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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11 and 12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group drawn to a machining device for machining plate-shaped workpieces, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/28/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Regarding claims1 and 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 1 and 2 recites the limitation "the direction of" in line in claim 1, and in line 3 of claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the workpiece plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the intermediate position" in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorber et al. EP 3219453 A1 in view of Dubell et al. WO 2010025008 A1. EP 3219453 A1 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Lorber patent; W) 2010025008 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Dubell patent.
Regarding claim 1, Lorber discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces, which are “preferably “made at least in part of wood, wood material, plastic, composite material or the like, by a machining device (Lorber Para [0001]), the method comprising positioning a plate-shaped workpiece (Lorber – 10; FIG. 1) on a workpiece support (Lorber Para [0034], Line 6), introducing at least one separating region (Lorber – 21-24; FIG. 1) into the plate-shaped workpiece (Lorber – 10), positioning a machining tool, in particular a milling tool (Lorber – 52; FIG. 4), within the at least one separating region (Lorber Para [0035]), movement of the machining tool (Lorber – 52) in the direction of at least one narrow surface (Lorber – 91) of the plate-shaped workpiece (Lorber – 11-19; FIG. 1) which is adjacent to the at least one separating region (See Lorber FIG. 1), wherein, as a result of the movement of the machining tool, a cutout (Lorber – 32; FIG. 1) is introduced, in particular milled, into the at least one narrow surface (Lorber – 91) of the plate-shaped workpiece (Lorber – 11-19) (Lorber Para [0041]). Lorber fails to disclose performing a pivoting movement of the machining tool.
Dubell teaches performing a pivoting movement of a machining tool (Dubell – 24; FIG. 7)(Dubell Para [0029]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machining tool of Lorber to perform a pivoting movement, as taught by Dubell, given that the machining tool is attached to a manipulator arm equipped, in order to move and/or rotate through multiple degrees of freedom (Dubell Para [0029], Lines 6-7). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the manipulator arm, motor, and spindle, and pivot the machining tool in a direction of at least one narrow surface of the workpiece in order to remove wood around the separating region/hole.
Regarding claim 2, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the machining tool is further positioned in the separating region at a starting position (Lorber Para [0035] 5th paragraph); wherein Dubell teaches positioning the machining tool horizontally and pivoting to cut in vertical walls. (See Dubell FIG. 7, wherein the rotational axis of the machining tool is shown, however, not shown in a direction of a longitudinal extension of the separating region). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the manipulator arm, motor, and spindle, and position the machining tool along a direction of the longitudinal extension of the separating region in order to remove wood within a narrow surface of the plate-shaped workpiece. After modification, the machining tool would be aligned with the longitudinal extension direction.
Regarding claim 3, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above) wherein the pivoting movement of the machining tool (Dubell – 10; FIG. 9) for introducing the cutout is further performed in a pivoting plane which lies within the workpiece, preferably aligned parallel to a workpiece plane of the workpiece (Dubell Para [0032] 2nd paragraph). Dubell teaches the machining tool is attached to a manipulator arm equipped, in order to move and/or rotate through multiple degrees of freedom (Dubell Para [0029], Lines 6-7) within a plane which lies within the workpiece, thus the machining tool pivots in a plane parallel to the workpiece plane of the workpiece (See Dubell Fig. 10). After modification, the machining tool would pivot parallel to a workpiece plane.
Regarding claim 4, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the pivoting movement of the machining tool is further performed about a pivot axis (See Dubell FIG. 7 below) which is preferably aligned orthogonally to the workpiece plane of the workpiece. Dubell teaches the machining tool positioned horizontally and attached to a manipulator arm equipped, in order to move and/or rotate through multiple degrees of freedom (Dubell Para [0029], Lines 6-7), thus the machining tool preferably pivots about an axis aligned orthogonally to the workpiece plane of the workpiece (See Dubell Fig. 9). After modification, the machining tool would pivot about an axis orthogonal to the workpiece plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dubell FIG. 7
Regarding claim 5, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein as a result of the movement of the machining tool, a partially circular cutout (Lorber – 96; FIG. 1) is further introduced into the narrow surface of the workpiece (Lorber – 91) and, after the introduction of the cutout, the machining tool is moved into an end position in the separating region (Lorber Para [0042]). Dubell teaches the machining tool is attached to a manipulator arm equipped, in order to move and/or rotate through multiple degrees of freedom (Dubell Para [0029], Lines 6-7), thus the machining tool pivots to said end position. After modification, the machining tool would pivot to form the partially circular cutout and pivot to the end position or starting position.
Regarding claim 6, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein during the movement of the machining tool, a relative movement between the machining tool and the workpiece is further performed along the narrow surface (Lorber Para [0049]). Dubell teaches the machining tool is attached to a manipulator arm equipped, in order to move and/or rotate through multiple degrees of freedom, and thus the machining tool is positioned horizontally and pivoted for relative movement between the machining tool and the narrow surface (Dubell- FIG. 9) , in order to move and/or rotate through multiple degrees of freedom (Dubell Para [0029], Lines 6-7), After modification, the machining tool would be pivoted relative to the narrow surface.
Regarding claim 7, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the machining tool (Lorber – 52) is further pivoted, after positioning within the at least one separating region (Lorber – 21-24), into an intermediate position, whereby a partial cutout is introduced into the narrow surface (Lorber – 91), and a relative movement in at least one spatial direction is brought about between the machining tool and the workpiece in order to form a cutout with an individual shape (Lorber Para [0049]). Dubell teaches the machining tool is attached to a manipulator arm equipped, in order to move and/or rotate through multiple degrees of freedom (Dubell Para [0029], Lines 6-7) for deburring, thus the machining tool further pivots.
Regarding claim 8, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the machining tool is further arranged at the intermediate position inclined with respect to the narrow surface and the relative movement of the machining tool for introducing the cutout is performed at least in part in the inclined arrangement (Dubell Para [0033]; FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 9, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the plate-shaped workpiece is further divided by a cutting machining process into at least two partial workpieces (Lorber – 11-19), wherein the separating region (Lorber – 21-24) is formed between the at least two partial workpieces (Lorber – 11-19) by the cutting machining process (Lorber Para [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Lorber in view of Dubell discloses a method for machining plate-shaped workpieces by a machining device (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the machining of the plate-shaped workpiece (Lorber – 10) is further performed by a CNC-controlled machining device or a CNC-controlled machining center (Dubell Para [0004] & [0007]) and the plate-shaped workpiece is fixed on a workpiece support during machining (Lorber Para [0034]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights