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 .
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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “positioner” and “lubricating device” in claims 5, 6 and 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 5, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (TW 1717162, hereinafter ‘Hwang’).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang discloses an apparatus for machining a mechanical part, comprising a positioner 333 configured to hold the mechanical part to be machined, and adjust an orientation of the mechanical part. An assembly is arranged on a platform under the mechanical part to machine the mechanical part from a bottom side of the mechanical part (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 3). The assembly comprises a parallel robot adapted to be mounted onto a platform under the mechanical part to be machined, and comprising one or more axes (Y/vertical axis). A servo spindle is mounted on the parallel robot and is configured to drive a machining tool to rotate. The parallel robot is configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along the one or more axes with respect to the parallel robot.
Regarding claim 19, Hwang discloses the assembly further comprising the machining tool (e.g. the milling tool visible in Figs. 2 & 3) held by the servo spindle and configured to rotate under driving of the servo spindle.
Regarding claim 20, Hwang illustrates the machining tool comprising a milling tool (see Figs. 2 & 3).
Claims 5, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei (CN 206185469).
Regarding claim 5, Lei discloses an apparatus for machining a mechanical part, comprising a positioner 2 configured to hold the mechanical part to be machined 7 and to adjust an orientation of the mechanical part. An assembly is arranged on a platform under the mechanical part to machine the mechanical part from a bottom side thereof. The assembly comprises a parallel robot 5 adapted to be mounted onto a platform 1 under the mechanical part to be machined and comprising one or more axes. A servo spindle 6 is mounted on the parallel robot and is configured to drive a machining tool to rotate. The parallel robot is configured to drive the servo spindle to translate along the one or more axes (e.g. the Y and X axes) with respect to the parallel robot.
Regarding claim 19, Lei discloses the assembly further comprising the machining tool 4 being held by the servo spindle and configured to rotate under driving of the servo spindle.
Regarding claim 20, Lei discloses the machining tool 4 comprising a drilling tool or a milling tool (second to last paragraph in the English translation provided 07/21/2023).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (TW 1717162).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang does not explicitly disclose a lubricating device in the apparatus. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that lubricating devices are so prevalent in the art that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to include a lubricating device configured to supply a lubricant to the machining tool (either through the spindle or via an external nozzle) during operation to cool the tool/workpiece as well as flush chips away from the machining area.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 206185469).
Regarding claim 6, Lei does not explicitly disclose a lubricating device in the apparatus. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that lubricating devices are so prevalent in the art that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to include a lubricating device configured to supply a lubricant to the machining tool (either through the spindle or via an external nozzle) during operation to cool the tool/workpiece as well as flush chips away from the machining area.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (TW 1717162) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bullen et al. (US 5836068, hereinafter ‘Bullen’).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang does not explicitly disclose a human machine interface as claimed.
Bullen discloses a similarly automated machine provided with a human machine interface 212 configured to receive a user input (e.g. button presses) for setting machining parameters (e.g. a desired orientation of the manufacturing plane, Col. 5, Lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a human machine interface such as the one taught by Bullen to the apparatus of Hwang, in order to allow a user to input machining parameters on-site.
Claims 7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN 206185469) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bullen et al. (US 5836068).
Regarding claim 7, Lei does not explicitly disclose a human machine interface as claimed.
Bullen discloses a similarly automated machine provided with a human machine interface 212 configured to receive a user input (e.g. button presses) for setting machining parameters (e.g. a desired orientation of the manufacturing plane, Col. 5, Lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a human machine interface such as the one taught by Bullen to the apparatus of Lei, in order to allow a user to input machining parameters on-site.
Regarding claim 16, Lei discloses the parallel robot being a Cartesian robot, configured to drive the spindle along axes normal to each other with respect to the parallel robot (in the instant case, the X and Y axes). Lei does not disclose the parallel robot being configured to also move the servo spindle in a third axis, normal to the other two.
Bullen discloses a similar machining device, wherein the spindle 265 is provided with a pivot 270 and a separate slider 244/245 to move along a third axis (the X axis in the case of Bullen is equivalent to the Z axis of Lei, an axis parallel to the direction that the tool axis extends).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the apparatus taught by Bullen, that moves the spindle in the third normal axis as well as rotating the spindle about another axis to the apparatus of Lei, in order to allow the machine tool to be displaced in the third normal axis, as well as rotating to machine internal or external features onto the workpiece without colliding the workpiece with the platform.
Regarding claim 17, Lei does not explicitly disclose a lubricating device in the apparatus. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that lubricating devices are so prevalent in the art that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to include a lubricating device configured to supply a lubricant to the machining tool (either through the spindle or via an external nozzle) during operation to cool the tool/workpiece as well as flush chips away from the machining area.
Regarding claim 18, Lei does not explicitly disclose a human machine interface as claimed.
Bullen discloses a similarly automated machine provided with a human machine interface 212 configured to receive a user input (e.g. button presses) for setting machining parameters (e.g. a desired orientation of the manufacturing plane, Col. 5, Lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a human machine interface such as the one taught by Bullen to the apparatus of Lei, in order to allow a user to input machining parameters on-site.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant presents arguments alleging that Hwang does not disclose a positioner configured to hold the mechanical part, Hwang does not disclose an assembly provided under the mechanical part to machine the mechanical part from a bottom side and Lei does not disclose a positioner configured to adjust an orientation of the mechanical part. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
First, Hwang discloses a multi-axis machining device. Figures 2 and 3, as cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 03/23/2026 and again above, clearly illustrate a multi-jaw chuck as part of first jig 333, which reads on the claimed ‘positioner configured to hold the mechanical part to be machined’ (i.e. in the chuck). As Hwang explicitly discloses a machining device and illustrates a chuck opposite a tool (attached to second jig 343 in aforementioned Figures 2 and 3), one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hwang anticipates the claim(s).
Second, again, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, a helically-fluted tool is clearly visible in second jig 343, located under a workpiece held by the positioner/chuck. Therefore, the second jig reads as the claimed assembly which is arranged under the mechanical part to be machined.
Applicant’s two arguments with respect to Hwang seem to discard the fact that the displacement sensor system is explicitly discussed as being applied to a multi-axis machining device, and clearly and plainly illustrate the workpiece holder/positioner and tool/assembly in the reference. While little detail of the machining device is provided with reference characters and/or description, the Figures clearly illustrate the broad structure claimed and anticipate claim 5.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against Lei not adjusting the orientation of the mechanical part, the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘orientation’ as “The relative position or direction of something; the bearing or lie of a thing.” (www.oed.com/dictionary/orientation_n?tab=meaning_and_use accessed 08/05/2026). Therefore, “adjusting the height of the workpiece by translating it along a single axis” as Applicant correctly asserts the device of Lei does, in fact changes the orientation/relative position of the workpiece, thereby anticipating claim 5.
The dependent claims all depend from claim 5 and are still rejected, as claim 5 has been properly rejected.
Finally, regarding the rejection of claims 6 and 17 utilizing Official Notice, Applicant asserts that MPEP 2144.03 provides a right of further request of support after the Non-Final Rejection of 03/23/2026 should the rejection be maintained. However, 2144.03, C, second paragraph reads, “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.” In the instant case, no traversal was made, so the addition of a lubricating device to the apparatus as claimed in instant claims 6 and 17 is now taken to be admitted prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights