CTNF 18/257,707 CTNF 89048 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-36 AIA 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 “means for holding and moving said non-rotary part axially (lines 7-8 claim 1 ); “pivoting control means” (line 11, claim 1 ); “translation control device” (line 13, claim 1 ); “pusher elements” (line 13, claim 1 ); “every guiding surface corresponding to a pivoting tool holder having the shape of a helix portion” (lines 20-21, claim 1 ); “helical guiding surfaces” (line 27, claim 1 ); “phase shift device” (line 28, claim 1 ); “a system to measure its angular position” (lines 6-7, claim 2 ); the entirety of claim 4 ; “a hexagon located on each end outside of the spindle” (lines 3-4, claim 5 ); “ helix portion” (line 3, claim 6 ); “elements” (line 4, claim 7 ); “linear actuator mounted in a set back manner in relation to the frame” (lines 3-4, claim 10 ) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “control element”, “translation control device”, “pusher elements”, “phase shift device” in claim 1. 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 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. 07-34-07 AIA As a general note, the claims appear to be generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Proper clarification is needed. Claim 1 , line 5 “guiding means”; line 7 “fixed support means”; line 11 “pivoting control means”; line 13 “translation control device” and “pusher elements”; lines 27-28 “means for moving said control bush” line 28 “phase shift device”; claim 3 “numerical control means”; and claim 4 “means that allow a complete change of central section” and “receiving axial guiding means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear what exactly is the structure that defines each of: the guiding means; fixed support means; the pivoting control means; the translation control device; the pusher elements; the means for moving said control bush; the phase shift device; the numerical control means; the means that allow a complete change of central section and receiving axial guiding means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. 07-34-23 Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim 1 recites in: Line 11 “a control lever arranged transversely”. However, it is unclear in relation to what is this control lever arranged “transversely” to? Further clarification is needed. line 20 “every guiding surface corresponding to a pivoting tool holder having the shape of a helix portion whose axis coincides with the pivoting axis of said tool holder”. First, it is unclear what is meant by “every guiding surface” that corresponds to a pivoting tool holder. Guiding in what sense? Second, since claim 1 already sets forth that there are at least two tool holders that pivot about respective axes in lines 8-9, it is unclear if the “pivoting tool holder” is one of the at least two tool holders or not and if the pivoting axis of said tool holder, is the pivoting axis of the at least two tool holders or of the pivoting tool holder. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the shape of a helix portion” and “the pivoting axis” since no “shape of a helix portion or “pivoting axis” has been previously introduced in the claim. Third, it is unclear if 1) every guide surface has the shape of a helix portion or 2) a pivoting tool holder has the shape of a helix portion. Fourth, what exactly is catalogued as “a shape of a helix portion”? Is it that either the guide surface is helical? Or that the pivoting tool holder is helical? The way these claim limitations have been set forth is overall unclear and confusing. Further clarification is needed. Line 26 “control surface”, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what exactly is defined as a “surface” that controls. Further clarification is needed. Lines 26-27 “said helical guiding surface”, which has insufficient antecedent basis as no “helical guiding surface” has been previously set forth. Further clarification is needed. Lines 27-28 “means for moving said control bush axially and a phase shift device arranged to bring said control bush in two, three or four predetermined angular positions about its axis”. First, the means for moving said control bush axially, are not defined in the claim to such extent so as to clearly understand what exactly is what moves the control bush axially. Second, it is unclear what exactly this phase shift device is and third, it is unclear in relation to what are these two, three or four predetermined angular positions are taken from. The term “its” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear to what exactly “its” pertains to. Claim 2 recites in lines 6-7 “each drive motors being equipped with a system to measure its angular position”, it is unclear what exactly this system is and in relation to what this angular position is taken from. The term “its” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear to what exactly “its” pertains to. Claim 3 recites in lines 3-4 “ensure a perfectly synchronous rotation, but also allows commanding any angular phase shift”. However, the metes and bounds of how exactly a “perfectly synchronous rotation” is accomplished is unclear. Also, it is unclear how a synchronization between drive motors is being done while also the commanding of any angular phase shift between drive motors. It is believed that this intended performance can be either synchronized or unsynchronized. Further clarification is needed. Claim 4 recites in lines 1 and 4-5 “A machining unit according to claim 1” and “allowing easy replacement of said bearings and possible adaptation of other guiding systems”. First, it is unclear if “a machining unit according to claim 1” is the same “rotary head machining unit” or not. Consistency throughout the claim is needed, for clarity purposes. Second, it is unclear what catalogues an “easy” replacement and “possible” adaptation. Is this adaptation, actually taken place or not? Further clarification is needed. Claim 5 recites in line 2 “three tool holder axes”. It is unclear how exactly an “axis” is being mounted in the rotor. Is this “three tool holder axes” supposed to be “three tool holders”? Further clarification is needed. Further in line 3, “a hexagon located on each end outside of the spindle”. The way these limitations have been set forth is unclear. Does this mean that the outer circumference of the spindle is hexagonal in shape so as to allow mounting various cutting tool carriers? Further clarification is needed. Claim 6 recites in line 2 “a lever-shaped rear section of each of the control levers”. The way these limitations have been set forth is unclear. How a control lever also has a lever-shaped rear section? What defines a “lever-shaped” rear section? Further clarification is needed. Claim 7 recites in line 2 “every axis is supported radially by two needle bearings”. It is unclear what exactly these “every axis” are. Further in lines 3-4 “the axial play being adjusted with elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the axial play”, since no axial play has been previously introduced. Axial play of what? What exactly defines these “elements”? What is the structure of these “elements”? Claim 10 recites in lines 3-4 that a linear actuator is mounted “in a set back manner in relation to the frame”. However, it is unclear what exactly defines a “set back manner”. Further clarification is needed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 7 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) a s being a nticipated b y P iguet et al. US 6,055,893 (hereafter—Piguet--) . In regards to claim 1 , as best understood in view of the 112 2 nd issues identified above , Piguet discloses a rotary head machining unit (Figure 1) that carries at least two pivoting tools (17) to machine a non-rotary part centered on a rotational axis of the rotary head, including a frame (Figures 1, 3 and 6) on which a rotor (100) is mounted, carried by two external bearings (2), said rotor (100) having an axial channel and, coupled to rotational drive means (24, 5, 6, 30), axial guiding means (22) for said non rotary part, the axial guiding means being carried by bearings (41) in said rotor (100) and by fixed support, means for holding and moving said non-rotary part axially (in the same way as presented by Applicant), at least two tool holders (17) mounted in said rotary head in order to pivot about respective axes parallel to the rotational axis, each of the at least two tool holders (17) comprising a control lever (13a,b) arranged transversally, pivoting control means (as presented by Applicant) cooperating with said control lever and comprising a control element (19) that is movable in axial translation in the rotor (100) and coupled to a translation control device, and pairs of pusher elements (14a, b) arranged respectively on each of the control levers and on the corresponding control element, each of the pairs of pusher elements comprising a guiding surface (14a,b) and a pushing surface resting against the guiding surface in a position that varies according to the translation of said control element (19), said guiding surface (14a,b) being located on the tool holder and the corresponding pushing surface being located on said control element (19), and every guiding surface corresponding to a pivoting tool holder having the shape of a helix portion whose axis coincides with the pivoting axis of said tool holder, wherein said control element is a control bush (19) mounted coaxially on a spindle, said control bush (19) being arranged to slide axially and to be in a first advanced position, in a second retracted position, said control bush (19) carrying at one end thereof a control surface with an ellipsoidal shape (20a,b) arranged to cooperate with said guiding surfaces (14a,b) and to make the pivoting tools plunge, means for moving said control bush (19) axially and a phase shift device arranged to bring said control bush (12) in two, three or four predetermined angular positions about its axis. In regards to claim 4 , as best understood in view of the 112 2 nd issues identified above , Piguet discloses the rotary head machining unit according to claim 1 , Piguet also discloses means (7) that allow a complete change of central section receiving axial guiding means (as presented by Applicant), thus allowing the easy replacement of said bearings (8) and the possible adaptation of other guiding systems for the part to be machined, without having to modify the spindle itself. In regards to claim 5 , as best understood in view of the 112 2 nd issues identified above , Piguet discloses the rotary head machining unit according to claim 1 , Piguet also discloses three toolholder axes (17) are mounted in the rotor (100), all being identical, wherein a hexagon (9a) located on each end outside of the spindle allows mounting various cutting tool carriers (17). In regards to claim 6 , as best understood in view of the 112 2 nd issues identified above , Piguet discloses the rotary head machining unit according to claim 1 , Piguet also discloses a lever-shaped rear section of each of the control levers (13a,b) carries a helix portion (as presented by Applicant) that will be in contact with said control bush (19, via 20a). In regards to claim 7 , as best understood in view of the 112 2 nd issues identified above , Piguet discloses the rotary head machining unit according to claim 1 , Piguet also discloses that every axis is supported radially by two needle bearings (10, 11) the axial play being adjusted with elements (as presented by Applicant). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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. /NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 2 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 3 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 4 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 5 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 6 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 7 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 8 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 9 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 10 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 11 Art Unit: 3722 Application/Control Number: 18/257,707 Page 12 Art Unit: 3722