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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
The “coolant distributor for cooling a tool held by the tool spindle” of claim 4 is not shown. See explanation of structure invoked by the claim in the “Claim Interpretation” section.
“the coolant distributor is detachably arranged on the tool changer” of claim 5 refers to a connection between the coolant distributor and the tool changer, the connection not being shown. While they are understood as being “arranged” on one another, being “detachably arranged” requires a more specific connection that must be shown for proper understanding of what Applicant considers a “detchably arranged” connection.
a “machine interior” of claim 7, specifically one that houses the tool spindle and the workpiece spindle, is not shown. Applicant is advised that, while Figure 2 may show a single part of the “machine interior,” such as a bottom, it does not show an enclosure that would form an interior.
the “corner door(s)” of claim 7 is/are not shown. Applicant is advised that, while Figure 2 may show a single part of the “door(s),” it does not show the doors as a whole. Applicant also fails to show the corner doors through which the machine interior can be accessed.
The “cabin” of claims 7 and 9 are not shown. While Applicant does identify a “cabin” with a numeral 61, this is only a partial and incomplete view of the cabin. In other words, Applicant does not show the cabin (i.e. the entirety of the cabin), but a part of the cabin.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
MPEP 2173.05(g) states that “[a] functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step.” It continues to say that “[n]otwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234, 55 USPQ 381 (1942) (holding indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black "in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior").”
Therefore, it is unclear what structure is invoked by this functional term and functional recitation. A coolant distributor could be as simple and as broad as a gripper used to expose something to the air, akin to a clothespin on a clothesline that distributes air to a surface, or it could be as complex as a pump, nozzle, and fluid storage.
Since Applicant has not shown anything other than what appears to be a housing, and has not described any additional structure, including the specific types of cooling mediums, then the examiner will consider this to be a housing.
Because the language used in the claim invokes a functional structure considered not to be described, then there is a 35 USC 112(b) rejection on this claim. Additionally, as there is functional structure that is being claimed, functional structure that is not shown, then there is also a drawing objection above. Applicant is advised to either strike the functional limitations from the claim or show/describe these functional structures in the specification without adding new matter.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a robot” of claim 8 with means “for changing workpieces.” Applicant describes this as, possibly, a robot arm, but does not show the parts of the robot. In other terms, this does not make clear that a “robot arm” inherently includes a motor, actuator, or anything for movement. Rather, the only explicit description is that this is an arm of some type, which seems consistent with the drawings of robot ‘60’ in Figure 2. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to simply be an “arm” or equivalent thereof.
“add-on module” of claim 10. Applicant does not provide an adequate description of what this is.
“palletizing system.” Applicant does not provide an adequate description of what this is.
“at least one coolant distributor” with means “for cooling a tool held by the tool spindle” is not shown or described beyond “at least one coolant distributor” identified as numeral 53 in the figures.
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((a)
Claims 4, 10, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed “coolant distributor” lacks written description. These are structures with functional modifiers, but no specifics as to what these specific structures are. MPEP 2173.05(g) states that “without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim directed to a software based system for creating a customized computer interface screen recited that the screen be "aesthetically pleasing," which is an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the screen. Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. For instance, a single means claim covering every conceivable means for achieving the stated result was held to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim. Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 714-715, 218 USPQ at 197. For more information regarding the written description requirement and enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, see MPEP §§ 2161-2164.08(c).”
Regarding claim 10, the claimed “add-on module” lacks written description. These are structures with functional modifiers, but no specifics as to what these specific structures are.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed “palletizing system” lacks written description. These are structures with functional modifiers, but no specifics as to what these specific structures are.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9-11, 13, and 16, and those depending therefrom, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is written in a confusing manner and contains many issues of indefiniteness because of this. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as such:
1. (Original) A grinding machine (1) comprising a machine bed (10) on which a workpiece spindle (20) is mounted, the workpiece spindle comprising the machine bed further comprising a tool spindle (40) comprising a tool holder, wherein the workpiece spindle and the tool spindle are arranged in such a way that when a workpiece is held in the workpiece spindle (20) and a tool is held in the tool holder, the spindle moves relative to the tool (41) held in the tool holder (40), is
-displaceable along an X-axis, which is an axis running in a first direction parallel to
- displaceable along a Y-axis, which is an axis running in a second direction parallel to the surface of the machine bed (10),
- displaceable along a Z-axis, which is an axis running perpendicular to the surface of the machine bed (10),
- rotatable about an A-axis, which is an axis running parallel to the surface of the machine bed (10), and
- rotatable about a C-axis, which is an axis running perpendicular to the surface of the machine bed (10), characterized in that the tool spindle (40) is completely kinematically separated from the workpiece spindle (20), with movements along the X-axis, about the A-axis and about the C- axis being carried out by the workpiece spindle (20) and movements along the Y-axis and along the Z-axis being carried out by the tool spindle (40).
Additionally, however, the examiner cannot determine how to interpret the following:
“wherein the workpiece spindle and the tool spindle are arranged in such a way that when a workpiece is held in the workpiece spindle (20) and a tool is held in the tool holder, the spindle moves relative to the tool (41) held in the tool holder (40), is
-displaceable along an X-axis, which is an axis running in a first direction parallel to
- displaceable along a Y-axis, which is an axis running in a second direction parallel to the surface of the machine bed (10),
- displaceable along a Z-axis, which is an axis running perpendicular to the surface of the machine bed (10),
- rotatable about an A-axis, which is an axis running parallel to the surface of the machine bed (10), and
- rotatable about a C-axis, which is an axis running perpendicular to the surface of the machine bed (10), characterized in that the tool spindle (40) is completely kinematically separated from the workpiece spindle (20), with movements along the X-axis, about the A-axis and about the C- axis being carried out by the workpiece spindle (20) and movements along the Y-axis and along the Z-axis being carried out by the tool spindle (40).”
Partly, the issue again is that is confusingly written. The other issue, however, is that this is, in essence, functional language. MPEP 2173.05(g) states that “[a] claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). There is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper.
MPEP 2173.05(g) continues to say “[a] functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step.”
In other words, each functional limitation must be evaluated for what it conveys in terms of structure. Furthermore, this structure, when brought into a structural claim as such is used to define a particular element. For example, “a gear configured to rotate” would be the functional language “configured to rotate” modifying the structure of the “gear.” That functional structure, however, would take on different meaning depending on what structure is interpretated as “configured to rotate,” such as an axle, motor, etc.. Typically, where broadest reasonable interpretation is concerned, it would be a definition that would cover all possible structures configured to rotate the gear in such an example.
In this case, Applicant does not explicitly state what element or structure the “displaceable” and “rotatable” functions are being applied to. As best understood, Applicant is attempting to claim that the tool in the tool holder (the tool not being expressly claimed as part of the grinding machine) and the workpiece (also not being expressly claimed as part of the claimed grinding machine) can move relative to each other as claimed.
One would reasonably assume that this is done by some structure that allows either one of the workpiece spindle and/or the tool holder to move. That being said, however, Applicant does not seem to describe any structure (motor, actuators, etc.) for effecting that. Applicant does mention a T-slot table 22 and carriage 23, but no “T-shape” is shown in the Figures for the T-slot table 22, and the carriage simply seems to be a portion of the spindle 20 housing. As to other possible mechanism, Applicant shows “carriage(s)” 42 and 43, but shows little of how they move.
The examiner concludes simply that the structures used for effecting the displacement and rotation are simply carriages. As to whether these “carriages” require more than the basic definition of a carriage (i.e. “a movable part of a machine for supporting some other movable object or part”), the examiner concludes that they do not. Applicant has not shown additional structure beyond the basic definition and, while Applicant does not show mechanism for movement, one of ordinary skill in the art can see from Figure 1 that the carriages are configured to move in various directions. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this simply as requiring the carriages 23, 42, 43 shown in Figure 1. To be clear, these carriages only need to be configured to move as claimed, meaning that they cannot be restricted from the claimed movement (ex. fixed).
Lastly, Applicant needs to clarify the functional structure by combining it with the structure that it is meant to be modifying. For example, in Figure 1, the relative motion of in the ‘Z’ axis appears to be carried out by movement of the carriage 42 of the tool holder. One must then relate this function to the tool holder. The issue is not only for clarity, but by attempting to claim it as either what is shown in Figure 1, or by some other means not shown in Figure 1 which may be causing the “spindle” to move in the Z-direction, then Applicant would be claiming subject matter which is neither shown or described. Instead of claiming “displaceable along a Z-axis,” Applicant should instead be claiming “the tool holder configured to be displaceable along a Z-axis.”
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “completely kinematically separated” is indefinite. The term “completely” is considered subjective as to what would be considered “completely.” If Applicant wishes for certain kinematic separation, then Applicant should be clear how they are “completely” kinematically separated. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “
Regarding claim 4, the “at least one coolant distributor for cooling a tool held by the tool spindle” is indefinite for invoking indefinite functional structure. See Claim Interpretation above for a more thorough explanation. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “at least one
Regarding claim 5, “detachably arranged” is indefinite. The term “detachably” applies to almost every type of connection. Even a fixed connection can be severed. The term detachably is often meant to convey the ease of detachment, which is subjective. Applicant must convey the type of connections such that the claim explicitly conveys what types of connections are included in this functional limitation, and what type of connections are excluded from this functional limitation. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be simply “
Regarding claim 8, the claimed “robot for changing workpieces” is ill-defined. The meaning of the term “robot” implies automated structures, but none are shown or described, making indefinite if this is a robot, or a mechanical part of a robot (ex. arm). Additionally, there is no structure shown of the robot “for changing workpieces.” Put simply, Applicant shows a single structure, “a robot 60,” and showing a generic structure in Figure 2 identified as robot 60. Therefore, it’s unclear what structure(s) are used for “changing workpieces” besides, broadly, a robot.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, the claimed “the work area” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “a work area.”
Regarding claim 9, the claimed “the workpiece spindle can be moved into the automation cabin on the X-axis” is indefinite as to whether this is trying to invoke functional structure. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “the workpiece spindle [is configured to] be moved into the automation cabin on the X-axis.”
Regarding claim 9, the claimed “so that the robot arm does not reach into the work area when changing the workpiece” is indefinite. The claimed “the workpiece spindle [is configured to] be moved into the automation cabin on the X-axis” that precedes “so that the robot arm does not reach” seems to imply that “so that the robot arm does not reach into the work area when changing the workpiece” is a function of the workpiece spindle. This reads as though the workpiece spindle physically prevents the robot arm from reaching into the work area, but the claim does not explicitly say that (“does not reach” as opposed to “can not reach”), making this ambiguous. This may be just an attempt to state the purpose of the functional statement of the workpiece spindle, as a reason why this can be moved into the automation cabin. As such, the examiner will consider this to be “
Regarding claim 9, the claim language is confusing as to what the is meant by “the robot is arranged outside the work area in an automation cabin and in that the workpiece spindle can be moved into the automation cabin.” Is this meant to be “the robot is arranged outside the work area in an automation cabin and the robot is configured to move the workpiece spindle is configured to move into the automation cabin?” For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be the former.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed “add-on module” is not understood as to what makes it an “add-on module.” Applicant does not really describe what this is, other than seemingly just a box or housing as shown in the Figures. In other words, Applicant does not disclose a specific structure and, therefore, when interpreting “add-on module,” which implies more structure than just a housing or box, it becomes indefinite what structure that is.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed palletizing system” is indefinite. Applicant does not really describe what this is, other than seemingly just a box or housing as shown in the Figures. In other words, Applicant does not disclose a specific structure and, therefore, when interpreting “palletizing system,” which implies more structure than just a housing or box, it becomes indefinite what structure that is.
Regarding claim 13-16, the wording of the claims make them indefinite. Applicant needs to use punctuation to separate ideas and avoid using “in that” to help with understanding what is being claimed.
Regarding claim 16, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the next workpiece to be machined.”
Regarding claim 16, the claimed steps aren’t explicit. For example, “when the next workpiece to be machined is picked up” does not explicitly require the claimed method to pick up the next workpiece. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to recite that these steps are definitely performed.
Regarding claim 17, there are several issues of idefiniteness with claim 17. They are as follows:
The claimed “the method characterized in that the following steps are carried out during a tool change” does not actually state that the step of a tool change is being performed.
There is no antecedent basis for “the spindle clamp.” For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “a spindle clamp.”
The use of “it” renders the claim ambiguous as to what “it” refers to. For the purpose of examination, this will be considered “by moving [the tool] parallel.”
There is no antecedent basis for “the new tool.”
There is no antecedent basis for “the BY-axis.”
The claimed “tightening the spindle clamp” is ambiguous. The term “tightening” implies a specific structure as to tighten means to draw two elements together. However, Applicant is only claiming “the spindle clamp,” so it is ambiguous what elements are being drawn close together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman (US-4,482,043) in view of Baltazar (US-5,359,814).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Bauman (US-4,482,043) discloses a grinding machine (10) comprising a machine bed (base 120) (“FIG. 2 shows the base/column weldment 120 which is used to accurately fix the X and Y axis machine ways.”) [Bauman; col. 3, lines 47-48] on which a workpiece spindle (52) is mounted (Fig. 1), the workpiece spindle (52) comprising the machine bed (base 120) further comprising a tool spindle (spindle 20 which holds tool 22) comprising a tool holder (spindle 20), wherein the workpiece spindle (52) and the tool spindle (spindle 20) are arranged in such a way that when a workpiece (workpiece 24) is held in the workpiece spindle (52) and a tool (tool 22) is held in the tool holder (spindle 20), the workpiece spindle (52) moves relative to the tool (tool 22) held in the tool holder (spindle 20), is
-displaceable along an X-axis, which is an axis running in a first direction parallel to the surface of the machine bed (“A single saddle 74 (not seen in FIG. 1) is driven along the X axis by a drive screw 76 and may be coupled to the exposed bottom of either pallet 52, 54.”) [Bauman; col. 3, lines 8-10],
- displaceable along a Y-axis, which is an axis running in a second direction parallel to the surface of the machine bed (“The quill 26 may be advanced and retracted along the Z axis through a spindle housing 28.”) [Bauman; col. 2, lines 54-55],
- displaceable along a Z-axis, which is an axis running perpendicular to the surface of the machine bed (“The spindle housing 28 may be moved up and down along the Y axis.”) [Bauman; col. 2, lines 55-56],
- rotatable about a C-axis, which is an axis running perpendicular to the surface of the machine bed (“the saddle 74 may rotate the pallet 52, 54 with respect to the hood members 70, 72 (rotation around the Y axis defined as B axis motion)”) [Bauman; col. 3, lines 17-19], and
characterized in that the tool spindle is completely kinematically separated from the workpiece spindle, with movements along the X-axis, and about the C- axis being carried out by the workpiece spindle and movements along the Y-axis and along the Z-axis being carried out by the tool spindle (Fig. 1).
Bauman fails to disclose “rotatable about an A-axis, which is an axis running parallel to the surface of the machine bed.”
However, Baltazar (US-5,359,814) teaches making the workpiece spindle (rotatable chuck mechanism 60) rotatable about an A-axis relative to the tool spindle (spindle 38) (Fig. 2) (“Referring again to FIG. 2, it will be seen that chuck and indexing mechanism 60 both holds workpiece 30 and is adapted to periodically and systematically rotate workpiece 30 counterclockwise in the direction of arrow 70 so that tool bit 20 may sequentially contact different tracks of workpiece 30 until each of the six different tracks of said workpiece have been ground to specifications.”) [Baltazar; col. 6, lines 38-45]. Since it is known that adding rotation adds to the capabilities of maneuvering the workpiece for machining, as described in Baltazar [Baltazar; col. 6, lines 38-45], it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the workpiece spindle of Bauman to be rotatable about a spindle/chuck axis as taught by Baltazar in order to allow for a different track of motion for adjusting positioning of the workpiece to be machined relative to the tool for machining [Baltazar; col. 6, lines 38-45].
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Bauman discloses the grinding machine (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the grinding machine (10) has a robot (54) for changing workpieces (workpiece 24) (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Bauman discloses the grinding machine (1) according to claim 8, characterized in that, adjacent to the automation cabin, there is a palletizing system (shuttle 54).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Bauman discloses a method of operating a grinding machine according to claim 1, in which workpieces clamped successively at the workpiece spindle (shuttle 52) (“A stand 62, 64 is provided at each standby position 58, 60 for supporting the pallet 52, 54 while the workpiece 24 clamped to the pallet 52, 54 is changed.”) [Bauman; col. 2, line 68 – col. 3, line 2] are machined by grinding with one or more tools clamped at the tool spindle (“The machining center 10 includes a spindle 20 which holds a tool 22 for use in machining a workpiece 24.”) [Bauman; col. 2, lines 50-51], characterized in that the workpiece spindle and/or the tool spindle are moved kinematically decoupled from one another to carry out a workpiece change (“A stand 62, 64 is provided at each standby position 58, 60 for supporting the pallet 52, 54 while the workpiece 24 clamped to the pallet 52, 54 is changed.”) [Bauman; col. 2, line 68 – col. 3, line 2] and/or to carry out a tool change (“The drum 40 rotates around a fixed pivot point 44 to locate a selected tool gripper 42 and tool 22 at a tool changing position 46 having fixed coordinates in the plane defined by the Y and Z axes.”) [Bauman; col. 2, lines 60-64].
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman (US-4,482,043) in view of Baltazar (US-5,359,814) and further in view of Voglrieder (US-4,173,817).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Bauman discloses the grinding machine (1) according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the grinding machine (10) has a tool changer (rotating drum 40 having tool grippers 42) which is moveable together with the tool spindle (spindle 20) along the Y-axis (Z-axis of Bauman) and/or along the Z-axis (Y-axis of Bauman).
However, Voglrieder (US-4,173,817) teaches a tool changer (rotatable tool storage carousel 13) which is movable together with a tool spindle (52) along a vertical Y-axis (“The machining center 10 includes a twin column assembly generally indicated by the numeral 11, on which is slidably mounted a tool spindle slide assembly, generally indicated by the numeral 12, which is mounted for vertical movement along the "Y" axis. The numeral 13 generally designates a rotatable tool storage carousel means which is operatively mounted on the top of the twin column assembly 11 for rotation about a horizontal axis that is in vertical alignment with the rotary axis of the tool spindle carried by the tool spindle slide assembly 12”) [Voglrieder; col. 5, line 61 – col. 6, line 3]. Since Voglrieder is pertinent to the invention of Bauman, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make the tool changer movable with the tool spindle along the vertical Y-axis of Bauman (which is equivalent to the Z-axis of the claims) in order to increase movement and control of the tool 22, and to keep the function of the tool changer as it operates by being a relatively short distance from the tool 22.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Bauman discloses the grinding machine (10) according to claim 2 characterized in that the tool changer (rotating drum 40 having tool grippers 42) is rotatable about a BY-axis (pivot point 44) (Fig. 1), which is an axis parallel to the axis of the tool spindle (spindle 20), and is displaceable (rotatable) in a direction along the BY-axis (axis of pivot point 44) (Fig. 1) (“The drum 40 rotates around a fixed pivot point 44 to locate a selected tool gripper 42”) [Bauman; col. 2, lines 61-62].
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Bauman discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose the method characterized in that the following steps are carried out during a tool change:
gripping the tool holder (spindle 20) with a gripper (tool gripper 42),
releasing the spindle clamp,
lifting the tool (108) by moving it parallel to the BY- axis,
rotating the tool changer about the BY-axis to the position of the new tool (41),
inserting the new tool by moving it parallel to the BY-axis,
tightening the spindle clamp,
opening the gripper.
However, Voglrieder (US-4,173,817) teaches gripping a tool holder (tool chuck(s) 104), releasing a spindle clamp (releasing the chuck 104 from housing portion 52) (“As shown in FIG. 14A, the spindle slide housing 46 is also provided with an integral, forwardly extended horizontal cylindrical housing portion 52 in which is rotatably supported the front end of the tool spindle 47.”) [Voglrieder; col. 7, lines 2-6] (“which also releases or unlocks the tool chuck 104 from the tapered socket 106 in the tool spindle 47”) [Voglrieder; col. 12, lines 8-9], lifting the tool (tool 108) (“When the tool spindle slide assembly 12 is moved upwardly to the position shown in FIG. 14”) [Voglrieder; col. 12, lines 37-38], rotating the tool chanber about a BY-axis to the position of a new tool (“In the advanced position 13a, the carousel 13 may be rotated in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction to bring the next desired tool into a tool changing position”) [Voglrieder; col. 15, lines 22-25], inserting the new tool by moving it parallel to the BY-axis [Voglrieder; col. 27, lines 21-62], tightening the spindle clamp (on the new tool), and opening the gripper (that once housed the tool, now open) (“It will be seen that the cylinder rod 314 is in the retracted position, and accordingly, the carrier shaft 306 and the carousel 13 are in the retracted or tool changing position. When the air cylinder 315 is energized to move the cylinder rod 314 outwardly, the carousel 13 is moved outwardly from the retracted tool changing position shown in 22 away from the stationary support housing 308 to the advanced position shown in FIG. 48, and which is indicated by the numeral 13a. In the advanced position 13a, the carousel 13 may be rotated in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction to bring the next desired tool into a tool changing position, after which the carousel means 13 is then retracted to the solid line position shown in FIG. 14 and FIG. 22.”). Since Voglrieder is in the same field of endeavor as Bauman, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the carousel of Bauman as taught by Voglrieder in order to exchange tools, as desired by both Bauman and Voglrieder.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman (US-4,482,043) in view of Baltazar (US-5,359,814) and further in view of Voglrieder (US-4,173,817) and Li (US-2020/0164476).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Bauman discloses the grinding machine (10) according to claim 2, characterized in that the tool changer (rotating drum 40 having tool grippers 42) but fails to disclose at least one coolant distributor for cooling a tool (tool 22) held by the tool spindle (spindle 20).
However, Li (US-2020/0164476) teaches at least one coolant distributor (IV-9) (Fig. 7) for cooling a tool (milling cutter IV-10) held by a spindle (mandel IV-8). Since Li is pertinent to machines such as Bauman, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the grinding machine of Bauman with at least one coolant distributor, as taught by Bauman, for lubricating a tool held by the tool spindle (“The lubricating oil provided by the lubricating system I is sprayed to the cutting area through the pipeline IV-2, the nozzle pipe IV-7 and the nozzle IV-9.”) [Li; paragraph 0077].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Bauman in view of Li discloses the grinding machine according to claim 4, wherein Li teaches the coolant distributor (tool gripper 42) is arranged (via screw IV-3) on the tool changer (rotating drum 40) so that the coolant distributor (tool gripper 42) can be replaced, but fails to disclose it is arranged on the tool changer as claimed. However, Li teaches attaching the nozzle to the column overhead of the work area, which would be the column portion of the tool changer (rotating drum 40) or the cover for the tool changer, both considered part of the tool changer and/or a connection to (arranged via these structures). It therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to then arrange the coolant distributor taught by Li to the tool changer of Bauman in order to more easily spray downwardly onto the work area as desired by Li.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman (US-4,482,043) in view of Baltazar (US-5,359,814) and further in view of Naumann (US-5,681,209).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Bauman discloses the grinding machine (10) according to claim 1, but fails to disclose characterized in that a cabin is arranged on the machine bed which cabin defines a machine interior in which in particular the tool spindle and the workpiece spindle are arranged for machining workpieces and in that the cabin has corner doors through which the machine interior can be accessed.
However, Naumann (US-5,681,209) teaches a cabin (cover 14) in which a tool spindle and workpiece spindle are arranged for machining workpieces, and a sliding glass door assembly (62) through which the machine interior can be accessed (Fig. 1). Since cabins and covers are well known in machining as providing both safety to the operator, and preventing contamination of the work area, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bauman to have a cover over the grinding machine of Baumann, and adding door as taught by Naumann in order to protect the operator and prevent contamination of the work area. While Naumann only discloses a single door, as opposed to a plurality of doors as claimed, it would’ve been obvious duplication in part to add more doors to allow for more access to the machine and/or to add more doors for obvious basic design considerations like space constraints.
Any claim not listed herein in a rejection in view of the art was not considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art. However, as the claims are replete with issues of indefiniteness resulting in complete comprehension and definite understanding of the claims, this is not meant to be considered an admission of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-4590662, and US-3300856are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723