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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
This application is claiming the benefit of prior-filed application No. 17/667,879 under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Copendency between the current application and the prior application is required. Since the applications are not copending, the benefit claim to the prior-filed application is improper. Applicant is required to delete the claim to the benefit of the prior-filed application, unless applicant can establish copendency between the applications.
In particular, it is noted that in 17/667,879, a Non-Final Office Action was mailed October 3, 2022 with a shortened 3-month statutory period for reply. No response to that Non-Final Office Action was filed, and thus, the case was abandoned as of the expiration of that 3-month shortened statutory period for reply (i.e., the case was abandoned as of January 4, 2023), and accordingly, a Notice of Abandonment was mailed April 27, 2023. The present application was filed on March 24, 2023, which is after the 3-month statutory period of response to the 10/3/2022 Office Action in 17/667,879, and thus, the present application was not copending with the 17/667,879 application.
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:
“fastening portion” (or “fastening portions”) in claims 7, 12, 14-15 (plural occurrences in claim 7).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4, 6, 7-10, 12, and 14-20 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.
In claim 1, line 10, the claim recites “a servo motor correspondingly integrated with the milling tool…”. However, it is unclear as claimed what effect the term “correspondingly” is intended to have on the scope of the claim, i.e., it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard the integration of the servo motor with the milling tool is to be considered to occur “correspondingly”, i.e., correspondingly in what manner or regard, what corresponds to what, etc.
In claim 7, noting that line 2 recites “four edge milling components, each comprising:…”, it is unclear as claimed whether each of the (four) edge milling components requires a respective one of the listed elements, or whether each of the edge milling components collectively includes one of the listed elements. That being said, in the event that the claim intends to require that each of the edge milling components requires a respective one of the listed elements, then it is noted that there are a number of limitations in claim 7 (and the claims dependent therefrom) that lack sufficient antecedent basis, as a singular element is referred to as “the” element, rendering it unclear which (of the four such previously recited elements) such element is intended to be referenced. These limitations (lacking sufficient antecedent basis) will be addressed hereinbelow.
In particular, there are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the milling tool” in at least claim 7, lines 4, 7, 8, 8-9, 11, 12, 13, 16, and in claim 17, line 5;
“the support structure” in at least claim 7, lines 5, 6-7, 23, 27, in claim 16, lines 3 and 5-6, in claim 17, lines 1-2, in claim 18, line 3, in claim 19, line 3, and in claim 20, lines 1-2;
“the carrying structure” in at least claim 7, lines 7, and in claim 19, last line;
“the shaft coupling” in at least claim 7, lines 12, 13, 16, 17-18, 19, 20;
“the servo motor” in at least claim 7, lines 12-13, 14, 17, 19;
“the shaft coupling base” in at least claim 7, lines 15, 16;
“the…milling head” in at least claim 7, lines 16-17;
“the rotating shaft of the servo motor” in at least claim 7, line 19;
“the rotating shaft of the milling head” in at least claim 7, lines 19-20;
“the milling head” in at least claim 7, line 20;
“the working surface” in at least claim 7, lines 22, 25 (in the event that four base platforms and working surfaces are intended to be required);
“the positioning structure” in at least claim 7, lines 25, 27, 27-28, 33-34, 35, 36, 39-40, and in claim 17, line 4 (in the event that four positioning structures are intended to be required);
“the two fastening portions” in at least claim 7, line 35 (in the event that four instances of “two fastening portions” are intended to be required);
“the base platform” in at least claim 7, lines 37-38, claim 16, line 2, claim 17, line 4, claim 18, line 2, and in claim 20, last line (in the event that four base platforms are intended to be required);
“the two further fastening portions” in at least claim 7, lines 40 and 42-43 (in the event that four instances of “two further fastening portions” are intended to be required);
“the two support frames” in at least claim 7, line 41, and in claim 15, line 3 (in the event that four instances of “two support frames” are intended to be required);
“the multi-layer rectangular plate body” in at least claim 8, line 2, and claim 14 (in the event that four such multi-layer rectangular plate bodies are intended to be required);
“the placing platform” in at least claim 8, lines 3 and 5, and claim 9, line 2, and claim 14, lines 3-4 and 4-5 (in the event that four such placing platforms are intended to be required);
“the fastening portion” in claim 12, lines 1-2 (plural fastening portions previously recited);
“the two fastening portions” in at least claim 14, penultimate line, and in claim 15, penultimate line (firstly, noting that it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to refer to the two fastening portions previously recited in claim 7, line 33, or whether such is instead intended to refer to the “two further fastening portions” previously recited in claim 7, line 39 which are, nevertheless, a previous recitation of “two fastening portions”; and furthermore, in the event that four instances of “two fastening portions” and four instances of “two further fastening portions” were intended to be required in claim 7, it is unclear which specific two fastening portions are intended to be referenced);
“the arm frame” in claim 15, last two lines (in the event plural arm frames were intended to be previously recited); and
“the stand frame” in claim 15, last line (in the event plural stand frames were intended to be previously recited).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
It is noted that in claim 7, lines 3-13, a list of claim elements (presumably all being recited as being part of each of the four edge milling components, re line 2) is set forth. Then in lines 14-20, a “wherein” limitation is provided, followed by (in lines 21-43) a further list of claim elements. That being said, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim elements (in lines 21-43) following the “wherein” limitation (of lines 14-20) are intended to be part of the list of elements of the “four edge milling components, each comprising: “ as set forth in line 2, or whether the list of elements set forth in lines 21-43 are instead intended to be set forth as part of the “edge milling device, comprising: ” that was set forth in line 1 of claim 7. It is noted that it appears that as disclosed, the elements recited in lines 21-43 are not part of the disclosed four edge milling components, though appropriate correction to the claim language is required if such is Applicant’s intend re the language of claim 7. That said, it is noted that the issues noted above regarding a lack of clarity as to how many of a given claim element are intended to be required likewise carries over to lines 21-43 of claim 7, and resultantly, so do many antecedent basis issues.
In claim 7, lines 26-27, the claim recites “wherein the four edge milling components are disposed at four side edges of the positioning structure”. However, firstly, given the lack of clarity as to how many positioning structures were previously recited, such is unclear. Furthermore, noting that it is unclear as claimed whether the claim intends to recite that the edge milling components each include “a positioning structure” as claimed (see claim 7, lines 2 and 24), it is unclear how or in what regard the four edge milling components (as a whole) are to be considered to be able to be disposed at side edges of a portion of themselves, as claimed. Additionally, it is unclear what configurations are included by the limitation “wherein the four edge milling components are disposed at four side edges of the positioning structure”, and what configurations are excluded by such limitation. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to require that each of the four edge milling components is disposed at a respective one of four side edges of “the positioning structure”, whether such is intended to require that the four edge milling components are (collectively) disposed at (collectively) four side edges of “the positioning structure”, etc.
In claim 7, lines 26-28, the claim recites “wherein the four edge milling components are…displaced relative to the positioning structure”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether such intends to refer to an action of the four edge milling components (i.e., the action of the four edge milling components being displaced/moved), or whether such instead intends to refer to a location of the four edge milling components with respect to the positioning structure (i.e., the four edge milling components being located at a location that is “displaced” relative to, for example, a location of the positioning structure).
In claim 7, lines 33-34, the claim sets forth “two fastening portions disposed to correspond to the positioning structure and extend toward the target object”. However, there is no frame of reference provided in the claim for determining from/relative to what (element/plane/axis/etc.) the two fastening portions “extend toward” the target object, i.e., extend from or relative to what/where “toward the target object”?
In claim 7, lines 39-43, the claim recites “two further fastening portions located outside two opposite corners of the positioning structure, wherein the two further fastening portions are respectively disposed on a main frame extending on a surface of each of the two support frames, such that two of the four foot bases of the target object are held diagonally by the two further fastening portions”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many (and in what configuration) further fastening portions to how many (and in what configuration) main frames are intended to be required. In the event that the claim intends to require that the two further fastening portions are each disposed on a respective main frame, Applicant may wish to consider language such as –wherein the two further fastening portions are each disposed on a respective main frame…”.
In claim 7, lines 39-43, the claim recites “two further fastening portions located outside two opposite corners of the positioning structure, wherein the two further fastening portions are respectively disposed on a main frame extending on a surface of each of the two support frames, such that two of the four foot bases of the target object are held diagonally by the two further fastening portions”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “extending on a surface of each of the two support frames”, e.g., the main frame (or possibly plural main frames, noting that it is unclear how many main frames are intended to be required, as noted above), or the two further fastening portions (or possibly the four instances of two further fastening portions, noting the lack of clarity as to whether the limitation “two further fastening portions” is intended to go with “four edge milling components, each comprising:” as set forth in line 2, and as discussed above). It is additionally unclear how many “surfaces” are intended to be recited, e.g., a respective surface of each of the two support frames, vs. one surface that is part of both of two support frames.
In claim 15, the claim recites “wherein an arm frame is disposed on each of the two support frames and pivotally connected to a stand frame, such that each of the two fastening portions is disposed on the arm frame via the stand frame”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many (and what configuration(s)) arm frames are intended to be recited, i.e., one arm frame that is disposed on two support frames (i.e., one arm frame, total), or a respective arm frame disposed on each of two support frames (i.e., two arm frames, total). Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed how many stand frames are intended to be required by the claim.
In claim 16, noting that it appears that plural support structures were previously set forth (see claim 7, lines 2 and 4), and noting that the limitation “the sliding base” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim (as noted above), it is unclear how many sliding bases and double rail structures are intended to be required by claim 16.
In claim 18, noting that it appears that plural support structures were previously set forth (see claim 7, lines 2 and 4), it is unclear how many sliding rails are intended to be required by claim 18.
In claim 19, noting that it appears that plural support structures and plural carrying structures were previously set forth (see claim 7, lines 2, 4, and 6), it is unclear how many first motors and second motors are intended to be required by claim 19.
Claims 7-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is noted that in claim 7, lines 3-13, a list of claim elements (presumably all being recited as being part of each of the four edge milling components, re line 2) is set forth. Then in lines 14-20, a “wherein” limitation is provided, followed by (in lines 21-43) a further list of claim elements. That being said, as noted in a separate rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth hereinabove, it is unclear as claimed whether the claim elements (in lines 21-43) following the “wherein” limitation (of lines 14-20) are intended to be part of the list of elements of the “four edge milling components, each comprising: “ as set forth in line 2, or whether the list of elements set forth in lines 21-43 are instead intended to be set forth as part of the “edge milling device, comprising: ” that was set forth in line 1 of claim 7. That said, in the event that the elements recited in lines 21-43 of the claim are intended to be set forth as part of the list of elements re “four edge milling components, each comprising:” it does not appear that the specification as originally filed provides support for each of the four edge milling components 3a including a (respective) base platform 31, a (respective) positioning structure 32/32 that is a “multi-layer plate body”, a respective “two fastening portions”, a respective “two support frames”, and a respective “two further fastening portions”, all as specifically recited in lines 21-43 of claim 7.
In claim 12, the claim sets forth “wherein the fastening portion is pressed down or pulled up to press or separate from the second surface of the target object”. Claim 12 now depends from claim 7, and claim 7 now recites “two fastening portions disposed to correspond to the positioning structure and extend toward the target object, and to press the target object onto the positioning structure, wherein the two fastening portions are disposed over the positioning structure”, and also recites “two further fastening portions located outside two corners of the positioning structure, wherein the two further fastening portions are respectively disposed on a main frame extending on a surface of each of the two support frames, such that two of the four foot bases of the target object are held diagonally by the two further fastening portions”. It appears that the “two fastening portions” in the limitation “two fastening portions disposed to correspond to the positioning structure and extend toward the target object, and to press the target object onto the positioning structure, wherein the two fastening portions are disposed over the positioning structure” are intended to refer to two of the elements 320a, 320a. See Figures 2A-1, 2A-3, and 2C, as well as paragraphs 0052-0053 of the specification as filed. It appears that the “two further fastening portions” in the limitation “two further fastening portions located outside two corners of the positioning structure, wherein the two further fastening portions are respectively disposed on a main frame extending on a surface of each of the two support frames, such that two of the four foot bases of the target object are held diagonally by the two further fastening portions” are (instead) intended to refer to elements 320, 320. See Figures 2A-1, 2A-3, and 2B, as well as paragraphs 0052-0053 of the specification as filed. It is noted that the limitation “the fastening portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in claim 12, as noted in a separate rejection under 35 USC 112(b) hereinabove. That said, in the event that “the fastening portion” in claim 12 is intended to refer to either/any of the “two further fastening portions” (which might only refer to two further fastening portions, but which might instead refer to eight further fastening portions, as noted above in a separate rejection under 35 USC 112(b)), it does not appear that the specification as originally filed provides support for the two further fastening portions 320, 320 (as opposed to 320a) being “pressed down or pulled up to press or separate from the second surface of the target object” re claim 12.
In claim 15, the claim recites “wherein an arm frame is disposed on each of the two support frames and pivotally connected to a stand frame, such that each of the two fastening portions is disposed on the arm frame via the stand frame”. There are a number of clarity issues regarding the intended scope of claim 15, as noted in separate rejections under 35 USC 112(b) hereinabove. That said, in the event that the limitation “the two fastening portions” is intended to refer to, specifically, the “two further fastening portions” (which refer to elements 320, 320, as just discussed above re the discussion of claim 12) now set forth in claim 7, it is noted that the specification as filed does not appear to provide support for the two fastening portions 320, 320 being disposed on an arm frame that is pivotally connected to the stand frame, “such that each of the two fastening portions is disposed on the arm frame via the stand frame”, re claim 15.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 25, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on pending application 18/125769 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 14-20, as best understood in view of the above rejections under 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW M595011 U (hereinafter, “TW ‘011”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0150303 A1 to Tsai et al. (hereinafter, “Tsai”) and in view of a Heason Technical Blog titled “Advantages of Servo Motors” (hereinafter, “Heason”).
It is noted that TW ‘011 has the same inventor and same Applicant as the present application, and that several of the drawings of TW ‘011 are extremely similar (if not, in some instances, identical) to the drawings of the present application. In particular, please note the following:
present Figure 1A-1 is extremely similar to Figure 1 of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1A-2 is extremely similar to Figure 1’ of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1B-1 is extremely similar to Figure 1A of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1B-3 is extremely similar (possibly identical) to Figure 1B of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1B-4 is extremely similar (possibly identical) to Figure 1B’ of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1C-1 is extremely similar (possibly identical) to Figure 1C of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1C-2 is extremely similar (possibly identical) to Figure 1C’ of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1C-3 is extremely similar (possibly identical) to Figure 1C” of TW ‘011;
present Figure 1D is extremely similar (possibly identical) to Figure 1D of TW ‘011;
present Figure 2A-1 is extremely similar to Figure 3A of TW ‘011;
present Figure 2B is extremely similar to Figure 3B of TW ‘011; and
present Figure 2C is extremely similar to Figure 3B’ of TW ‘011.
A machine translation of TW ‘011 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. Attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any reference herein to page numbers or the like re TW ‘011.
In particular, TW ‘011 teaches (re claim 7) an edge milling device (3; Figures 1, 1’, and 3A-3B’; see the last paragraph of page 6 through the penultimate paragraph on page 7), wherein the edge milling device (3) comprises: four (see Figures 3A-3B’, as well as page 7) edge milling components (re claims 7 and 1), each comprising: a milling tool (30); a support structure (33) in the form of a “plate base body” (see Figures 3A, 3B’, as well as page 7, the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second support structure 33 is a plate base body…”) wherein the milling tool (30) is displaced linearly together with the support structure (33) (see Figures 3A-3B’ and page 7 of the machine translation, noting that 30 is disposed on 33 so as to move linearly therewith as 33 moves along, for example, rails 37), a carrying structure (34), which is a frame base body (see at least Figure 3A, for example) displaceably disposed on the support structure (33) and carrying the milling tool (30; see Figures 3A, 3B’, and page 7 of the machine translation, particularly the paragraph beginning “[F]urthermore, each…” and the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second…”), wherein the carrying structure (34) carrying the milling tool (30) is movable closer to or farther away from a target object (9), so that the milling tool (30) makes contact with or disengages from the target object to perform an edge milling machining on the target object (9; see Figures 3A-3B’ of TW ‘011, as well as page 7 as a whole, and particularly the paragraph thereof beginning “[I]n addition…”, noting that motor 38b serves to cause 30 and 34 to move “closer to or farther away from” the target object, in the identical manner that motor 38b of the present application performs the same function re milling tool 30, thereby allowing the milling tool 30 to perform an edge milling machining on the target object 9; see the last paragraph of page 6 through the penultimate paragraph on page 7); and a motor (36) “correspondingly” integrated with the milling tool (30) to drive the milling tool (30; see Figures 3A-3B’, noting that motor 36 and milling tool 30 are both mounted on the carrying structure 34 and are thus “integrated”, or alternatively noting that milling tool 30 and motor 36 are both mounted on support structure 33 and are thus “integrated”; see Figure 3A, for example; additionally, it is noted that motor 36 “drives” the milling tool 30 in that 36 drives 30 to rotate; see page 7, the paragraph beginning “[F]urthermore, each edge…”).
It appears that the structure of the edge milling device/component (3) of TW ‘011 is identical to the structure of the edge milling device/component (3) of the present application but for the fact that present claim 1 recites that the motor (such as 36) is (specifically) a “servo motor”, and that the motor “directly” drives the milling tool (30) “via a shaft coupling” and recites that “a rotating shaft of the servo motor is coupled to a rotating shaft of the milling tool via the shaft coupling”, and the particular details of the shaft coupling, shaft coupling base that are set forth in the last seven lines of claim 1 (which same limitations are also recited in claim 7, lines 14-20). That said, TW ‘011 also does not teach the specific details of the shaft coupling that are set forth in claims 1 and 7.
However, it is noted that the use of a “direct” drive motor to “directly” drive (such as to rotate), via a shaft coupling, a rotary tool spindle in a machining device is extremely well-known and widely used. For example, attention is directed to Tsai.
Tsai teaches an arrangement in which a motor 4 is used to “directly” drive a spindle 3 and/or 31 via a shaft coupling 5, and wherein rotating shafts of the motor 4 and the driven spindle 3 and/or 31 are coupled via the shaft coupling 5. See Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0014-0015, 0006-0008, for example.
In particular, regarding claims 1 and 7 (as best understood in view of the above rejections under 35 USC 112), note that the motor (4) is fixed on an “upper” base body (6, or alternatively, the upper flange portion of 2 labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2 below as “UF”) of a shaft coupling base (2) by bolts (71, 72) (see Figures 2, 4, and paragraphs 0014-0015), and a “lower” base body (such as the lower flange portion of 2 labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2 below as “LF”) of the shaft coupling base (2) is fixed on a head (11) (of a working/machining tool) by bolts (73, 74)(see Figures 2, 4, and paragraphs 0014-0015). The shaft coupling (5) is disposed within the shaft coupling base (2) to be “pivotally” connected to the motor (4) and the head (11) (insofar as the shaft coupling 360 of the present invention that connects a rotating shaft 36c of a motor 36 to a rotating body 362 that is mounted to the machining “head” 36a serves to be “pivotally connected” to the motor and the machining head – see, for example, present Figure 2E, noting that 36b is bolted/screwed to 36a via 361, and would not appear to itself rotate, and also noting that the overall motor itself, such as 36, does not rotate, but rather, the output shaft thereof does; see Figures 2, 4, and paragraphs 0014-0015 of Tsai). The shaft coupling (5) is a cylindrical structure (Figures 2-4), made of “vibration-absorbing material” (see paragraphs 0007 and 0016-0018 of Tsai, which teaches that their disclosed arrangement for “directly” coupling the main motor shaft to the working machine results in the alleviation of “severe machine vibration”). The rotating shaft (41) of the motor (4) is fixed on one end (upper re Figures 2, 4) of the shaft coupling (5) (see Figures 2, 4, and paragraphs 0014-0015, noting that 41 is fixed to the portion 51 of coupling 5), and the rotating shaft (31) of the machining head is fixed on another end (lower re Figures 2-4) of the shaft coupling (5) (see Figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0014-0015, noting that 31 is fixed to the portion 52 of the coupling 5).
It is additionally noted that while the motor and coupling arrangement depicted in Figures 2-4 of Tsai is shown connecting a vertical motor, vertical shafts 41 and 31, re a vertical “main shaft” 3, Tsai expressly teaches that their arrangement is applicable to “both upright and lateral machines”. See paragraph 0015, last sentence, of Tsai.
[AltContent: textbox (LF)][AltContent: textbox (UF)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
848
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore (regarding claims 1 and 7), 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 milling tools 30 taught by TW ‘011 with a respective direct drive motor arrangement for “directly” (rotationally, for example) driving the cutter/cutter spindle thereof via a respective “direct” drive motor that is “integrated” with the respective tool via a respective shaft coupling, as taught by Tsai, in place of the offset drive motor arrangements 36 taught by TW ‘011, for the purpose of providing a tool spindle driving arrangement that alleviates too loud machine noise and severe machine vibration, and that allows such to be provided to a working machine without the need for especially skilled workers skilled in precision alignment, at low cost, and without wasting a lot of time for labor of assembly, all as taught by Tsai (see paragraphs 0006-0008 and 0016-0018 of Tsai, for example).
Additionally, it is noted that neither TW ‘011 nor Tsai expressly teach whether or not the motors thereof are servo motors. However, the use of servo motors in machine tools is well-known.
For example, attention is directed to Heason. Heason teaches that servo motors are used in close-loop motion control systems “wherein angular position, speed and torque can be very accurately controlled” and teaches that “[S]ervo motors are well suited to precision applications where accurate control of motor speed, position and/or torque is required”. See Heason, page 1. Additionally, Heason teaches that given their advantages, “servo motors are used more and more in industrial applications to replace conventional AC motors and stepper motors as well as hydraulic and pneumatic systems” (Heason, page 2), and teaches that machine tools (which require high accuracy) is one example of an application in which servo motors are used (Heason, page 2).
Therefore, (regarding claims 1 and 7) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the generic rotary drive motor(s) (for rotationally driving each of the milling tools of TW ‘011) of TW ‘011/Tsai be, specifically, provided as servo motors/with servo (i.e., feedback/closed loop) capabilities, as is well-known as taught by Heason, for the purpose of achieving any of the many well-known advantages of servo motors taught by Heason, such as improving the accuracy and precision of the driving of the motors of TW ‘011 in view of Tsai, as taught by Heason (pages 1-2), or such as providing any of the multitude of advantages of servo motors described by Heason, such as “high efficiency”, “high output power relative to their size”, “more constant torque at higher speed”, “closed-loop control”, “quiet operation”, “highly reliable”, “high ratio or torque to inertia”, “high acceleration”, “high-speed performance”, “torque control”, “smooth running”, “high accuracy”, “small in size”, and “well suited to varying load applications” (see page 1 of Heason re all of these listed advantages of servo motors).
Regarding claim 2, the support structure (33) of TW ‘011 has a displacement direction (f2, b2) perpendicular to a displacement direction (f1, b1) of the carrying structure (34). See Figures 3A, 3B, and page 7, the paragraph beginning “[I]n addition, the power group 38…”.
Regarding claim 3, the support structure (33) of TW ‘011 has a rail (35) and the carrying structure (34) has at least one sliding block (340) engaged with the rail (35), wherein the at least one sliding block (340) moving along the rail (35) causes the carrying structure (34) to displace relative to the support structure (33). See Figure 3A and page 7, the paragraph beginning “[F]urthermore, each edge…”, and the paragraph beginning “[I]n addition, the power group 38…”.
Regarding claim 4, the carrying structure (34) of TW ‘011 is driven by a second motor (38b) to move linearly and displace the milling tool (30) to a required position. See Figure 3A and the paragraph beginning “[I]n addition, the power group 38…”
Regarding claim 6, the milling tool (30) of TW ‘011 has a milling cutter (see at least page 3, the paragraph beginning “[I]n the aforementioned processing equipment, the edge milling assembly…”, which paragraph indicates that the second milling tool(s) is/are/include milling “cutter” tool(s), and as can be seen in at least Figures 3A and 3B’, such milling cutter would necessarily be at the tip/end of 30 that is closest to the workpiece 9 in order for the milling as disclosed in at least page 3, the paragraph beginning “[I]n the aforementioned processing equipment, the edge milling assembly…”, as well as the last paragraph on page 6, and all of page 7) at a “tip” (i.e., end closest to the workpiece 9 provided on 32; see Figures 3A, 3B’, and at least page 3, the paragraph beginning “[I]n the aforementioned processing equipment, the edge milling assembly…”, as well as the last paragraph on page 6, and all of page 7) of a body of the milling tool (30).
Regarding claim 7, as noted previously, TW ‘011 in view of Tsai and Heason teaches the edge milling device (3) including the four edge milling components described above.
TW ‘011 also teaches the edge milling device (3) further comprising: a base platform (31) having a working surface (upper surface of 31; see Figure 3A), wherein the four edge milling components (3a) are displaceably disposed (such as via movement along rails 37; see Figures 3A, 3B, and the first three paragraphs on page 7, for example) on the working surface (Figures 3A, 3B), and wherein the support structure (33) is displaceably disposed on the base platform (31; such as for movement of 33 along rails 37; see Figures 3A, 3B, 3B’, and page 7, the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second…”);
a positioning structure (32), which is a multi-layer rectangular plate body (see Figures 3A and 3B’, especially Figure 3A noting the plural “layers” indicated by reference character 32, for example), disposed on the working surface (upper surface of 31; see Figures 3A, 3B’, for example) and for the target object (9) placed on the positioning structure (32) (see Figure 3B’ and page 7, first paragraph), wherein the four edge milling components (3a) are disposed at four side edges of the positioning structure (32) and displaced relative to the positioning structure (32) and perform the edge milling machining on the target object (9; see Figures 3A-3B’, as well as page 7, first paragraph, and page 7, the paragraph beginning “[I]n addition, the power group 38…”), wherein the target object (9) has a first surface (9a), a second surface (9b) opposite to the first surface (9a), a side surface (9c) adjacent to and connecting the first (9a) and second (9b) surfaces, and a flange (91) protruding from the side surface (9c), and four foot bases (90) respectively at each of four corners of the second surface (9b) (see Figures 1C-1D and page 5, particularly the paragraphs beginning “[I]n addition…” and “[T]he milling device 2 described…”);
two fastening portion (such as the two fastening portions each labeled 320’, 320’ in Figure 3A) disposed to “correspond” to the positioning structure (32) and extend (such as from AF, labeled in the annotated enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 3A below, or such as from SF, labeled in the annotated enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 3A below, or such as from 39; see Figure 3A and Figure 3B’, for example)toward the target object (9, which target object 9 is provided on 32; see at least Figures 3A, 3B’, the first paragraph on page 7), and to press the target object (9) on the positioning structure (32; see Figures 3A-3B’, as well as the first paragraph on page 7), wherein the two fastening portions (320’, 320’) are disposed “over” the positioning structure (32) (see Figure 3B’ and Figure 3A, for example);
two support frames (39, 39) respectively disposed on front and rear sides of the base platform (31) (see Figure 3A, noting that there is a respective support frame 39 on each of two opposite sides of the base platform 31, such as “front” and “rear” sides of 31 with respect to the direction labeled in Figure 3A as “X”); and
two further fastening portions (320, 320) located outside two opposite corners (see Figures 3A and especially Figure 3B; see also the first paragraph on page 7) of the positioning structure (32), wherein the two further fastening portions (320, 320) are respectively disposed on a main frame (see the “main frames” labeled in the annotated enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 3A below as “MF1” and “MF2”; see also Figure 3B; attention is also directed to the “main frames” 390 of the present application shown in Figures 2A-3 and 2A-1, which appear to be of identical or extremely similar structure) “extending on a surface” of each of the two support frames (39, 39) (see Figures 3A, 3B, as well as page 7, first paragraph, which teaches that “support frames 39 are provided on the front and rear sides of the second base 31, respectively, to fix the fixing portion 320 on the support frame 39…”), such that two of the four foot bases (90) of the target object (9) are held diagonally by the two further fastening portions (320, 320) (see Figures 3A, 3B, and page 7 first paragraph, which teaches that “support frames 39 are provided on the front and rear sides of the second base 31, respectively, to fix the fixing portion 320 on the support frame 39, so when the target 9 is placed on the placement platform, The foot 90 of the target 9 is clamped and clamped diagonally by the fixing parts 320 to prevent the target 9 from deviating during the milling process”).
[AltContent: textbox (MF2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (MF1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Annotated Enlarged Partial Reproduction of Fig. 3A of TW ‘011)]
PNG
media_image2.png
874
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the multi-layer rectangular plate body (32) of TW ‘011 has a square-shaped placing platform (labeled as “PP” in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3A below) disposed thereon (see Figure 3A, for example, as well as page 7), the target object (9) is placed on the placing platform (PP), such that the (aforedescribed) four edge milling components are “respectively placed at four side edges of the placing platform” (PP), as such is best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112(b). See Figures 3A-3B’ as well as the last paragraph of page 6, and the first paragraph of page 7, for example, as well as page 7 as a whole.
