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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
tool conveyance mechanism (e.g. claim 1) - a left-right movable base, an up-and-down and back-and-forth unit, an X-axis (left-right) motor, a Z-axis cylinder, and a Y-axis motor (paragraph 0051). The back-and-forth function may alternatively be omitted (paragraph (0108).
tool holding unit (e.g. claim 1) - engagement plate and lock mechanism (paragraph 0062)
conveyance control unit (e.g. claim 1) - a computer (paragraphs 0071, 0079)
opening and closing mechanism (first and second, e.g. claim 4) - a shutter and actuator (paragraphs 0040, 0044)
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 (as noted above), 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
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites “a tool stocker storing the tool to be attached to the spindle”. In this case, it is unclear if the tool is intended to be positively recited. Based on the context of the claim, the tool is presumed NOT to be positively recited, and the limitation in question will be interpreted as --a tool stocker configured for storing the tool to be attached to the spindle--.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (WO2022024454, cited in IDS, with reference to translation) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO2022230036, with reference to 2024/0217042 as an English equivalent).
Claim 1: Yasuda et al. discloses a machine tool (10) at least including: a spindle (paragraph 41) arranged in a machining area (400) and configured to detachably hold a tool (Id.); and a cover body formed by at least a ceiling cover and a side wall cover and surrounding the machining area to separate the machining area from outside (unlabeled upper and side panels of machine tools 400 evident in Figs. 1, 8), wherein: the machine tool includes: a tool stocker (250) storing the tool to be attached to the spindle (paragraph 20); a tool conveyance mechanism (300, including base 332 movable along rail 331, an arm robot 330, and corresponding motors - paragraphs 21, 37) having a tool holding unit (implicitly an end effector of the robot for holding tools) for detachably holding the tool and configured to move the tool holding unit along a predetermined path (along rail 331); and a conveyance control unit (computer 50) configured to control the tool conveyance mechanism (paragraphs 27-29); the tool conveyance mechanism is configured to move the tool holding unit at least to a tool change position (at 400, e.g. Fig. 8; paragraphs 22, 79) for transferring the tool between the tool holding unit and the spindle, a stocker position (at a particular location of 250 - paragraphs 20, 74, 77) for transferring the tool between the tool holding unit and the tool stocker, and a position for work set as a position for a worker to perform work on the tool holding unit from outside of the machining area (any other arbitrary position could be considered for this purpose, e.g. at 200, paragraph 19, or other intermediate positions, given that a worker could theoretically access and work upon the tool holding unit in such a position); and the tool stocker is arranged on top of the ceiling cover or above the ceiling cover (evident in Figs. 1 and 8).
The tool conveyance mechanism 50 is not necessarily structured exactly as dictated by the interpretation under 112(f). However, the examiner submits that the Yasuda robot arm serves as an equivalent since it performs the function specified in the claim (detachably holding the tool and configured to move the tool holding unit along a predetermined path, as cited above), it is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and at least performs the identical function specified in the claim (as noted above) in substantially the same way (i.e. through movement in three dimensions of Cartesian space), and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification (i.e. to move the tool between the claimed positions), and/or a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification (since it essentially performs the same function as discussed above).
The tool holding unit does not necessarily structured exactly as dictated by the interpretation under 112(f). However, Tanaka et al. discloses a similar machine tool wherein the tool holding unit comprises an engagement plate and lock mechanism (i.e. respectively two jaws of a gripper/hand 35, where one may be an engagement plate and the other may be a lock mechanism which locks the tool against the first jaw - paragraph 47; Figs. 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used such a tool holding unit since it allows for gripping the width across flats of the tool, Id.).
Claim 5: Referring to Yasuda, the machine tool includes the tool stocker (250) as a first tool stocker and further includes a second tool stocker (200) different from the first tool stocker; the second tool stocker has a plurality of tool holding units (237A/B - Fig. 3) connected successively and is configured to detachably hold a tool in each of the tool holding units (paragraph 46, 48); the machine tool further includes a tool changer (238, 438) configured to perform tool change between the spindle and the second tool stocker (the tool changers at least contribute to this process); and the position for work is set on a side opposite to the second tool stocker with the spindle therebetween (if the spindle is in one of the intermediate machine tools 400 and the work set position is to the left in Fig. 1, for example).
