Seo and ‘Oyamada).
‘Nishida, ‘Seo and ‘Oyamada does not teach the traveling movement of the transfer carriage between the first and second positions, actuates and closes a door of a working space of the machine tool. Neither of these references anticipates nor renders obvious the combinations of limitations mentioned above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of limitations found in claim 16 with the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combination of limitations wherein "wherein the tool magazine has an access door, through which a selected plurality of holding locations that are offset along the magazine axis to each other are accessible from the outside, and wherein the tool magazine is configured to be moved along the magazine axis and rotated about the magazine axis to position the selected plurality of holding locations at the access door.”
The closest prior art is as cited above (‘Nishida, ‘Seo and ‘Oyamada).
‘Nishida, ‘Seo and ‘Oyamada does not teach a tool magazine having an access door, and other limitations above. To modify the prior art would require improper hindsight and furthermore would destroy the workability of the references cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. 2020/0331109 Lee et al. (‘Lee hereafter) - TOOL MAGAZINE MODULE OF MACHINE TOOL
U.S. 2013/0331244 Onsrud et al. (‘Onsrud hereafter) - MULTIPLE TOOL CHANGER FOR MACHINING CENTER
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
10/10/2026