[AltContent: textbox (PP)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
478
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, each of the (aforedescribed) edge milling components corresponds to each edge of the placing platform (PP, labeled above) of TW ‘011 to perform an edge milling machining of the target object (9). See Figures 3A’, 3B, and 3B’, as well as the last paragraph of page 6, and all of page 7.
Regarding claim 10, the four (aforedescribed) edge milling components on the four side edges of the placing platform (PP, labeled above) of TW ‘011 is capable of performing the claimed function of carrying out “loop-type” displacements. See Figure 3B, noting the “loop-type” displacements depicted via the movements in fb, f2, b1, b2. See also at least page 7, the paragraph beginning “[I]n addition, the power group 38…”.
Regarding claim 12, TW ‘011 teaches that the fastening portion (such as 320’) is pressed down or pulled up to press or separate from the second surface (9b) of the target object (9). See Figures 3A, 3B, 3B’, as well as the first paragraph of page 7.
[AltContent: textbox (MF)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (39)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
496
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the multi-layer rectangular plate body (32) of TW ‘011 has a square-shaped placing platform (labeled as “PP” in the annotated reproduction of Figure 3A above) disposed thereon (see Figure 3A, for example, as well as page 7), and the target object (9) is placed on the placing platform (PP), such that the two fastening portions (320’, 320’) are disposed “over” the placing platform (PP) to restrict displacement of the target object (9). See Figures 3A, 3B, and 3B’ as well as the last paragraph of page 6, and the first paragraph of page 7, for example, as well as page 7 as a whole.
Regarding claim 15, TW ‘011 teaches that an arm frame (including, for example, 36’, for example) is disposed on each of the two the support frames (39) and pivotally connected to a stand frame (such as, for example, the frame labeled above as “MF”), such that each of the two fastening portion (320’, 320’) is disposed on the arm frame (36’) via the stand frame (MF; see Figure 3B’, as well as Figures 3A, 3B). See also the last paragraph of page 6, as well as the first paragraph of page 7, and page 7 as a whole. Alternatively, attention is directed to the enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 3A of TW ‘011 below, noting that the up and down movements of each 320’ via 36’ occur via pivoting of an “arm frame” AF relative to a “stand frame” SF at the pivot labeled below. See Figures 3A, 3B, 3B’, and the last paragraph of page 6 through the end of page 7. See also the translation of claim 1 of TW ‘011.
[AltContent: textbox (SF)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (pivot)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (AF)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image5.png
462
674
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, TW ‘011 teaches a double rail structure (37) fastened on the base platform (31), and a sliding base (330) fastened on a bottom of the support structure (33), wherein the sliding base (330) sliding on the double rail structure (37) causes the support structure (33) to move linearly. See Figures 3A, 3B, 3B’, as well as at least page 7, the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second…”
Regarding claim 17, TW ‘011 teaches that the support structure (33) is driven by a first motor (38a) (see Figures 3A-3B, as well as page 7, the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second…”) to move linearly along an edge of the positioning structure (32) relative to the base platform (31) and the milling tool (30) is displaced linearly along the side surface (9c) of the target object (9) to process the flange (91) of the target object (9). See Figures 3A, 3B, as well as page 7, the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second…”
Regarding claim 18, TW ‘011 teaches a sliding rail (37) disposed on the working surface (upper surface of 31) of the base platform (31) for guiding displacement of the support structure (33). See Figures 3A, 3B, and 3B’, as well as page 7, the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second…”
Regarding claim 19, TW ‘011 teaches a first motor (38a) for driving the support structure (33) to displace and a second motor (38b) for driving the carrying structure (34) to displace. See Figures 3A and 3B, as well as page 7, the paragraph beginning “[M]oreover, the second…”, and page 7, the paragraph beginning “[I]n addition, the power group 38…”
Regarding claim 20, the support structure (33) is displaceably disposed on the working surface of the base platform (31). See Figures 3A-3B’ and page 7 of the machine translation, noting that 30 is disposed on 33 so as to move linearly therewith as 33 moves along, for example, rails 37.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Many of Applicant’s arguments (such as with respect to the prior art rejections) are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (which add the Heason reference to provide the newly-added claim limitation re the motor(s) being servo motor(s)). That said, Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein to the extent to which they still pertain.
In the response filed July 25, 2025, Applicant has asserted that the limitation “fastening portion”, now present in claims 7, 12, 14, and 15, “should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph” since “the claims of the pres