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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rettich et al. ES 2559013 T3.
Rettich discloses a machining device comprising: a trunnion table (9-10) adapted to hold a workpiece (16, see Figs. 1-13 and 21-22) and arranged to pivot around a pivot axis (29) by means of a pivoting motor (actuating means, M), wherein the pivot axis (29) is parallel to a horizontal plane (see Fig. 7); a spindle (23) adapted to hold a cutting tool (18) directed upwards (see Figs. 1-9, 11-13 and 21-22) and arranged to be moved in a plane (Z-axis, via 17, translation pg. 3, paragraph 11; “The tool 18 is arranged on a tool holder 23 which, by means of the tool approaching equipment 17, can be moved radially to the clamping mandrel 12, along the axis of rotation, with respect to said axis of rotation, and which It can approach radially and / or tangentially…”) parallel to the horizontal plane by a spindle transporting device (17); and a trunnion table transporting device (7, 8) adapted to vertically transport the trunnion table (9-10) towards and away (X-axis direction) from the cutting tool (spindle, 8); such that in a cutting state, chips cut from the workpiece (16) are capable of being removed from the workpiece by gravity.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 5, Rettich discloses a support structure (2, see annotated Fig. 1 above) supported by a base support structure (ground); a side support structure (side walls of 2); and a top connecting structure (3); wherein the side support structure is connected at a first end to the base support structure (see Fig. 1 below); wherein the side support structure is connected at a second end to the top connecting structure (3); and wherein the spindle transporting device (17, 23) is connected to the base support structure. The trunnion table transporting device (7,8) of Rettich is connected to a top end rail (3) of the side support structure (2) and thus is connected under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “connected”.
As for claim 13, Rettich discloses a method (see Figs. 1-22 and written disclosure) for machining a workpiece (16) using a machining device comprising a trunnion table (9,10) holding the workpiece (16) and a spindle (23) holding a cutting tool (18) directed upwards (see fig. 1 above), the method comprising: machining the workpiece from below by applying the cutting tool to the workpiece by (see Figs. 2-13 and 21-22): moving the spindle in a horizontal plane along a first direction and a second direction, wherein the first direction (Z-axis) is orthogonal to the second direction (Y-axis); moving the trunnion table vertically (via 7,8) thereby moving the workpiece; and tilting the workpiece by pivoting the trunnion table around a pivot axis (29), wherein the pivot axis is parallel to the first direction (Z-axis).
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) 2-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettich et al. ES 2559013 T3 in view of Pasquetto US 2003/0053875.
As for claim 2, Rettich discloses wherein the machining device further comprises a workpiece table (12-15) rotatably connected to the trunnion table (9-10) and adapted to hold the workpiece (16); wherein the workpiece table (12-15) is arranged to rotate around a rotational axis (29) but does not specify wherein the rotational axis is orthogonal to the pivot axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
362
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the use of a workpiece table rotatably connected to a trunnion table and adapted to hold a workpiece wherein the workpiece table is arranged to rotate around a rotational axis that is orthogonal to a pivot axis of a trunnion table is well known in the art as evidence by Pasquetto who teaches a trunnion table (3) having a pivot axis (A) along a horizontal plane and is provided with a workpiece table (4) rotatably connected to the trunnion table and is arranged to rotate around a rotational axis (C) that is orthogonal to the pivot axis (A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the workpiece trunnion table of Rettich for the workpiece trunnion table of Pasquetto as an alternative workpiece trunnion table providing additional degrees of freedom for machining/processing a workpiece.
As for claim 3, the modified Rettich teaches an additional workpiece table (see Pasquetto, 4) rotatable connected to the trunnion table (Pasquetto, 3) and adapted to hold an additional workpiece; wherein the additional workpiece table is arranged to rotate around an additional rotational axis (C); and wherein the additional rotational axis (C) is orthogonal to the pivot axis (A).
As for claim 4, the modified Rettich teaches wherein the machining device comprises an additional spindle (see Pasquetto, 5), and wherein the additional spindle is adapted to hold an additional cutting tool directed upwards (as disclosed by Rettich) and arranged to be moved in the plane parallel to the horizontal plane by the spindle transporting device (as disclosed by Rettich).
As for claim 14, the modified Rettich teaches wherein the machining device further comprises a workpiece table (Pasquetto, 4) adapted to rotate around a rotational axis (Pasquetto, C-axis) of itself and attached to the trunnion table (Rettich 9-10; Pasquetto, 3), wherein the workpiece is attached to the workpiece table, and wherein the method further comprises: rotating the workpiece around the rotational axis (Pasquetto, C-axis) of the workpiece table, wherein the rotational axis (Pasquetto, C-axis) is orthogonal to the pivot axis (Rettich, 29; Pasquetto, A-axis)
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rettich et al. ES 2559013 T3 in view of Grob US 7150706.
As for claim 6, Rettich discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the trunnion table transporting device (7, 8) is connected to the side supporting structure at two opposite ends, such that the trunnion table is supported by the trunnion table transporting device at two opposite ends.
PNG
media_image3.png
455
801
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Grob teaches a machining device (see annotated Fig. 21 above) comprising a base support structure; a side support structure (100, 101); and a top connecting structure (102); wherein the side support structure is connected at a first end to the base support structure; wherein the side support structure is connected at a second end to the top connecting structure; wherein a trunnion table transporting device (4, 4’, 43; see Fig. 27 below, col. 23, lines 35-44) is connected to the side supporting structure (100, 101, see Fig. 27); wherein a spindle transporting device (3, 30) is connected to the base support structure; and wherein the trunnion table transporting device (4, 4’, 43) is connected to the side supporting structure (100, 101; see Fig. 21 and 27) at two opposite ends, such that the trunnion table (4, 4’) is supported by the trunnion table transporting device at two opposite ends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the support structure and trunnion table transporting device of Rettich to an open frame workpiece support structure and trunnion table transporting device as taught by Grob in order to provide a support and base structure capable of allowing workpieces to be easily conveyed in and out of the workspace while being processed by a tool or removed by a user or manipulator.
PNG
media_image4.png
416
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 7, the modified Rettich teaches wherein the side support structure comprises at least one opening (see Grob, Figs. 21 and 27, space for conveying means 62 and opening on top of 102) for loading and/or unloading the workpiece horizontally.
As for claim 8, the modified Rettich teaches wherein the top connecting structure (Grob, 102, see Fig. 21 above) comprises an opening arranged above the trunnion table (4, 4’) and capable of loading and unloading the workpiece vertically.
As for claim 9, the modified Rettich teaches wherein the spindle is movably arranged on the spindle transporting device along a first direction by means of a first motor (not shown); wherein the spindle transporting device is movably arranged on the base support structure along a second direction by means of a second motor (not shown); wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the horizontal plane; and wherein the first direction is orthogonal to the second direction. Rettich discloses (see excerpt of Machine translation below, pg. 3) “In other exemplary embodiments... the tool approximation equipment 17 be translatable in one direction of the space or in various direction of the space…The tool 18 is arranged on a tool holder 23 which by means of the tool approaching equipment 17 can be moved radially to the clamping mandrel 12 along the axis of rotation…”. Rettich thus discloses a movement mechanism for the spindle assembly in a first and second direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
470
782
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Grob further teaches a machining unit (3) with a spindle tool (7) movably arranged on the spindle transporting device (see annotated Figure below) along a first direction (Z-axis) by means of a first motor (74)(; wherein the spindle transporting device is movably arranged on the base support structure along a second direction (X-axis) by means of a second motor (73); wherein the first direction and the second direction are parallel to the horizontal plane; and wherein the first direction is orthogonal to the second direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify and/or substitute the spindle assembly and transporting device of Rettich to include X-axis and Z-axis movement mechanisms as taught by Grob as an alternative means of providing additional degrees of freedom of movement of the spindle towards and away from the workpiece being processed
PNG
media_image6.png
393
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As for claim 10, the modified Rettich teaches wherein the spindle transporting device moves along rails (73) attached to the base support structure.
As for claim 11, the modified Rettich teaches wherein the pivot axis (Rettich, 29) is parallel to the first direction (Rettich, Z-axis).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettich et al. ES 2559013 T3 in view of Kai US 2008/0187406.
PNG
media_image7.png
564
462
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As for claim 12, the modified Rettich discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein a chip conveyor is arranged below the spindle for transporting chips away from the machining device. However, Kai teaches a machining device (see Fig. 1 above) wherein a chip conveyor (29, 29a) is arranged below a spindle (T) for transporting chips away from the machining device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the machining device of Rettich to include a chip conveyor as taught by Kai in order to provide a means for removing the chips from the machine while workpiece is being processed thus keeping a clean and sanitary work space.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettich et al. ES 2559013 T3 in view of Kell et al. US 2016/0256967.
Rettich discloses all the limitations as recited above but does not specify a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code portions for implementing the method according to claim 13 when executed on a device having processing capabilities. However, the use of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon programed code portions for implementing a method when executed on a device having processing capabilities is well known in the machining art as evidence by Kell who teaches a tool for machining an object having a computer program (78) stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (80) and a controller (70) may comprise at least one processor (74) and at least one memory (76) for which the computer program (78) may be stored on. The memory (76) stores the computer program (78) comprising computer readable instructions that, when read by the processor (74), causes performance of the methods described therein. The computer program (78) may be software or firmware, or may be a combination of software and firmware (Kell, ¶0065-69). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rettich to include a non-transitory computer readable storage medium as taught by Kell in order to allow for automating by executing a program to cause performance of the claimed method steps on the machining apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723