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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden experienced by examining all inventions claimed, that the groups outlined do not lack unity and that a product and process of use of said product has unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because as pointed out in the Restriction Requirement mailed 02/11/2026, the groups of inventions lack unity of invention, as the technical features they share are not special technical features in view of the prior art both outlined in the aforementioned Restriction Requirement and in the following rejection(s). Additionally, the claimed inventions are not a product and process of use of the same product. For example, the product of Group/claim 1 is a cutting machining device, the product of Group II/claim 9 is a holding device that requires different structural limitations (i.e. not the same product) and the method of Group III/claim 10 is a method for cutting a block-shaped dental prosthesis that does not require all limitations of the previous groups (i.e. again, a method using different product(s)). All overlapping technical features of the groups are not special technical features as set out in the Restriction Requirement of 02/11/2026. Accordingly, requiring Examination of all inventions results in a burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “machining of the workpiece at least at a side plane of the machining tool.” is grammatically unclear. 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 4 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the language “the holding section is configured to hold the workpiece on both sides along the rotation axis” is unclear. The language raises questions whether the workpiece is held on two of its sides along an undisclosed workpiece rotation axis, or whether a single (or multiple) workpiece is held on both sides of the holding section. If the latter, there are no sides of the holding section set forth to which ‘both sides’ could refer. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as ‘the holding section is configured to hold a plurality of workpieces on two sides of the holding section along the rotation axis.’ Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the one plane (B1 plane) that intersects the one plane” and “the other plane (B2 plane) that faces the one plane" in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suyama et al. (US 20150071724, hereinafter ‘Suyama’).
Regarding claim 1, Suyama discloses a cutting machining device 10 capable of making a dental prosthesis that cuts a block-shaped workpiece 80 with a machining tool 24 by changing a relative positional relationship between the machining tool and the workpiece in three dimensions (Paragraph [0053]). The workpiece includes one plane 80S to which a base 80A/B for attachment to the cutting machining device is fixed. The cutting machining device comprises a positioning portion 40 that is capable of positioning the workpiece with respect to the machining tool so that the workpiece is cut from a vertical direction with respect to a facing plane that faces the one plane.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Suyama discloses the positioning portion including a holding portion 46 that holds the workpiece through the base, and a rotation portion 42 that rotates the holding portion with an axis parallel to one plane of the workpiece as a rotation axis. The rotation portion is configured to rotate the holding portion by a rotation angle of 80˚ to 100˚ and 260˚ to 280˚ with respect to a predetermined reference position to position the workpiece. Paragraph [0036] describes the entire positioning portion being ‘rotatable around the X axis as being centered around the rotation axis M of the holding tool 40’. Accordingly, Suyama discloses the rotation portion rotating the holding portion by any desired angle.
Regarding claim 3, Suyama discloses the holding portion being configured to hold a plurality of workpieces through the base so that the workpieces are aligned in a predetermined direction. The rotation portion is configured to rotate the holding portion with an axis parallel to an alignment direction of the plurality of workpieces as a rotation axis (see e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Suyama discloses the cutting machining device being capable of cutting a workpiece with a gradation continuously changing in color tone or translucency from the one plane to the facing plane or from the one plane that intersects the one plane
Regarding claim 7, Suyama discloses the cutting machining device being capable of cutting from a vertical direction including machining of the workpiece with at least a side plane of the machining tool (e.g. by conventional milling).
Regarding claim 8, Suyama discloses the cutting machining device being capable of cutting from a vertical direction including machining of the workpiece trochoidally.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyama et al. (US 20150071724) in view of Back (WO 2020045774).
Regarding claim 4, Suyama does not disclose the holding section being configured to hold workpieces on two sides thereof.
Back discloses a similar positioning portion that includes a holding portion 11 and a rotation portion which rotates the holding portion around a rotation axis (see e.g. Fig. 1, the rotation axis being the unlabeled dotted and dashed line). Multiple embodiments are illustrated, wherein workpieces 100/200 are held on two (e.g. Figs. 1-4 & 9) and even three (e.g. Figs. 5-8) sides of the holding portion to increase productivity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the holding section of Suyama by providing workpiece holding capabilities to at least one other side of the holding section as taught by Back, in order to machine twice as many workpieces at once, decreasing the down-time of the machine to remove/re-load workpieces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (US 20120177456) and Jung et al. (US 20090274994) disclose elements of or similar to the instant invention.
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