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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered January 10, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed September 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-16, 19-24, 26-35 are pending. Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, 25 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 16, 19-22, 26 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 29-35 is/are newly presented.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 4-7, 16-21, 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Previous claim 25 was previously objected to as being allowable if rewritten into independent form and was hence incorporated into claim 22. However, in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Kawai et al. (USPN 7621031) are considered to disclose the subject matter of previous claim 25. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
As the new rejection is not necessitated by applicant’s amendments, the instant office action is considered non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on January 10, 2026. There appears to be four separate information disclosure statements filed on the same day.
The information disclosure statement filed January 10, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The citation EU 12161079.8 is not considered as a legible copy of the foreign patent document has not been filed. The citation KR200393854Y1 is not considered as a legible copy of the foreign patent document has not been filed. A machine translation has been filed, but a copy of the actual document has not been filed.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson (USPN 4237598) in view of Kawai et al. (USPN 7621031).
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Williamson teaches an automatic workpiece supply system for supplying one or more workpieces to a CNC machining system (machine tools 101-106), the automatic workpiece supply system comprising: (A) pallet supply means (rack 113) for storing a plurality of pallets configured to support at least one workpiece; (B) pallet retriever means (transporter 114) for retrieving a pallet supporting at least one workpiece to be machined from the pallet supply means and supplying the retrieved pallet to the CNC machining system. Williamson fails to teach control means for actuating a door of the CNC machining system. Kawai et al. teaches a machining system (20,21) and teaches control means for actuating a door (34) of the machining system [Col. 5:15-20, “the opening/closing operation of the door 34 are controlled by an NC device”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide control means for actuating a door of the CNC machining system since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The control means would provide automated operation of the door.
Regarding Claim(s) 23, the pallet supply comprises shelf means for supporting a plurality of pallets. Figure 2 shows the rack having shelves.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson in view of Kawai et al. as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Leverenz (USPN 4803772).
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Williamson teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the pallet retriever means comprises gantry means for supporting a pallet retrieval unit means for retrieving a pallet from the shelf means. Leverenz (USPN 4803772) teaches a storage and retrieval system (20) adjacent to machine tools (12, 14, 16). The storage and retrieval system has a pallet store with shelf means (storage locations 40 are arranged as shelves) and a pallet retriever means(captive mast-fork lift 66), the pallet retriever means comprising a gantry means (frame 70 supported by rollers 72) for supporting a pallet retrieval unit means (fork 74) for retrieving a pallet from the shelf means. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute for the transporter of Williamson a gantry means for supporting a pallet retrieval unit means for retrieving a pallet from the shelf means as taught by Leverenz. The substitution would yield predictable results as pallets would still be transferred between the store and the machining system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-16, 19-21, 29-35 are allowed.
Claims 26-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the gantry is longitudinally extendible to enable the pallet retriever to pass through a door of the CNC machining system, combined with the rest of the claim language. US Pub 20240001500 A1 discloses an extendible gantry, but fails to disclose a pallet retriever passing through a door of a CNC machining system.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the CNC machining center comprises a clamping base comprising a locking mechanism for lockingly engaging a pallet to the clamping base, wherein the removing, by the pallet retriever, the finished pallet from engagement with the CNC machining center comprises unlocking the locking mechanism by the pallet retriever, combined with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding Claim(s) 29, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the pallet retriever is configured to unlock and remove a pallet from a pallet clamping base of the CNC machining system, combined with the rest of the claim language.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub 20240001500 A1 discloses an extendible gantry, but fails to disclose a pallet retriever passing through a door of a CNC machining system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights