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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (a) (the species of Figures 1-8 (first embodiment)) in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/5/2026.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“a first fixing portion” in claim 7 (noting that the term “fixing” is function such that the claim recites a first portion for performing the function of fixing, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of fixing”);
“a second fixing portion” in claim 7 (noting that the term “fixing” is function such that the claim recites a second portion for performing the function of fixing, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of fixing”); and
“a third fixing portion” in claim 7 (noting that the term “fixing” is function such that the claim recites a second portion for performing the function of fixing, but recites no additional structure to perform the function of fixing”).
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “the other end of the opening portion” should be changed to “an opposing end of the opening portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “the other end of the opening portion” should be changed to “an opposing end of the opening portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “a horizontal plane” should be changed to “[[a]] the horizontal plane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of the claim, “the other end side of the opening portion” should be changed to “an opposing end side of the opening portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 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.
Lines 2-5 of claim 1 state, “a table movable in a first axial direction parallel to a horizontal direction; a first guide portion and a second guide portion that guide the table in the first axial direction and are arranged apart from each other in a second axial direction which is parallel to the horizontal direction and orthogonal to the first axis.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because Applicant established in line 2 of claim 1 that the “first axial direction” is parallel to the “horizontal direction.” Noting this, in lines 4-5 of claim 1, Applicant then sets forth that the “second axial direction” is orthogonal to the first axis (which is being interpreted as referring to the “first axial direction”) and parallel to the “horizontal direction.” Noting this, how or in what way is it possible for the horizontal direction to simultaneously be parallel to two axial directions (the first and the second) which extend orthogonal to one another? Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “a table movable in a first axial direction which extends in a horizontal plane; a first guide portion and a second guide portion that guide the table in the first axial direction and are arranged apart from each other in a second axial direction which is axial direction and which extends in the horizontal plane.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first axis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that Applicant previously claimed, “a first axial direction” in line 2 of claim 1 not “a first axis.”
Lines 10-12 of claim 1 state, “wherein the first guide mounting portion and the second guide mounting portion include a first facing surface and second facing surface that face each other across the opening portion in the second axial direction.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it is unclear if the first guide mounting portion includes both the first facing surface and the second facing surface, or if instead, the first guide mounting portion includes just the first facing surface. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it is unclear if the second guide mounting portion includes both the first facing surface and the second facing surface, or if instead, the second guide mounting portion includes just the second facing surface. Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “wherein the first guide mounting portion s a first facing surface and the second guide mounting portion includes a second facing surface, wherein the first facing surface and the second facing surface
Lines 2-4 of claim 6 state, “a first side surface and a second side surface that respectively rise from both end portions of the lower surface in the first axial direction.” First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it is unclear as to what is meant by “a first side surface and a second side surface that respectively rise from both end portions of the lower surface.” Does the first side surface extend from one end portion while the second side surface extends from an opposing end portion? Or does somehow/someway the first side surface extends from both end portions, and likewise the second side surface extends from both end portions? This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how the first side surface and the second side surface rise in the first axial direction when it was established in line 2 of claim 1 that the “first axial direction [is] parallel to a horizontal direction.”
Lines 4-7 of claim 6 state, “a first inclined surface extending obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the first side surface along the first axial direction, and a second inclined surface that extends obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the second side surface along the first axial direction.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the first inclined surface extending obliquely upward…along the first axial direction when it was established in line 2 of claim 1 that the “first axial direction [is] parallel to a horizontal direction.” Likewise, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by the second inclined surface extending obliquely upward…along the first axial direction when again it was established in line 2 of claim 1 that the “first axial direction [is] parallel to a horizontal direction.” Examiner suggests the following amendment so as to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: “a first inclined surface extending obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the first side surface with respect to the first axial direction, and a second inclined surface that extends obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the second side surface with respect to the first axial direction.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that Applicant previously claimed, “the other end side” (emphasis added) in line 9 of claim 7.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (China Publication No. CN 208231430 U).
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Chen is relied upon below, and this EPO Machine Translation has been furnished with this office action.
Claim 1: Figures 1 and 2 of Chen show a machine tool comprising a table (8) which is movable in a first axial direction parallel to a horizontal direction. For Applicant’s reference, the first axial direction, a second axial direction, and a third axial direction have all been shown below within annotated Figure 1 of Chen.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
1192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The machine tool of Chen further comprises a first guide portion and a second guide portion (each of which comprises a respective Z axis guide rail (10)) that guides the table (8) in the first axial direction. Next, as can be seen on the following page in annotated Figure 5, the first and second guide portions are arranged apart from each other in the second axial direction which extends orthogonal to the first axial direction. Also, as is best understood, in at least the same way as in Applicant’s machine tool, the second axial direction of Chen “is parallel to the horizontal direction.”
PNG
media_image2.png
838
988
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen above, the machine tool further comprises a bed (2) which includes a first guide mounting portion on which the first guide portion is mounted and further includes a second guide mounting portion on which the second guide portion is mounted.
Furthermore, as can also be seen above, the bed (2) is provided with an opening portion which is located between the first guide mounting portion and the second guide mounting portion and which penetrates in the third axial direction parallel to a vertical direction. Also, as be seen above, the first guide mounting portion includes a first facing surface. In contrast, the second guide mounting portion includes a second facing surface, wherein the first facing surface and the second facing surface face each other across the opening portion in the second axial direction.
Lastly, the bed (2) further includes a rib portion which is arranged in the opening portion and is connected to the first facing surface and the second facing surface. Once again, Examiner directs attention to annotated Figure 5 on the previous page. Annotated Figure 5 of Chen points to the machine tool’s rib portion.
Claim 2: Figure 5 of Chen has again been annotated and provided below.
PNG
media_image3.png
596
910
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the opening portion has a first open end arranged at one end of the opening portion in the first axial direction and a second open end arranged at an opposing end of the opening portion in the first axial direction. Also, as can be seen above, a length between the first open end and the second open end in the first axial direction is greater than a length (width) of the opening portion in the second axial direction.
Claim 3: Figure 5 of Chen has again been annotated and provided below.
PNG
media_image4.png
596
910
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the opening portion has a first open end arranged at one end of the opening portion in the first axial direction and a second open end arranged at an opposing end of the opening portion in the first axial direction. Also, as can be seen above, a length between the first open end and the second open end in the first axial direction is greater than a maximum stroke length of the table (8) in first axial direction. Please be advised that the maximum stroke length corresponds to the length of the Z axis guide rail (10) of the machine tool with respect to the first axial direction.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (China Pub. No. CN 208231430 U) in view of Ishikawa (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2019/0001453 A1).
Claim 5: Chen does not provide disclosure on the machine tool comprising “a cover body that defines a processing area on the bed.”
Figure 1 of Ishikawa though, shows a machine tool (1) comprising a cover body (5) that defines a processing area on a bed (6). Per Ishikawa, the cover body (5) shields a machine main body (2) for preventing scattering of cutting wastes and cutting fluids at machining by the main spindle (3) of the machine tool (1) [paragraph 0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the machine tool of Chen with the cover body (5) of Ishikawa so as to provide the machine tool of Chen with the advantage of shielding the main body of the machine tool of Chen such that cutting wastes and cutting fluids generated by a main spindle (19) of Chen are prevented from scattering.
In providing the machine tool of Chen with the cover body (5) of Ishikawa, said cover body (5) of Ishikawa functions to define a processing area on the bed (2) of Chen. For Applicant’s reference, boundaries of the processing area on the bed (2) of Chen have been denoted in dashed lines in annotated Figure 5 of Chen.
PNG
media_image5.png
590
779
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Please be advised that when the processing area and the opening portion are cut by a same horizontal plane, an opening area of the opening portion is seemingly 20% or more of an area of the processing area. This cannot be definitively determined though from the above annotated figure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the opening area of the opening portion of the machine tool of Chen when the opening portion is cut by a horizontal plane to be 20% or more of the area of the processing area when the processing area is cut by the horizontal plane since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the opening portion of the machine tool of Chen would not operate differently with the claimed opening area thereof being 20% or more of the area of the processing area, because the opening area would function appropriately and still provide space for the receipt of swarf/chips generated from machining of a given workpiece. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that “opening area S1 of opening portion 211 may be 25% or more of area S2 of processing area 300 (S1≥0.25×S2), or 30% or more of area S2 of processing area 300 (S1≥0.3×S2)” [paragraph 0097 of Applicant’s specification filed on 12/22/2023].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (China Pub. No. CN 208231430 U) in view of Tanaka (Japan Pub. No. JP 2016120501 A).
Claim 6: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 5, the rib portion of the machine tool of Chen includes a lower surface and further includes a first side surface and a second side surface that respectively rise from both end portions of the lower surface in the first axial direction. Chen though, does not indicate if the lower surface extends “parallel to a horizontal plane.” Also, Chen does not disclose said rib portion as further including, “a first inclined surface extends obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the first side surface along the first axial direction, and a second inclined surface that extends obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the second side surface along the first axial direction and intersects with the first inclined surface.”
Tanaka though, shows in at least Figures 4-5 a rib portion of a machine tool, the rib portion including a lower portion (15a, 17a) that extends parallel to a horizontal plane. Next, the rib portion includes both a first side surface (15) and a second side surface (17) that respectively rise from both end portions of the lower surface (15a, 17a) in the first axial direction. The first and second side surfaces (15, 17) “rise” in the first axial direction as the first side surface (15) and the second side surface (17) each have a respective component vector that extends parallel to the first axial direction, for example. (For Applicant’s reference, the first axial direction corresponds to the X-axis in Figures 4-5 of Tanaka). The rib portion of Tanaka also includes a first inclined surface (16) that extends obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the first side surface (15) along the first axial direction, and a second inclined surface (20) that extends obliquely upward from an upper end portion of the second side surface (17) along the first axial direction and intersects with the first inclined surface (16). Lastly, as can be seen in Figures 1-3 of Tanaka, the rib portion extends in a second axial direction from a first facing surface (2c) to a second facing surface (2b) of the machine tool. In extending in this manner, the rib portion provides stability to the machine bed of the machine tool of Tanaka. Also, due to geometry of the rib portion (corresponding to the lower portion (15a, 17), first side surface (15), second side surface (17), first inclined surface (16), and second inclined surface (20)), the rib portion provides for directing chips/swarf to fall downward into an opening portion of the machine tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the rib portion of Chen with the rib portion of Tanaka, because the rib portion of Tanaka provides the advantage of directing chips/ swarf to fall downward into/through the opening portion of the machine tool of Chen while at the same time maintaining the provision of stability to the bed (2) of the machine tool of Chen that the now-replaced rib portion of Chen had provided.
In making the above replacement, the rib portion of Tanaka is oriented in the modified machine tool of Chen such that the lower portion (15a, 17a) of the rib portion of Tanaka extends parallel to a horizontal plane. Also, it is noted that in the modified machine tool of Chen that the rib portion of Tanaka extends in the second axial direction such that said rib portion is arranged in the opening portion and connects the first facing surface with the second facing surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tullmann (U.S. Patent No. 8,181,321 B2) shows a machine tool comprising a first guide portion (30) and a second guide portion (31) that guide a table (51) in a first axial direction and are arranged part from each other in a second axial direction. The machine tool of Tullmann further comprises a first guide mounting portion (20) and a second guide mounting portion (21) on which the first (30) and second guide portion (31) are mounted respectively. The first guide mounting portion (20) includes a first facing surface (23) and the second mounting portion (21) includes a second facing surface (24) that face each other across an opening portion. Lastly, the machine tool comprises a rib portion (25) (as broadly claimed) which is arranged in the opening portion and which is connected to the first facing surface (23) and the second facing surface (24).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights