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 without traverse of Invention I (drawn to “An equipping device for a tool magazine of a machine tool”) and of Species ii, Figure 3 (drawn to, “A second species in which the machine tool has the configuration of Figure 3”) in the reply filed on 5/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/6/2026.
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 securing element” in claim 1 (noting that the term “securing” is a function, such that the claim recites an element for performing the function of securing, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of securing);
“the securing element” in claims 2, 8, and 12-14 (noting that the term “securing” is a function, such that each of said claims recites an element for performing the function of securing, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of securing);
“the securing element…to secure a gripped tool positively or non-positively at the guide element” in claim 5;
“the securing element…to engage at least one latching portion of the tool with at least one latching element” in claim 6;
“at least one latching portion” in claim 6 (noting that the term “latching” is a function, such that the claim recites at least one portion for performing the function of latching, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of latching);
“at least one latching element” in claim 6 (noting that the term “latching” is a function, such that the claim recites at least one element for performing the function of latching, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of latching);
“a position monitoring unit” in claim 15 (noting that the term “position monitoring” is a function, such that the claim recites a unit for performing the function of position monitoring, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of position monitoring);
“the position monitoring unit is configured to detect a position of the guide piston and a position of the securing piston via the cantilever” in claim 16;
“at least one mechanical orientation guide for ensuring a rotational orientation of an inserted tool” in claim 20; and
“a securing element” in claim 22 (noting that the term “securing” is a function, such that the claim recites an element for performing the function of securing, but recites no additional structure sufficient to perform the function of securing).
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 7 of the claim, “it” should be amended to “[[it]] the tool”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of the claim, “a tool magazine” should be amended to “[[a]] the tool magazine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 3-4 of the claim, the second instance of “an inserted tool” should be amended to “[[an]] the inserted tool”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “a tool” should be amended to “[[a]] the tool”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “a tool” should be amended to “[[a]] the tool”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 15 of the claim, “it” should be amended to “[[it]] the 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 1-23 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.
Line 14 of claim 1 states, “the gripping mechanism.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular gripping mechanism of the “at least one gripping mechanism” of line 6 of claim 1 that, “the gripping mechanism” of line 14 is intended to reference.
Line 3 of claim 5 states, “a gripped tool.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “a gripped tool” of line 3 of claim 5 is the same tool as the tool previously set forth in line 6 of claim 1 but now gripped, or if instead “a gripped tool” of line 3 of claim 5 is a different tool than the tool of line 6 of claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the guide piston" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 3-4 of claim 20 state, “or at least one proximity sensor for detecting an inserted tool is arranged at the provision location.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it is unclear if the at least one proximity sensor is for detecting when an inserted tool is arranged at the provision location, or if Applicant is setting forth that the at least one proximity sensor is arranged at the provision location and said at least one proximity sensor is for detecting an inserted tool.
Lines 4-5 of claim 22 states, “the workpiece support.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular workpiece support of the “at least one workpiece support” of line 3 of claim 22 that, “the workpiece support” of lines 4-5 is intended to reference.
Lines 6-7 of claim 22 states, “the tool spindle.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular tool spindle of the “at least one tool spindle” of line 4 of claim 22 that, “the tool spindle” of lines 6-7 is intended to reference.
Lines 8-9 of claim 22 states, “the tool magazine.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular tool magazine of the “at least one tool magazine” of line 6 of claim 22 that, “the tool spindle” of lines 8-9 is intended to reference. It is noted that “the tool magazine” is also recited in line 17 of claim 22.
Line 12 of claim 22 states, “a provision location for insertion or removal of tools.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “tools” of line 12 are the same tools as the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22, or if the “tools” of line 12 are only a subset of tools, for example, of the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22, or if instead the “tools” of line 12 are different tools that are provided in addition to, for example, the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22.
Line 22 of claim 22 states, “the gripping mechanism.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular gripping mechanism of the “at least one gripping mechanism” of line 14 of claim 22 that, “the gripping mechanism” of line 22 is intended to reference.
Line 28 of claim 22 states, “for inserting an removing tools.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “tools” of line 28 are the same tools as the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22, or if the “tools” of line 28 are only a subset of tools, for example, of the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22, or if the “tools” of line 28 are the same tools as the “tools” of line 12 of claim 22, or if instead the “tools” of line 28 are different tools that are provided in addition to, for example, the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22 and further in addition to, for example, the “tools” of line 12 of claim 22.
Line 2 of claim 23 states, “the tool spindle is arranged to grip tools.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “tools” of line 2 are the same tools as the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22, or if the “tools” of line 2 are only a subset of tools, for example, of the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22, or if the “tools” of line 2 are the same tools as the “tools” of line 12 of claim 22, or if the “tools” of line 2 are the same tools as the “tools” of line 28 of claim 22, or if instead the “tools” of line 2 are different tools that are provided in addition to, for example, the “plurality of tools” of line 7 of claim 22 and in addition to, for example, the “tools” of line 12 of claim 22 and further in addition to, for example, the “tools” of line 28 of claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (China Publication No. CN 215919841 U).
Please be advised that Zhao was cited on the IDS that was filed on 10/17/2025.
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Zhao is relied upon below. This EPO Machine Translation was furnished with this office action.
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Zhao shows a machine tool (as broadly claimed) as comprising a tool magazine (2) and an equipping device. The equipping device, which is for the tool magazine (2), is shown in each of Figures 1 and 5 of Zhao as comprising a tool shuttle (61+62). In use, the tool shuttle (61+62) is movable between a first transfer position and a second transfer position. Please note that at least Figure 5 shows the tool shuttle (61+62) as being disposed in the first transfer position. The equipping device further comprises a tool carrying unit (62) (see Figure 1) that is associated with the tool shuttle (61+62) in that the tool carrying unit (62) is an element of the tool shuttle (61+62). Please be advised that the tool carrying unit (62) comprises at least one gripping mechanism that is arranged to grip a tool to be transferred and to secure the tool to the tool shuttle (61+62). Please be advised that discussion of the at least one gripping mechanism will be provided momentarily.
As can be seen in Figures 1 and 5, the equipping device further comprises two second tool holders (33) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0033]. Please note that the interior space of each tool holder (33) constitutes a respective provision location. For the sake of discussion, the provision location of the second tool holder (33) that the tool shuttle (61+62) is shown interfacing with in Figure 1 is considered to correspond to the “provision location” of claim 1.
Noting the above, the provision location is accessible for the tool shuttle (61+62) in the first transfer position. As to the tool magazine (2), Figure 5 shows said tool magazine (2) as comprising a magazine location (241). The tool shuttle (61+62) is configured to exchange the tool between the provision and magazine locations (241). The magazine location (241) is accessible for the tool shuttle (61+62) in the aforesaid second transfer position.
Next, Examiner directs attention to Figure 6. As can be seen therein, the at least one gripping mechanism comprises a guide element that is movable relative to a base body (61) of the tool shuttle (61+62). In a first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of
Zhao, the guide element is considered by Examiner to correspond to the piston rod of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao. According to Zhao, the third cylinder (626A) drives the piston rod/ guide element to move vertically [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0041]. As such, the piston rod/guide element is “movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tool.” In a second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of Zhao, the guide element of the at least one gripping mechanism is considered by Examiner to instead correspond to a top core (622). Please be advised that the top core/guide element (622) is able to reciprocate within an installation channel [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0041]. As such, the top core/guide element (622) is “movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tool.”
Next, be advised that lines 15-16 of claim 1 set forth therein, “a securing element that is movable relative to the guide element.” Noting this, “a securing element” 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 securing element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed in paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification filed on 4/20/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art, in the first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of Zhao, the securing element is considered by Examiner to correspond to a combination of the top core (622) and multiple steel balls (623). This is because when the tool is to be secured, a displacement section (622a) (which is configured as a cone, see Figure 6) of the top core (622) contacts and displaces the multiple steel balls (623) laterally outward into an annular groove (711) (shown in Figure 6) of the tool, thereby securing the tool to the at least one gripping mechanism. Be advised that the combination of the top core (622) and the multiple steel balls (623) of Zhao corresponds in structure to the securing element (208) of Applicant. This is because like the securing element (208) of Applicant (see disclosure in paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification), the combination of the top core (622) and the steel balls (623) of Zhao comprises a displacement section (622a) which is configured as a cone. Therefore, as it pertains to said first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of Zhao, said at least one gripping mechanism comprises the securing element (622+623). Please note that because at least the steel balls (623) thereof are movable relative to the piston rod/guide element, said securing element (622+623) of Zhao is “movable relative to the guide element.”
With respect to the prior art, in the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of Zhao, the securing element is considered by Examiner to correspond to multiple steel balls (623), wherein the steel balls (623) are an equivalent of the securing element. This is because when the steel balls (623) are moved into an annular groove (711) (shown in Figure 6) of the tool, the tool is secured to the at least one gripping mechanism. Thus, the steel balls (623) constitute an equivalent of the “securing element.” This is because the steel balls (623) carry out the function that is specified line 15 of the claim, said function being “securing.” Also, the multiple steel balls (623) aren’t excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and the steel balls (623) produce substantially the same result as the corresponding “securing element (208)” of Applicant. Therefore, as it pertains to said second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of Zhao, said at least one gripping mechanism comprises the steel balls/securing element (623), wherein the steel balls/securing element (623) is movable, e.g. laterally, relative to the top core/guide element (622).
Claim 2: Please be advised that irrespective of whether Examiner is utilizing the first or the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of Zhao, it is noted that when a vertical lifting mechanism (4) is actuated (see Figure 1 of Zhao), the guide element and the securing element are movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool.
Claim 3: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the equipping device further comprises two second tool holders (33) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0033]. Please note that the interior space of each tool holder (33) constitutes a respective provision location. For the sake of discussion, the provision location of the second tool holder (33) that the tool shuttle (61+62) is shown interfacing with in Figure 1 is considered to correspond to the “provision location.” Noting this, by way of the (front) access opening of the corresponding U-shaped tool holder (33), the provision location is externally accessible via said (front) access opening for inserting and removing the tools.
Claim 4: Claim 4 is rejected with respect to the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 4 is the top core/guide element (622) of Zhao.
Figure 6 of Zhao shows the top core/guide element (622) of Zhao as being configured to move into a hollow shaft (71) of the tool so as to take up the tool.
Claim 5: Please be advised that irrespective of whether Examiner is utilizing the first or the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism of Zhao, it is noted that the multiple steel balls (623) of the securing element (623 or 622+623) are “movable relative to the guide element to secure a gripped tool positively or non-positively at the guide element.”
Claim 7: Claim 7 is rejected with respect to the first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 7 corresponds to the piston rod/guide element of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao. Noting this, the piston rod/guide element is part of the third cylinder (626A) (which is a “guide cylinder”) that is mounted to the base body (61) of the tool shuttle (61+62).
Claim 8: First, claim 8 is rejected with respect to the first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 8 corresponds to the piston rod/guide element of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao and the “securing element” of claim 8 corresponds to the combination of the top core (622) and the multiple steel balls (623). Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the securing element (622+623) is part of a securing cylinder (624) that is coupled to the piston rod/guide element via the third cylinder (626A).
Next, claim 8 is rejected with respect to the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 8 is the top core/guide element (622) of Zhao and the “securing element” of claim 8 corresponds to the multiple steel balls (623). Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the securing element (623) is part of a securing cylinder (621) that is coupled to the top core/guide element (622).
Claim 9: First, claim 9 is rejected with respect to the first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 9 corresponds to the piston rod/guide element of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao and the “securing element” of claim 9 corresponds to the combination of the top core (622) and the multiple steel balls (623). Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the piston rod/guide element is “part of a guide piston” in that said piston rod/guide element in and of itself is “a guide piston.” Please be advised that the third cylinder (626A) drives the piston rod/guide piston/guide element to move vertically [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0041]. As such, the piston rod/guide piston/guide element is “movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool” in a carrying housing (626a or 624).
Next, claim 9 is rejected with respect to the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 9 is the top core/guide element (622) of Zhao and the “securing element” of claim 9 corresponds to the multiple steel balls (623). Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the top core/guide element (622) is part of a guide piston, the guide piston being the piston of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao. Please be advised that the third cylinder (626A) drives the guide piston to move vertically [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0041]. As such, the guide piston is “movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool” in a carrying housing (626a or 624).
Claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected with respect to the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 10 is the top core/guide element (622) of Zhao.
Figure 6 of Zhao shows the top core/guide element (622) of Zhao being formed at an end of the guide piston that is facing the tool. It is reiterated that the guide piston is the piston of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao.
Claim 11: First, claim 11 is rejected with respect to the first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 11 corresponds to the piston rod/ guide element of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao. Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the piston rod/guide element is oriented concentrically to the longitudinal axis of the tool when the tool is gripped.
Next, claim 11 is rejected with respect to the second interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 11 is the top core/guide element (622) of Zhao. Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the top core/guide element (622) is oriented concentrically to the longitudinal axis of the tool when the tool is gripped.
Claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected with respect to the first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “securing element” of claim 12 corresponds to the combination of the top core (622) and the multiple steel balls (623), and the guide element” corresponds to the piston rod/guide element of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao. Noting this, as can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the securing element (622+623) is part of a securing piston (621+622+623), the securing piston (621+622+623) being the movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool when a vertical lifting mechanism (4) (see Figure 1 of Zhao) is actuated.
Claim 13: Figure 6 of Zhao shows the securing element (622+623) of Zhao being formed at an end of the securing piston (621+622+623) that is facing the tool. Noting again that the securing element (622+623) is considered to correspond to a combination of the top core (622) and the multiple steel balls (623), it can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao that a distal (tool facing) end of the top core (622) and the multiple steel balls (623) at formed, for example, at a distal (tool facing) end of the knife-holding claw (621) of said securing piston (621+622+623).
Claim 14: As can be seen in Figure 6 of Zhao, the securing element (622+623) is aligned concentrically with the piston rod/guide element of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao.
Claim 17: As the tool carrying unit (62) is an element of the tool shuttle (61+62), it follows that said tool carrying unit (62) is movable together with said tool shuttle (61+62) between the first transfer position and the second transfer position.
Claim 18: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the equipping device further comprises two second tool holders (33) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0033]. Please note that the interior space of each tool holder (33) constitutes a respective provision location. For the sake of discussion, the provision location of the second tool holder (33) that the tool shuttle (61+62) is shown interfacing with in Figure 1 of Zhao is considered to correspond to the “provision location.”
Noting the above, the tool which comprises a handling portion (71+72) (see Figure 6 of Zhao) rests at the provision location with a handling portion (71+72) “on” a stationary provision support (1) (see Figure 1 of Zhao).
Claim 19: The tool is retained in the tool magazine (3) in the magazine location (241) via the handling portion (71+72).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (China Pub. No. CN 215919841 U) in view of Suzuki (Japan Pub. No. JP H07276113 A).
Please be advised that a Machine Translation of Suzuki is relied upon below. This Machine Translation has been furnished with this office action.
Claim 6: First, claim 6 is rejected with respect to the first interpretation of the at least one gripping mechanism in which the “guide element” of claim 6 corresponds to the piston rod/guide element of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao and the “securing element” of claim 6 corresponds to the combination of the top core (622) and the multiple steel balls (623). Noting this, please be advised that the third cylinder (626A) drives the piston rod/guide element to move vertically [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0041]. When the piston rod/guide element moves vertically so does the securing element (622+623), specifically the top core (622) thereof. Thus, the securing element (622+623), specifically the top core (622) thereof, is movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool.
Next, be advised that line 3 of claim 6 sets forth therein, “at least one latching portion of the tool.” Noting this, “at least one latching portion” 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 “at least one latching portion” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed in paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification filed on 4/20/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
Please also be advised that line 4 of claim 6 sets forth therein, “at least one latching element.” Noting this, “at least one latching element” 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 “at least one latching element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed in paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification filed on 4/20/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to prior art and Zhao, Figure 6 shows the tool as comprising an annular groove (711) which corresponds in structure to the “at least one latching portion” of claim 6. This is because like the at least one latching portion (224) of Applicant (see disclosure in paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification), the annular groove (711) of Zhao is formed as a shoulder/undercut in an interior of the hollow shaft (71) of the tool. Based on the foregoing, the annular groove (711) of Zhao will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as the “at least one latching portion (711).”
Also, with respect to prior art and Zhao, the multiple steel balls (623) of the securing element (622+623) correspond in structure to the “at least one latching element of claim 6. This is because like the at least one latching element (214) of Applicant (see disclosure in paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification), the multiple steel balls (623) of Zhao are formed as latching balls. Based on the foregoing, the multiple steel balls (623) of the securing element (622+623) of Zhao will hereinafter be referred to by Examiner as the “at least one latching element (623).”
Noting the above, the securing element (622+623) is movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool so as to engage the at least one latching portion (711) of the tool with the at least one latching element (623) of said securing element (622+623).
Although the securing element (622+623), specifically the top core (622) thereof, is movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool, Zhao does not disclose the top core (622) being “movable parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool relative to the [piston rod]/guide element.” This is because, the top core (622) is driven vertically along with said piston rod/guide element when the third cylinder (626A) is actuated. Having said that, please be advised that Zhao provides disclosure on the drive unit being able to be replaced by other structures such as a lead screw [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0041], wherein the drive unit is the piston rod/ guide element and the third cylinder (626A) (in other words a piston-cylinder arrangement).
Figure 1 of Suzuki though, shows a top core/securing element (11) that is movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of a tool (T) relative to a lead screw/guide element (1B). This is because when a corresponding motor (M) (which is attached to a support body (1C)) is actuated, the result is the lead screw/guide element (1B) being set in rotation, and the top core/securing element (11) incurring movement parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool (T) relative to said lead screw/guide element (1B).
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 lead screw/guide element (1B) of Suzuki for the piston rod/guide element of Zhao and to have also substituted the motor (M) and the support body (1C) of Suzuki for the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao, as this is a substitution of one known means for driving movement of a securing element parallel to a longitudinal axis of a tool for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the top core (622) of the securing element (622+623) of Zhao being driven for movement parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool through rotation of the lead screw/guide element (1B) of Suzuki. In making this substitution, when the newly-integrated motor (M) is actuated, the lead screw/guide element (1B) is rotated, and the securing element (622+623) of Zhao, specifically the top core (622) thereof, is driven to move parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool relative to the lead screw/guide element (1B) so as to engage the at least one latching portion (711) with the at least one latching element (623). Lastly, be advised that this rotation of the lead screw/guide element (1B) constitutes movement of said lead screw/guide element (1B) relative to the base body (61) of the tool shuttle (61+62) in accordance with claim 1 on which claim 6 directly depends.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (China Pub. No. CN 215919841 U) in view of Oyamada et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0269372 A1).
Claim 20: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the equipping device further comprises two second tool holders (33) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0033]. Please note that the interior space of each tool holder (33) constitutes a respective provision location. For the sake of discussion, the provision location of the second tool holder (33) that the tool shuttle (61+62) is shown interfacing with in Figure 1 of Zhao is considered to correspond to the “provision location.”
Zhao though, does not provide disclosure on, “at least one proximity sensor for detecting an inserted tool is arranged at the provision location.”
Figure 6 of Oyamada et al. though, shows a tool holder (9) having a concave portion (12), the concave portion (12) delimiting an interior space of the tool holder (9). Please be advised that this interior space is a respective provision location. Noting this, Oyamada et al. discloses a proximity sensor being arranged in the concave portion (12), and thus “at” the interior space, said proximity sensor detecting when the concave portion (12) and a tool (20) get close to or come into contact with each other [Oyamada et al., paragraph 0043]. When, for example, the tool (20) is in contact with the concave portion (12), this is an indication that the tool (20) is in fact at the provision location of the tool holder (9). Thus, the proximity sensor of Oyamada et al. detects an inserted tool (20) being arranged at the provision location.
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 provided each second tool holder (33) of Zhao with a respective proximity sensor of Oyamada et al., so as to provide the equipping device of Zhao with the advantage of being able to detect when a given inserted tool is arranged at the respective provision location of each of the second tool holders (33) of Zhao. In making this modification, it is noted that the respective proximity sensor of each second tool holder (33) is provided within the concave portion of each second tool holder (33) at the corresponding interior space/provision location thereof.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (China Pub. No. CN 215919841 U) in view of Hwang (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2003/0130101 A1).
Claim 21: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the equipping device further comprises two second tool holders (33) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0033]. Please note that the interior space of each tool holder (33) constitutes a respective provision location. For the sake of discussion, the provision location of the second tool holder (33) that the tool shuttle (61+62) is shown interfacing with in Figure 1 of Zhao is considered to correspond to the “provision location.”
Zhao though, does not provide disclosure on, “wherein at the provision location at least one stop for a tool is presented in the first transfer position is provided; and wherein the tool shuttle is configured to bring the stop from a locking position into a release position.” It is noted that the Figure 6 of Zhao shows the tool as comprising a connecting part (72).
Figures 4 and 5 of Hwang though, show an exemplary tool holder (7) in which the interior space thereof constitutes a respective provision location. Figures 4 and 5 also show at the provision location, at least one stop (715) for securing the tool in said provision location.
Be advised that Figure 9 shows the at least one stop (715) being in a locking position in which the at least one stop (715) presses against a connecting part/protruding ring (91) of the tool. Please also be advised that when the tool is removed from the interior space, the at least one stop (715) (each of which is embodied as a respective spring pin) compresses [paragraph 0020] into a release position (like what is shown in Figure 8) such that the tool can be removed.
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 provided each of the two second tool holders (33) of Zhao with at least one stop (715) of Hwang, such that for each second tool holder (33) of Zhao, the at least one stop (715) thereof will provide the advantage of being able to secure the tool in the corresponding provision location because the at least one stop (715) will press against the connecting part (72) of the tool.
Noting the above, for a tool that is presented in the first transfer position, the at least one stop (715) is provided at the provision location. Moreover, when the tool is to be exchanged from the provision location to the magazine location (241), the tool carrying unit (62) grasps the tool in the provision location, and the tool shuttle (61+62) is then actuated for horizontal movement by means of a horizontal telescopic mechanism (5) (see Figures 1 and 5 of Zhao). With this displacement of the tool shuttle (61+62), the tool is moved (like what is shown in Figure 8 of Hwang) and presses against the at least one stop (715). With this compression of the at least one stop (715), the tool shuttle (61+62) (and tool) have brought the at least one stop (715) from the locking position into the release position.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhard (European Pub. No. EP 2295199 A1) in view of Zhao (China Pub. No. CN 215919841 U).
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Bernhard is relied upon below. This Machine Translation has been furnished with this office action.
Please be advised that Zhao was cited on the IDS that was filed on 10/17/2025.
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Zhao is relied upon below. This Machine Translation has been furnished with this office action.
Claim 22: Figure 1 of Bernhard shows a machine tool (1) comprising a U-shaped machine frame defined by side walls (39, 40) [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0020], at least one workpiece support (6), at least one tool spindle (5) which is movable in the direction of X, Y, and Z axes [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0019] relative to the at least one workpiece support (6), at least one tool magazine (11) that is associated with the at least one tool spindle (5) for providing a plurality of tools (33+34), and at least one equipping device (2, 3, 4) for loading and unloading the at least one tool magazine (11).
Next, as can be seen within Figures 1, 4, and 5, the at least one equipping device (2, 3, 4) comprises a tool shuttle (29), wherein the tool shuttle (29) is movable between a first transfer position and a second transfer position. The at least one equipping device (2, 3, 4) of Bernhard further comprises a provision location (19) for insertion or removal of tools (33+34).
As can be seen in Figure 4 of Bernhard, the at least one equipping device (2, 3, 4) further comprises a tool carrying unit (30, 31, 32) that is associated with the tool shuttle (29) and comprises at least one gripping mechanism (30, 31) that is arranged to grip a tool (33+34) to be transferred and to secure the tool (33+34) to the tool shuttle (29).
As to the tool shuttle (29), it is configured to exchange the tool (33+34) between the provision location (19) and a magazine location (12) of the tool magazine (11). Whereas the provision location (19) is accessible for the tool shuttle (29) in the first transfer position, the magazine location (12) is accessible for the tool shuttle (29) in the second transfer position. Please be advised that the provision location (19) is externally accessible via an access opening at a service door (24) for inserting and removing the tools (33+34).
Bernhard though, does not disclose the at least one gripping mechanism (30, 31) of the tool carrying unit (30, 31, 32) comprising “a guide element that is movable relative to a base body of the tool shuttle and a securing element that is movable relative to the guide element, wherein the guide element is movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tool.”
Zhao though, shows in Figures 1 and 6 a tool carrying unit (62) that is associated with a tool shuttle (61+62). Figure 6 of Zhao shows the tool carrying unit (62) comprising at least one gripping mechanism, which in turn comprises a guide element that is movable relative to a base body (61) of the tool shuttle (61+62). Please be advised that the guide element corresponds to the piston rod of the third cylinder (626A) of Zhao. Per Zhao, the third cylinder (626A) drives the piston rod/guide element to move vertically [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0041]. Thus, the piston rod/guide element is “movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tool.”
Next, be advised that lines 23-24 of claim 22 set forth therein, “a securing element that is movable relative to the guide element.” Noting this, “a securing element” 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 securing element” is interpreted as comprising the structure disclosed in paragraph [0092] of Applicant’s specification filed on 4/20/2023, as well as equivalents thereto.
With respect to the prior art and Zhao, the securing element corresponds to multiple steel balls (623), wherein the multiple steel balls (623) are an equivalent of the securing element. This is because when the steel balls (623) are moved into an annular groove (711) (shown in Figure 6) of the tool, the tool is secured to the at least one gripping mechanism. Thus, the steel balls (623) constitute an equivalent of the “securing element.” This is because the steel balls (623) carry out the function that is specified line 23 of the claim, said function being “securing.” Also, the multiple steel balls (623) aren’t excluded by any explicit definition provided in Applicant’s specification, and the steel balls (623) produce substantially the same result as the corresponding “securing element (208)” of Applicant. As such, the steel balls (623) will herein after be referred to by Examiner as “the securing element (623).”
Noting the above, as it pertains to the at least one gripping mechanism, said at least one gripping mechanism comprises the securing element (623), wherein the securing element (623) is movable, e.g. laterally, relative to the piston rod/guide element. Based on the foregoing, Zhao teaches the at least one gripping mechanism of the tool carrying unit (62) comprising the piston rod/guide element that is movable relative to a base body (61) of the tool shuttle (61+62) and a securing element (623) that is movable relative to the piston rod/guide element, wherein the piston rod/guide element is movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tool.
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 carrying unit (62) of Zhao for the tool carrying unit (30, 31, 32) of Bernhard as this is a substitution of one known means for gripping a tool for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the tool carrying unit (62) of Zhao being associated with the too shuttle (29) of Bernhard such that said tool carrying unit (62) grips a tool (33+34) that is subsequently transferred through displacement of the tool shuttle (29) between the provision location (19) and the magazine location (12) of the tool magazine (11).
In making this substitution, when the third cylinder (626A) of the tool carrying unit (62) is actuated, the piston rod/guide element moves vertically relative to a base body (28) of the tool shuttle (29) of Bernhard. In doing so, the piston rod/guide element moves (vertically) parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool (33+34). Lastly, it is reiterated that the securing element (623) is movable, e.g. laterally, relative to the piston rod/guide element. Based on the foregoing, Bernhard/Zhao teaches, “a guide element that is movable relative to a base body of the tool shuttle and a securing element that is movable relative to the guide element, wherein the guide element is movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of the tool.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Figure 2 of Lee (U.S. PG Publication No. 2013/0260973 A1) shows therein an equipping device (100) for a tool magazine (20) of a machine tool, the equipping device (100) comprising a tool shuttle (120) that is movable between a first transfer location and a second transfer location. Figure 2 of Lee further shows a provision location 12(10) for insertion or removal of tools (T), a tool carrying unit (C) that is associated with the tool shuttle (120) and comprises at least one gripping mechanism (181+182) that is arranged to grip a tool to be transferred and to secure it to the tool shuttle (120). In use, the tool shuttle (120) is configured to exchange the tool (T) between the provision location 12(10) (please see Figure 2) and a magazine location 22(20) of the tool magazine (20). Also, the provision location 12(10) is accessible for the tool shuttle (120) in the first transfer position, whereas the magazine location 22(20) is accessible for the tool shuttle (120) in the second transfer position.
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