DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/20/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III (claims 14-20, drawn to “a machining device”) in the reply filed on 4/29/2024 was previously acknowledged.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species iii (drawn to “A third species in which the machining device (120) has the configuration of Figure 5 and the workpiece (W1) has the single-layer configuration of Figure 10A)” in the reply filed on 8/27/2024 was also previously acknowledged.
Claim 19 was previously withdrawn (and still is) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/27/2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 3, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 17, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 10,864,580 (hereinafter U.S. '580) in view of Dirscherl et al. (WIPO Publication No. WO 2016162483 A2).
Please note that Dirscherl et al. was cited on the IDS filed on 4/21/2023. An EPO Machine Translation of Dirscherl et al., which was provided by Applicant along with a copy of the reference on 4/21/2023, is relied upon and cited below.
For double patenting to exist between the rejected claim and a claim of U.S. '580, it must be determined that the rejected claim is not patentably distinct from the claim of U.S. '580. In order to make this determination, it first must be determined whether there are any differences between the rejected claim and the claim of U.S. '580, and if so, whether those differences render the claims patentably distinct.
With respect to claim 1 of U.S. '580, it is noted that a first difference between claim 1 of U.S. '580 and present claim 14 is that present claim 14 sets forth therein “superimpose longitudinal oscillation of the tool,” whereas claim 1 of U.S.C. '580 sets forth therein “superimpose oscillation of the tool”. Noting this, the oscillation of the tool of claim 1 of U.S.C. '580 is indeed “longitudinal” noting that oscillation of the tool of claim 1 of U.S.C. '580 is on the longitudinal feed axis during linear movement of the tool along the longitudinal feed axis. Based on the foregoing, the aforesaid first difference does not render the claims patentably distinct.
With respect to claim 1 of U.S. '580, it is noted that a second difference between claim 1 of U.S.C. '580 and present claim 14 is that claim 1 of U.S. '580 includes additional claims elements that are not found in present claim 14. However, similar to how the presence of additional structure or elements in a prior art reference does not change the fact that the reference teaches the limitations of a claim in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, the presence of those additional claims elements in claim 1 of U.S. '580 does not change the fact that claim 1 of U.S. '580 teaches elements of present claim 14. Based on the foregoing, while claim 1 of U.S. '580 includes additional claims elements not found in present claim 14, the presence of those additional claims elements does not change the fact that claim 1 of U.S. '580 teaches the elements of present claim 14, and does not render the claims patentably distinct.
Lastly, a third difference between claim 1 of U.S. '580 and present claim 14 is that present claim 14 sets forth therein “wherein the machining device utilizes a plurality of bearings disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support, wherein the plurality of bearings are not magnetically operated bearings.” Claim 1 of U.S. '580 does not provide disclosure for such.
Figures 1 and 2 of Dirscherl et al.; however, shows each of two radial bearings (13a, 13b) (two radial bearings (13a, 13b) constituting a plurality) that are disposed at a plurality of locations along a longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support to a tool (5) which is attached to a spindle shaft (3). According to Dirscherl et al., the two radial bearings (13a, 13b) can be embodied as, for example, liquid bearings and/or air bearings, each of which “are not magnetically operated bearings.” According to Dirscherl et al., “In an advantageous development, at least one radial bearing of the spindle shaft, preferably all bearings, can be designed as liquid bearings and/or air bearings. A liquid bearing can be, for example, a hydrodynamic or hydrostatic sliding bearing, an oil film being pressurized with the help of an external oil pump, as a result of which the two parts which move against one another do not come into direct contact. There is low-loss fluid friction. An air bearing can be designed as an aerostatic or aerodynamic bearing, in which the two bearing partners moved towards one another are separated by a thin air film. This enables stick-slip-free and frictionless movement. These types of bearings allow, at least within limits, a practically smooth axial displacement without increased mechanical resistance or abrasion, so that they are advantageously suitable for the radial mounting of the spindle shaft, which is axially superimposed with micro-vibration movements. These bearing types have a slim and robust design and can be easily integrated into tool drives” [EPO Machine Translation of Dirscherl et al., page 4, lines 141 – 155].
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 the machining device of present claim 14 with the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) of Dirscherl et al. that are disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis and that are designed as liquid bearings and/or as air bearings, and thus are not magnetically operated bearings, so as to provide the tool of present claim 14 with rotational support having the advantage of low friction. Based on the foregoing, claim 1 of U.S. '580/Dirscherl et al. reads on the limitations of present claim 14.
All of the limitations of present claim 15 are found in claim 2 of U.S. '580.
All of the limitations of present claim 16 are found in claim 4 of U.S. '580.
All of the limitations of present claim 18 are found in claim 3 of U.S. '580.
All of the limitations of present claim 21 are found in claim 8 of U.S. '580. Noting this, please be advised that present claim 21 sets forth therein, “to superimpose the longitudinal oscillation at a plurality of frequencies” whereas claim 8 of U.S. '580 sets forth therein, “to superimpose the oscillation at a plurality of frequencies.” Be advised the superimposed oscillation of claim 8 of U.S. '580 is indeed “longitudinal” noting that the linear motor is set forth in claim 1 of U.S. '580 (on which claim 8 of U.S. '580 directly depends) as providing linear movement along the longitudinal feed axis and as superimposing oscillation onto the longitudinal feed axis during said linear movement. As such, the rejected present claim (claim 21) is not patentably distinct from the claim of U.S. '580 (claim 8).
All of the limitations of present claim 22 are found in claim 9 of U.S. '580. Noting this, please be advised that present claim 22 sets forth therein, “provides the DC control signal” and “amount of current provided to the stator as a part of the DC control signal.” As it pertains to claim 9 of U.S. '580, it set forth therein, “to provide current to the stator of the linear motor” and further sets forth therein, “amount of current provided to the stator.” Please be advised that in claim 1 of U.S. '580 (on which claim 8 of U.S. '580 directly depends), it was set forth therein that “oscillating a direct current (DC) control signal provided to the linear motor.” It is noted that in providing an amount of current to the stator of the linear motor, that the direct current (DC) control signal is provided to said stator of the linear motor. As such, the rejected present claim (claim 22) is not patentably distinct from the claim of U.S. '580 (claim 9).
All of the limitations of present claim 23 are found in claim 12 of U.S. '580. Noting this, please be advised that present claim 23 sets forth therein, “superimpose the longitudinal oscillation of the tool onto the feed axis during said retracting” whereas claim 12 of U.S. '580 sets forth therein, “superimpose oscillation of the tool onto the longitudinal feed axis during said retracting.” Please be advised the superimposed oscillation of claim 12 of U.S. '580 is indeed “longitudinal” noting that oscillation of the tool is set forth in claim 12 of U.S. '580 as being superimposed onto the longitudinal feed axis during said retracting. As such, the rejected present claim (claim 23) is not patentably distinct from the claim of U.S. '580 (claim 12).
All of the limitations of present claim 24 are found in claim 14 of U.S. '580.
All of the limitations of present claim 25 are found in claim 17 of U.S. '580. Noting this, please first be advised that present claim 25 sets forth therein, “the longitudinal oscillation is superimposed at a particular oscillation frequency” whereas claim 17 of U.S. '580 sets forth therein, “the oscillating is superimposed at the optimal oscillation frequency.” Please be advised that because an optimal frequency is a particular frequency, the rejected present claim (claim 25) is not patentably distinct from the claim of U.S. '580 (claim 17) for this difference concerning the oscillation frequency. Furthermore, be that superimposed oscillating of claim 17 of U.S. '580 is indeed “longitudinal” noting that the linear motor is set forth in claim 1 of U.S. '580 (on which claim 17 of U.S. '580 directly depends) as providing linear movement along the longitudinal feed axis and as superimposing oscillation onto the longitudinal feed axis during said linear movement. Based on the foregoing, the rejected present claim (claim 25) is not patentably distinct from the claim of U.S. '580 (claim 17).
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 14, 15, 18 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirscherl et al. (WIPO Publication No. WO 2016162483 A2) and Slee (U.S. Patent No. 4,646,595 A).
Please note that Dirscherl et al. was cited on the IDS filed on 4/21/2023. An EPO Machine Translation of Dirscherl et al., which was provided by Applicant along with a copy of the reference on 4/21/2023, is relied upon and cited below.
Claim 14: Figure 1 of Dirscherl et al. illustrates a machining device (1) comprising a tool (5), a controller (16), and a spindle drive (2). With regards to the spindle drive (2), it is embodied as a multi-pole asynchronous motor [EPO machine translation, page 12, lines 478-479]. Since the spindle drive (2)/multi-pole asynchronous motor functions to set the tool (5) in rotation about a longitudinal feed axis during linear movement of the tool (5), said spindle drive (2) constitutes a rotary motor.
In addition to the above elements, it is noted that Figure 2 shows a cross-section of the machining device (1). In Figure 2, the machining device (1) is shown as further comprising an axial actuator (14). Per Dirscherl et al., the axial actuator is to be provided as an axial magnetic bearing, as a linear motor, or as a combination of an axial magnetic bearing and a linear motor. With regards to the linear motor, it can generate a macro feed movement and a micro-vibration movement at the same time [EPO machine translation, page 3, line 119 – page 4, line 123]. Thus, when the axial actuator (14) is embodied as the linear motor, the machining device (1) comprises said linear motor. (Please note that the axial actuator (14) of Dirscherl et al. has been interpreted by Examiner as being embodied as a linear motor). Please note that Dirscherl et al. further advises that the axial actuator (14) (which again is considered to be embodied as the linear motor) is controlled by a control and/or regulating device (said control and/or regulating device being controller 16) for generating a micro-vibration movement of a spindle shaft (3) (to which tool 5 is mounted) independently of and superimposed on a feed in order to influence the chip size and the chip shape of material removal [EPO machine translation, page 3, lines 97 – 101]. Also, it is advised that the axial direction of movement corresponds to the direction of the axis of rotation of the spindle drive (2) and tool (5) [EPO machine translation, page 4, lines 138 – 139].
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that said linear motor provides linear movement of the tool (5) along the longitudinal feed axis, and superimposes longitudinal oscillation/vibration of the tool (5) onto the longitudinal feed axis during said linear movement. It is further evident that the controller (16) is operable to cause the linear motor to provide the linear movement and superimpose the longitudinal oscillation/vibration. Please note that the controller (16) controls said axial actuator (14)/linear motor by a controlled and variable influencing of current [EPO machine translation, page 3, lines 108 – 111]. Thus, the controller (16) is operable to cause the linear motor to provide the linear movement and superimpose the longitudinal oscillation/vibration by oscillating a current control signal to said linear movement.
Next, Figures 1 and 2, Dirscherl et al. show the machining device (1) as further utilizing a plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) that are disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support to the spindle shaft (3), noting that it is to the spindle shaft (3) that the tool (5) is attached. According to Dirscherl et al., the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) can be embodied as, for example, liquid bearings and/or air bearings. It is advised that in accordance with claim 1, liquid bearings and/or air bearings “are not magnetically operated bearings.” (For this rejection of claim 14, the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) have been interpreted by Examiner as being embodied as liquid bearings and/or air bearings). Per Dirscherl et al., “In an advantageous development, at least one radial bearing of the spindle shaft, preferably all bearings, can be designed as liquid bearings and/or air bearings. A liquid bearing can be, for example, a hydrodynamic or hydrostatic sliding bearing, an oil film being pressurized with the help of an external oil pump, as a result of which the two parts which move against one another do not come into direct contact. There is low-loss fluid friction. An air bearing can be designed as an aerostatic or aerodynamic bearing, in which the two bearing partners moved towards one another are separated by a thin air film. This enables stick-slip-free and frictionless movement. These types of bearings allow, at least within limits, a practically smooth axial displacement without increased mechanical resistance or abrasion, so that they are advantageously suitable for the radial mounting of the spindle shaft, which is axially superimposed with micro-vibration movements. These bearing types have a slim and robust design and can be easily integrated into tool drives” [EPO Machine Translation of Dirscherl et al., page 4, lines 141 – 155].
Dirscherl et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the construction of the linear motor. As such, Dirscherl et al. does not provide disclosure on the linear motor “comprising a core and stator that each surround [the] longitudinal feed axis” or on the control signal that is oscillated by the controller (16) being a “direct current (DC) control signal.”
Figure 4 of Slee though, shows a machining device having a rod (28) through which a longitudinal feed axis extends. Said machining device is further shown as having a linear motor that comprises a core (25) and a stator (26) that each surround said longitudinal feed axis, and a tool (31) that is attached to a rod extension (29) of said rod (28). As to the linear motor, it is embodied as a DC linear motor. Please note that according to Slee, the coils of the stator (26) are connected to a control system (12) [column 4, lines 22-23]. Noting that the output signal is an electrical output signal [column 3, lines 63-64], and because said linear motor is a DC linear motor, it follows that the electrical output signals provided from the control system (12) to said DC linear motor are DC electrical output signals/control signals. Lastly, it is noted that aside from linear movement, the tool (31) can incur vibration during machining [abstract].
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 DC linear motor of Slee for the axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al., as this is a substitution of one known linear motor for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the DC linear motor being controlled by the controller (16) of Dirscherl et al. so as to provide the linear movement and superimpose the longitudinal oscillation/vibration onto the longitudinal feed axis during the linear movement.
In making the above substitution, it is noted that the DC linear motor of the modified machining device (1) comprises a core (25) and a stator (26), and said core (25) and stator (26) surround the longitudinal feed axis. Moreover, in making this modification, the controller (16) superimposes the longitudinal oscillation by oscillating a direct current (DC) control signal to the machining device’s (1) newly-integrated DC linear motor.
Claim 15: In Figure 1, Dirscherl et al. shows each of the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) as having assigned thereto a respective measuring transducer (18). Please note that each measuring transducer (18) is part of a sensor (18, 19) of the machining device (1). Noting this, each measuring transducer (18) measures current values related to rotation of the tool (5), noting that the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) provide support for rotation of the spindle shaft (3) to which the tool (5) is attached thereto. According to Dirscherl et al., the controller (16) is connected to the two measuring transducers (18) and to the spindle drive (2)/rotary motor, and the controller (16) is operable to control the spindle drive (2)/rotary motor based on feedback from the sensor (18, 19), specifically based on feedback from the measuring transducers (18) of said sensor (18, 19) [Dirscherl et al.; EPO machine translation, page 12, lines 485 – 496; and page 13, lines 513-517] in order to achieve desired chip sizes and desired chip shapes and in order to achieve increased service life, for example.
Claim 18: Dirscherl et al. discloses that deflection of the spindle shaft (3) can be measured by a high-level position sensing system using the sensor (18, 19) [Dirscherl et al. EPO machine translation, page 11, lines 434 – 436]. Since the tool (5) is mounted to the spindle shaft (3), and because the spindle shaft (3) moves with respect to the stator (26) of the DC linear motor (of Slee which replaced the axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al.), it follows that a measurement of the deflection of the spindle shaft (3) is a measurement of a linear displacement of the tool (5) relative to said stator (26). Since the sensor (18, 19) includes a plurality of measuring transducers (18, 19) [Dirscherl et al. EPO machine translation, page 13, lines 513 – 514], and because the deflection (which again is a linear displacement) of the spindle shaft (3) is measured by using the plurality of measuring transducers (18, 19), these measuring transducers (18, 19) constitute “displacement transducer[s] operable to measure a linear displacement of the tool relative to the stator.” (Be advised that “linear displacement of the tool relative to the stator” is broadly set forth by Applicant in claim 18, noting that this limitation does is not set forth any particular axis with respect to which or along which the claimed linear displacement occurs).
Claim 21: The controller (16) of Dirscherl et al. is configured to command the DC linear motor (of Slee which replaced the axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al. in the modified machining device (1)) to perform a frequency sweep within a frequency band, and thereby cause said DC linear motor to superimpose the longitudinal oscillation at a plurality of different frequencies. This is known, as Dirscherl et al. provides disclosure upon the controller (16) apparatus being configured to generate micro-vibrational movements between 1Hz and 1kHz (this being the frequency band) [Dirscherl et al. EPO machine translation, page 8, lines 312 – 314] where the micro-vibrational movements are dynamically changed [EPO machine translation, page 8, lines 309 – 311] and are adjusted during the drilling process [EPO machine translation, page 10, lines 401 – 405], thereby enabling desired chip sizes and chip shapes to be achieved and service life to be increased, for example [EPO machine translation, page 12, lines 491 – 496].
Claim 22: As was stated above in the rejection of claim 14, 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 DC linear motor of Slee for the axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al., as this is a substitution of one known linear motor for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the DC linear motor being controlled by the controller (16) of Dirscherl et al. so as to provide the linear movement and superimpose the longitudinal oscillation/vibration onto the longitudinal feed axis during the linear movement. Noting this, according to Slee, the coils of the stator (26) of the DC linear motor are to be connected to a control system, and signals from the control system cause movement of the rod (28) [Slee, column 4, lines 22-32], wherein the signals are variable electric output signals [Slee, column 3, lines 54-66]. Thus, in the modified machining device (1) of Dirscherl et al., the coils of the stator (26) of the DC linear motor of Slee are connected to the controller (16) of Dirscherl et al. so as to receive variable electrical output DC control signals therefrom. Please be advised that prior to modification, Dirscherl et al. advised that the controller (16) controls said axial actuator (14)/linear motor by a controlled and variable influencing of current [EPO machine translation, page 3, lines 108 – 111]. Noting this, within the modified machining device (1) of Dirscherl et al., the controller (16) is configured to provide controlled and variable influencing of current in the DC controls signal to the coils of the stator (26) of the DC linear motor (of Slee which replaced the axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al.) in the modified machining device (1)).
Please be advised that in the modified machining device (1) of Dirscherl et al. that the magnetic bearing (30) of the DC linear motor (of Slee which replaced the axial actuator (14)/ linear motor of Dirscherl et al.) is assigned the measuring transducer (19) of Dirscherl et al. This is because prior to the modification, Dirscherl et al. advised that the axial actuator (14)/linear motor was assigned said measuring transducer (19) [Dirscherl et al., EPO machine translation, page 12, lines 488 – 489]. Noting this, the controller (16) converts current values measured in a bearing, e.g. the magnetic bearing (30) of the DC linear motor, with the measuring transducer (19) into force values [Dirscherl et al., EPO machine translation, page 13, lines 508 – 517]. Thus, the controller (16) is configured to determine a thrust force applied by the tool (5) based on an amount of current provided to the stator (26) of the DC linear motor as part of the DC control signal.
Claim 23: In order to provide linear movement to the tool (5), e.g. a drill (32), controller (16) is configured to advance the tool (5)/drill (32) in a first direction. This can be seen in Figure 6 of Dirscherl et al. After a machining operation in which a drill channel (46) has been formed, the controller (16) is configured to retract the tool (5)/drill (32) along the feed axis in a second direction opposite to the first direction. This is inherent, because if the tool (5)/drill (32) wasn’t retracted in the second direction, then the tool (5)/drill (32) would not be able to exit the drill channel (46) and workpiece. Lastly, the controller (16) of Dirscherl et al. is configured to, after a machining operation, to superimpose the longitudinal oscillation of the tool (5)/drill (32) onto the feed axis during said retracting, noting that axial micro movements (vibrations) of the spindle shaft (3) may be independent of or may be superimposed on feed movement along the feed axis [Dirscherl et al., EPO machine translation, page 3, lines 97 – 107]. Please note that this feed movement along the feed axis is not limited to any one direction, and as such, when there is linear feed movement, including retraction in the second direction, superimposed longitudinal oscillation of the tool (5)/drill (32) on the feed axis is selectable.
Claim 24: As can be seen in Figure 6 of Dirscherl et al., the machining device (1) is configured to perform a drilling operation that drills a hole (46) from a first side to a second side of a workpiece portion (38a). According to Dirscherl et al., reaching or passing through the boundary layer (44) can be detected by a change in the energy consumption or a change in dynamic behavior, e.g. the torque or feed rate of the tool (5), e.g. a drill (32), [Dirscherl et al., EPO machine translation, page 14, lines 552 – 563]. Since the change is defined with respect to a torque or a feed rate of the tool (5)/drill (32) before having reached or passed through the boundary layer (44) compared to the torque or the feed rate of the tool (5)/drill (32) after having reached or passed through the boundary layer (44), any change in feed rate/velocity, for example, may be considered to be exceeding of a predefined threshold, wherein the predefined threshold was the feed rate/velocity of the tool (5)/drill (32) when cutting into the workpiece portion (38a) prior to said tool (5)/drill (32) having reached the boundary layer (44). The controller (16) is therefore configured to determine that the tool (5)/drill (32) has advanced beyond the second side of the workpiece portion (38a) based on a rate of change of the feed rate/velocity of the tool (5)/ drill (32) exceeding the predefined threshold.
Claim 25: As can be seen in Figure 6 of Dirscherl et al., the machining device (1) is configured to perform a drilling operation that drills a hole (46) through a first workpiece portion (38a) and a second workpiece portion (38b). In drilling the hole (46), please be advised that longitudinal oscillation of the tool (5), e.g. a drill (32), is superimposed at a particular frequency. Noting this, the boundary layer (44) between these two portions (38a, 38b) is a non-homogenous zone (44). According to Dirscherl et al., reaching or passing through the boundary layer (44) can be detected by a change in the energy consumption or a change in dynamic behavior, e.g. the torque or feed rate of the tool (5), e.g. a drill (32), [Dirscherl et al., EPO machine translation, page 14, lines 552 – 563]. Since the change is defined with respect to a torque or a linear feed rate of the tool (5)/drill (32) before having reached or passed through the boundary layer (44) compared to the torque or the feed rate of the tool (5)/drill (32) after having reached or passed through the boundary layer (44), any change in feed rate/velocity, for example, may be considered to be exceeding of a predefined threshold in the form of a predefined percent, where the predefined threshold was the feed rate/ velocity of the tool (5)/drill (32) when cutting into the workpiece portion (38a) prior to said tool (5)/drill (32) having reached the boundary layer (44). Therefore, the controller (16) is configured to determine that the tool (5)/drill (32) has encountered the (boundary layer) non-homogenous zone (44) based on the linear feed rate/velocity changing by more than the predefined percent whilst longitudinal oscillation of said tool (5)/drill (32) is superimposed at the particular frequency.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirscherl et al. (WIPO Publication No. WO 2016162483 A2) and Slee (U.S. Patent No. 4,646,595 A), and further in view of Adachi (U.S. Patent No. 4,958,967 A).
Claim 16: Dirscherl et al. provides disclosure on the machining device (1) comprising a support housing having opposing first and second sides, and defining an internal cavity, wherein the spindle drive (2)/rotary motor of Dirscherl et al. and the DC linear motor (of Slee which replaced the axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al.) are mounted to the support housing. It is noted that Dirscherl et al. shows the support housing having a rectangular cross-section (from the perspective of Figure 1) and having an inside surface to which the spindle drive (2)/rotary motor is mounted. It is also noted that the “opposing first and second sides” may be, for example, the opposing top and bottom sides of the support housing. For instance, the first side/top side of the support housing is the side at which the proximal end of the spindle shaft (3) is disposed, while the second side/bottom side of the support housing is the opposing side at which the distal end of said spindle shaft (3) is disposed and at which the tool holder (6) is disposed. Next, it is noted that Figure 1 shows the axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al. as being mounted to the inside surface of support housing. Noting this, since the DC linear motor of Slee replaced said axial actuator (14)/linear motor of Dirscherl et al., it follows that said DC linear motor of Slee would also be mounted to the inside surface of the support housing. Thus, Dirscherl et al./ Slee provide discloses, “a support housing having opposing first and second sides, and defining an internal cavity, the linear motor and the rotary motor mounted to the support housing.”
Regarding the aforesaid spindle shaft (3), it in and of itself is a driveshaft, and as can be seen between Figures 1 and 2 of Dirscherl et al., said spindle shaft (3)/driveshaft couples the spindle drive (2)/rotary motor to the tool (4) and extends through the internal cavity. (It is noted that the internal cavity is the negative space located within the confines of spindle housing). Please be advised that when the spindle drive (2)/rotary motor is actuated, the spindle shaft (3)/ driveshaft is set into rotation.
Dirscherl et al. though, does not provide disclosure on, “wherein a central longitudinal axis of the rotary motor is parallel to and spaced apart from the longitudinal feed axis, and a drive mechanism within the internal cavity translates rotation of a spindle of the rotary motor to rotation of the driveshaft.”
Adachi though shows a support housing (11) defining an internal cavity, wherein a central longitudinal axis of a rotary motor (18) is parallel to and spaced from a longitudinal feed axis of a driveshaft (13). Adachi further shows a driven mechanism (17) (which is in the form a gear train) being with the internal cavity. Noting this, the drive mechanism (17) functions to translate rotation of a spindle of the rotary motor to rotation of the driveshaft (13). Be advised that the drive mechanism (17) connects to a driven gear (16) that surrounds the driveshaft (13). Please also be advised that the rotary motor (18) is mounted to the support housing (11) by way of at least intermediate structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the rotary motor (18) and the corresponding drive mechanism (17) and driven gear (16) of Adachi for the spindle drive (2)/ rotary motor of Dircherl et al., as this is a substitution of one known means for setting a driveshaft into rotation for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of actuation of the rotary motor (18) of Adachi setting the spindle shaft (3)/driveshaft of Dircherl et al. into rotation via the drive mechanism (17) and driven gear (16).
In making the above modification, the driven gear (16) of Adachi surrounds the spindle shaft (3)/driveshaft of Dircherl et al. in accordance with the disclosure of Adachi. Moreover, in the modified machining device (1) of Dircherl et al., the central longitudinal axis of the rotary motor (18) of Adachi is parallel to and spaced apart (offset) from the longitudinal feed axis in accordance with the disclosure of Adachi, and the corresponding drive mechanism (17) (which is in the internal cavity of the support housing of Dircherl et al.) translates rotation of the spindle of the rotary motor (18) to rotation of the spindle shaft (3)/driveshaft of Dircherl et al. by means of the driven gear (16) of Adachi. It is reiterated that said driven gear (16) surrounds the spindle shaft (3)/driveshaft of Dircherl et al. in accordance with the disclosure of Adachi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 14 and the prior art, Applicant argues the following:
Claims 14-15, 18, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. $103 for allegedly being obvious over Dirscherl et al. (WO 2016/162483) and Slee (US 4,646,595). However, the rejection should be withdrawn because the combination of references does not disclose “wherein the machining device utilizes a plurality of bearings disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support, wherein the plurality of bearings are not magnetically operated bearings.”
PNG
media_image1.png
722
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Every embodiment of Dirscherl utilizes magnetic bearings 14 (alternately referred to as “thrust bearings” 14 in portions of Dirscherl). Even in the non-depicted embodiments where a linear motor may be provided to provide axial feed movement, magnetic bearings are still utilized to provide microvibration along the feed axis (see, e.g., Dirscherl Abstract).
Referring to Figure 2 of Dirscherl (reproduced above), the axial magnetic / thrust bearings 14 are depicted along with “radial bearings 13A” and non-labeled bearings (see lowest striped arrow above). Dirscherl discloses that “The thrust bearing 14 comprises two toroidal magnets which are axially opposite to arranged around the spindle shaft rotatably arranged disc armature and by means of which a displacement of the shaft in the axial direction is made possible,” and Dirscherl further discloses that “Both the radial bearings 13a, b and the thrust bearing 14 are designed as magnetic bearings.” Also, the non-labeled bearings of Figure 2 (lowest striped arrow above) use the same symbol as the other bearings 13, 14, and just like the bearings 13, 14 are spaced away from Dirscherl’s tool holder shaft 6. Accordingly, each of Dirscherl’s bearings should be interpreted as magnetic bearings. There are no non-magnetic bearings disclosed by Dirscherl at all, and certainly not a plurality of them “disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support.”
Nor would it have been obvious to modify Dirscherl to include non-magnetic bearings. The term “magnetic” appears 86 times in Dirscherl in connection with bearings, and magnetic bearings are discussed at length in the background of Dirscherl. The magnetic bearings are central to the functionality of Dirscherl, as evidenced by this statement from the reference: “Magnetically supported spindle shafts offer the possibility of at least slightly moving the shaft in the radial direction.”
Dirscherl also directly disparages non-magnetic bearings where Dirscherl states: “n advantage of a magnetically supported radial bearing for a combination with an axial vibration movement is that conventional rolling bearings in machining spindles do not permit axial vibration, and furthermore a high degree of wear is required, especially at high rotational speeds.” Thus, Dirscherl not only teaches against the use of non-magnetic bearings, but changing Dirsherl’s magnetic bearings to be non-magnetic would change the principle of operation of Dirscherl. Accordingly, modifying Dirscherl to use non-magnetic bearings would not comport with MPEP §2143.01(VI) or MPEP § 2144.05(ID(B). Thus, even if Slee were to disclose use of non-magnetic bearings (a point not conceded by Applicant), it still would not have been obvious to modify Dirscherl to use such bearings.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the §103 rejection over Dirscherl and Slee should be withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that, “Every embodiment of Dirscherl utilizes magnetic bearings 14 (alternately referred to as “thrust bearings” 14 in portions of Dirscherl). Even in the non-depicted embodiments where a linear motor may be provided to provide axial feed movement, magnetic bearings are still utilized to provide microvibration along the feed axis (see, e.g., Dirscherl Abstract),” it is unclear as to why Applicant is focusing on these particular
“thrust bearings (14).” This will now be explained.
Claim 1 sets forth, “a plurality of bearings disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support” (emphasis added). First, the axial
actuator (14) does not provide rotational support, and Examiner is not relying on the axial actuator (14) for teaching a provision of rotational support. Noting this, even when the axial actuator (14) is embodied as, for example, magnetic bearings, the axial actuator (14)/magnetic bearings would not qualify as “a plurality of bearings disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support” as it set forth in claim 1. Rather, the axial actuator (14) provides for axial adjustment of the spindle shaft (3). More specifically, per Dirscherl et al., “there is the possibility within the scope of the invention that the position of the spindle shaft 3 in the axial direction within the tool drive 1 can also be adjusted by means of the axial bearing 14. This is achieved by exact adjustment of the magnetic gap within the axial bearing and the modulation of an adjustable vibrations movement, so that the infeed movement or feed movement can take place within certain limits by controlling the axial bearing 14” [Dirscherl et al., EPO machine translation, page 12, line 498 – page 13, line 503].
Since the axial actuator (14), even when embodied as the magnetic bearings, doesn't provide rotational support and therefore isn’t being relied upon by Examiner to teach, “a plurality of bearings disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support,” Applicant’s argument concerning the axial actuator (14) and the new limitation of claim 14 as filed on 6/20/2025 is moot.
Lastly, for the sake of completeness, Examiner would like to address Applicant’s argument that, “Every embodiment of Dirscherl utilizes magnetic bearings 14 (alternately referred to as “thrust bearings” 14 in portions of Dirscherl).” This argument isn’t accurate. Examiner points Applicant to EPO machine translation, page 3, line 119 – page 4, line 123. In these lines Applicant states the following: “According to the invention, the axial actuator is to be provided as an axial magnetic bearing, as a linear motor, or as a combination of an axial magnetic bearing and a linear motor. For example, the linear motor can generate a macro feed movement and a micro-vibration movement at the same time.” As can be seen in this passage of Dirscherl et al., the axial actuator (14) is able to be provided as an axial magnetic bearing, as a linear motor, or as a combination of an axial magnetic bearing and a linear motor. Since the axial actuator (14) can be provided as just a linear motor, Applicant’s argument that, “Every embodiment of Dirscherl utilizes magnetic bearings 14 (alternately referred to as “thrust bearings” 14 in portions of Dirscherl),” is inaccurate and is therefore not persuasive.
Next, Examiner will address the following argument, “Referring to Figure 2 of Dirscherl (reproduced above), the axial magnetic / thrust bearings 14 are depicted along with “radial bearings 13A” and non-labeled bearings (see lowest striped arrow above). Dirscherl discloses that “The thrust bearing 14 comprises two toroidal magnets which are axially opposite to arranged around the spindle shaft rotatably arranged disc armature and by means of which a displacement of the shaft in the axial direction is made possible,” and Dirscherl further discloses that “Both the radial bearings 13a, b and the thrust bearing 14 are designed as magnetic bearings.” Also, the non-labeled bearings of Figure 2 (lowest striped arrow above) use the same symbol as the other bearings 13, 14, and just like the bearings 13, 14 are spaced away from Dirscherl’s tool holder shaft 6. Accordingly, each of Dirscherl’s bearings should be interpreted as magnetic bearings. There are no non-magnetic bearings disclosed by Dirscherl at all, and certainly not a plurality of them “disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support.”
First, it is reiterated that the axial actuator (14), even when embodied as the magnetic bearings, doesn't provide rotational support and therefore isn’t being relied upon by Examiner to teach, “a plurality of bearings disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support.” As such, Applicant’s concerning the axial actuator (14) and the new limitation of claim 14 as filed on 6/20/2025 is moot.
Next, Examiner would like to address, “Referring to Figure 2 of Dirscherl (reproduced above), the axial magnetic / thrust bearings 14 are depicted along with “radial bearings 13A” and non-labeled bearings (see lowest striped arrow above).” Please note that unlike what Applicant is arguing with “radial bearings 13A,” (notice the plural “bearings” in Applicant’s argument) there is only one radial bearing 13a. Also, in Figure 2 of Dirscherl et al., the bearing that Applicant points to with the “lowest striped arrow above” is actually labeled, and it is labeled as “13b.” Thus, in addition to radial bearing 13A, the machining device has radial bearing 13B. Therefore, the machining device (1) of Dirscherl et al., as seen in at least Figures 1 and 2 of Dirscherl et al., comprises a plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b). Please be advised that the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) correspond to the claimed plurality of bearings of amended claim 1 as filed on 6/20/2025. This will now be explained.
Figures 1 and 2, Dirscherl et al. show the machining device (1) as further comprising a plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) that are disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support to the spindle shaft (3) to which the tool (5) is attached. The plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) can be embodied as, for example, liquid bearings and/or air bearings. Please be advised that in accordance with claim 1, liquid bearings and/or air bearings “are not magnetically operated bearings.” (For this rejection of claim 14, it is noted that the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) have been interpreted by Examiner as being embodied as liquid bearings and/or air bearings). Therefore, the machining device (1) of Dirscherl et al. utilizes a plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) that are disposed at a plurality of locations along the longitudinal feed axis to provide rotational support to the spindle shaft (3), wherein the plurality of bearings (13a, 13b) are not magnetically operated bearings. Disclosure for the plurality of radial bearings (13a, 13b) being able to be embodied as, for example, liquid bearings and/or air bearings can seen in the below excerpt of Dirscherl et al.
[EPO Machine Translation of Dirscherl et al., page 4, lines 141 – 155] “In an advantageous development, at least one radial bearing of the spindle shaft, preferably all bearings, can be designed as liquid bearings and/or air bearings. A liquid bearing can be, for example, a hydrodynamic or hydrostatic sliding bearing, an oil film being pressurized with the help of an external oil pump, as a result of which the two parts which move against one another do not come into direct contact. There is low-loss fluid friction. An air bearing can be designed as an aerostatic or aerodynamic bearing, in which the two bearing partners moved towards one another are separated by a thin air film. This enables stick-slip-free and frictionless movement. These types of bearings allow, at least within limits, a practically smooth axial displacement without increased mechanical resistance or abrasion, so that they are advantageously suitable for the radial mounting of the spindle shaft, which is axially superim