Claim 6: The first tool stocker (250) appears that it is configured to be able to store a tool having a greater length than the tool to be stored in the second tool stocker (i.e. even if the sum total of tools of the device have different lengths and each of 250 and 200 were configured to store the same tools, a longer tool could be stored in 250 while a shorter tool is stored in 200. Also, given that 25o is exterior to any housing, it is less limited to the size of tool it is “configured to be able to store”).
Claims 7 and 9: A position of the spindle when the tool is transferred between the tool holding unit of the tool conveyance mechanism at the tool change position and the spindle and a position of the spindle when the tool changer performs the tool change are set at a same position (the spindle location does not appear to change in these scenarios).
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0036282, equivalent to JP2009034803 cited in IDS, with reference to translation) in view of Claus (CH699221, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Yasuda et al. discloses a machine tool (1) at least including: a spindle (15) arranged in a machining area (SP) and configured to detachably hold a tool (paragraph 36); and a cover body (40) formed by at least a ceiling cover and a side wall cover (top and front portions thereof, see Fig. 1) and surrounding the machining area to separate the machining area from outside (Id. and paragraphs 59-61), wherein: the machine tool includes: a tool stocker (magazine 12) storing the tool to be attached to the spindle (paragraph 39); a tool conveyance mechanism (10 - comprising a base 13 movable along rails 60 in direction D by motor 65, and movable along the vertical axis by a linear actuator comprising 66, 75, and 76 - see Fig. 6) having a tool holding unit (64 having grippers 68) for detachably holding the tool (paragraph 85) and configured to move the tool holding unit along a predetermined path (along 60 and up/down); and a conveyance control unit (PLC) configured to control the tool conveyance mechanism (paragraph 42); the tool conveyance mechanism is configured to move the tool holding unit at least to a tool change position (P1-P3) for transferring the tool between the tool holding unit and the spindle (paragraphs 104, 109-113), a stocker position (Pm) for transferring the tool between the tool holding unit and the tool stocker (paragraph 114), and a position for work set as a position for a worker to perform work on the tool holding unit from outside of the machining area (any other arbitrary position could be considered for this purpose, given that a worker could theoretically access and work upon the tool holding unit in such a position).
The tool conveyance mechanism 10 is not necessarily structured exactly as dictated by the interpretation under 112(f). However, the examiner submits that the Yasuda device serves as an equivalent since it performs the function specified in the claim (detachably holding the tool and configured to move the tool holding unit along a predetermined path, as cited above), it is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, and at least performs the identical function specified in the claim (as noted above) in substantially the same way (i.e. through movement in the required dimensions of Cartesian space), and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification (i.e. to move the tool between the claimed positions), and/or a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification (since it essentially performs the same function as discussed above).
The tool stocker is not necessarily arranged on top of the ceiling cover or above the ceiling cover. However, Claus discloses s machine tool wherein a tool stocker (9) is arranged on top of a ceiling of a the machine tool (Fig. 1; paragraphs 1-6 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the tool stocker on the top of the machine tool since it allows extending the space available for storing tools (Id.)
Claim 2: Referring to Yasuda et al., the tool change position and the position for work are set inside the machining area (the tool change occurs within the machine tool in positions P1-P3; the position for work may also be inside the machine but accessible to a worker outside of the housing via doors 41-43, for example); the tool conveyance mechanism is arranged to be located above the ceiling cover (evident in Fig. 1); and the ceiling cover has formed therein a first opening (one of shutters 44-46) for the tool holding unit of the tool conveyance mechanism to pass through when moved to the tool change position (paragraphs 60-61) and has formed therein a second opening (another one of shutters 44-46) for the tool holding unit to pass through when moved to the position for work (as discussed above).
Claim 4: Yasuda discloses shutters as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose first and second opening and closing mechanisms (having an actuator) configured to open and close the first and second openings. However, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means (e.g. an actuator) to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). In this case, a broad automatic or mechanical means such as an actuator would have been an obvious provision in an otherwise automated machine such as disclosed by Yasuda.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, and especially Yasuda et al. ‘282, fails to disclose the particular cover and door structure as recited in claim 3. Claim 8 depends from claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726