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 Group I, drawn to a “working head”, in the reply filed on June 4, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 4, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. It is noted that paragraph 0010 mentions EP 1205275, which is not of record. That said, it is noted that EP 1205275 is in the same patent family as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0046423 to Colombo, which is cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure (in paragraphs 0025, 0032, and 0033) refers to the claims, including by number. Applicant is required to amend the specification to remove these references and to incorporate into the disclosure any subject matter of these claims that is necessary to the understanding of the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
α (set forth in at least paragraphs 0041 and 0043, as well as claims 1 and 13); and
β (set forth at least paragraph 0043, as well as claim 14).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "3" and "4" have both been used to designate the tool holder electrospindle (and also have both been used to designate the second body). See at least Figures 1-3 and the left half of Figure 4, noting that in those figures, element 4 is shown and disclosed as the electrospindle, and 3 is shown in those figures and disclosed as the second body. However, in the right half of Figure 4, it appears that the electrospindle is instead labeled as element 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“automatic connection means (6) for connecting said electrospindle (4) to said second body (3)”, as set forth in claim 1, noting that the claim recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function (“wherein said automatic connection means (6) comprise a plurality of pins (7) mounted to said electrospindle (4) or to said second body (3), which can selectively fit into corresponding seats (8) on said second body (3) or on said electrospindle (4) for a mutual centering and locking; wherein said pins (7) and said seats (8) are positioned at vertices of a rectangle; and wherein each seat (8) comprises a collet (9) that is configured and selectively movable along an axis (10) of the collet to exert a locking/unlocking action on one of said pins (7)”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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:
“counteracting members” in at least claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
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.
However, it is noted that the term “counteracting members” is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 9, given that claim 9 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 14, it appears that –respectively—should be inserted between “electrospindle (4)” and “for”. 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 1-14 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.
In claim 1, lines 1-2, the claim recites “[A] working head (1) for machine tools with non-orthogonal axes”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “with non-orthogonal axes”, i.e., the plural “machine tools”, or the “working head”.
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the machine” in claim 1, line 2;
“said collet” in claim 2, lines 2 and 4; in claim 3, last line; in claim 4, lines 2 and 4; in claim 5, line 1; claim 8, penultimate line (plural collets previously recited);
“said central element” in claim 2, line 2, and in claim 3, line 3 (plural central elements previously recited);
“the series of counteracting members” in claim 4 (plural series of counteracting members previously recited);
“said series of counteracting members” in claim 4, claim 5, claim 6, claim 7, claim 8 (plural series of counteracting members previously recited);
“the inner surface” in claim 5 (in the event that plural inner surfaces were previously intended to be recited, re the plural collets);
particularly, “the inner surface (14) with a surface of conical shape (15)” noting that no inner surface “with” a surface of conical shape was previously recited; and
“the pin” in claim 6; in claim 7; in claim 8 (plural pins previously recited).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, last line, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the “/” in “locking/unlocking” is intended to mean “and”, “or”, or “and/or”.
In claim 2, the claim recites “wherein each seat (8) comprises a central element (11) inserted inside said collet (9), said central element (11) having a recess (12) for housing a corresponding pin (7) and an outer cylindrical surface (13) for guiding an axial movement of said collet (9)”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and an outer cylindrical surface (13) for guiding an axial movement of said collet (9)” is intended to go, e.g., “said central element (11) having…”; “a recess (12) for housing…”; “each seat (8) comprises…”, etc. In the event such is in keeping with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider language such as “wherein each seat (8) comprises a respective central element (11) inserted inside the corresponding collet (9), each said central element (11) having a respective recess (12) for housing a corresponding one of the pins (7), and each said central element (11) having a respective outer cylindrical surface (13) for guiding an axial movement of the corresponding collet (9)”.
In claim 4, the claim sets forth “axial thrust means (24) that push each collet (9) from an idle initial position, in which the collet does not interact with the series of counteracting members, (18) to an operating closed position, in which the collet interacts and radially pushes said series of counteracting members (18)”. However, it is unclear how many “axial thrust means” are intended to be set forth, and what configuration relative to the collet(s) such is/are intended to have, e.g., one axial thrust means that collectively pushes all the collets, vs. each collet is pushed by a respective axial thrust means. Note that the former only requires one axial thrust means, whereas the latter requires plural axial thrust means.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “wherein said collet (9) has the inner surface (14) with a surface of conical shape (15)”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “with a surface of conical shape” is intended to indicate that the inner surface has (or is) a surface of conical shape, or whether “with a surface of conical shape” is instead intended to indicate that the inner surface is provided along with a surface of conical shape, i.e., it is unclear as claimed whether “with a surface of conical shape” is intended to be a further limitation on the inner surface, vs. whether “with a surface of conical shape” is instead intended to set forth an additional surface.
In claim 5, the claim sets forth “wherein said collet (9) has the inner surface (14) with a surface of conical shape (15) with a predetermined taper angle (δ) at one longitudinal end adapted to interact with said series of counteracting members (18)”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what the “one longitudinal end” is of, i.e., at one longitudinal end of what?
In claim 8, the claim recites “to prevent any pin (7) from slipping off its seat when said collet it is in this operating closed position”. However, in the limitation “it is in this operating closed position”, firstly, it is unclear as claimed to what “it” is intended to refer, and further, it is unclear what is meant by “this operating closed position”. (As a side note, no operating closed position was previously recited in claim 8.)
In claim 10, in the limitation “wherein said electrospindle (4) has a rotation axis (E) of the working tool (U) clamped thereon”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “thereon” is intended to refer, i.e., the electrospindle, vs. the rotation axis (E).
In claim 11, in the limitation “wherein said electrospindle (4) has a front end surface (4’) with the working tool (U) clamped thereon”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “thereon” is intended to refer, i.e., the electrospindle, vs. the front end surface.
In claim 12, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the recited “horizontal machine tools”, or the recited “vertical machine tools”, are intended to be additional to the “machine tools” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether the recited “horizontal machine tools”, or the recited “vertical machine tools”, are instead intended to be the “machine tools” (or a subset thereof) previously set forth in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 4, the claim sets forth “axial thrust means (24) that push each collet (9) from an idle initial position, in which the collet does not interact with the series of counteracting members, (18) to an operating closed position, in which the collet interacts and radially pushes said series of counteracting members (18)”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of claim 4 hereinabove under 35 USC 112(b), it is unclear how many “axial thrust means” are intended to be set forth, and what configuration relative to the collet(s) such is/are intended to have, e.g., one axial thrust means that collectively pushes all the collets, vs. each collet is pushed by a respective axial thrust means. That said, in the event that the former is intended, it does not appear that the specification teaches such in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2012 221 926 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘926”) in view of JP 2014-092180 A (hereinafter, “JP ‘180”).
It is noted that a machine translation of DE ‘926 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re DE ‘926.
DE ‘926 teaches a working head (20) for machine tools (such as 16; see Figures 11-12 and at least paragraphs 0043 and 0047) “with” non-orthogonal axes (as broadly claimed, any three-dimensional object has an infinite number of axes that pass therethrough, which axes extend in an infinite number of different directions, including directions which are non-orthogonal, such as, for example, a horizontal axis that passes through the machine tool 16, and an axis that is inclined by 45 degrees with respect to that horizontal axis and that also extends through 16; see Figures 11-12), wherein the machine (such as the machine tool 16) comprises a support (such as 18 and/or 19; see at least Figure 1 and Figures 11-12) adapted to move along three Cartesian axes (two horizontal and one vertical; see at least paragraphs 0043-0046, as well as paragraph 0002), the working head (20) comprising:
a first body (22) configured to be mounted to the support (18 and/or 19) to rotate about a first polar axis (C) parallel to one of said three Cartesian axes (specifically, the vertical Cartesian axis, for example; see Figure 1 and also at least paragraphs 0024, 0032, and 0043-0046, as well as Figures 11-12, and the translation of at least claim 1);
a second body (24) rotatably mounted to said first body (22) and rotating about a second polar axis (A), which is tilted at a predetermined first angle (α) from said first polar axis (C) (see Figure 1 and also at least the translation of claim 1, as well as at least paragraphs 0024-0026, for example);
a tool holder electrospindle (26; see, for example, paragraph 0050) configured to be coupled to said second body (24) “along” a coupling surface (30 and/or 32) (see at least Figure 1 and paragraphs 0025 and 0027-0030 and the translation of claims 1-2, for example); and
automatic connection means (28/34, 36) for connecting said electrospindle (26) to said second body (24) (see Figures 1-10 and at least paragraphs 0027-0028, 0032, 0036-0038 and the translation of claims 1-2 and 8-9, for example).
However, while DE ‘926 does teach that the example of the automatic connection means (28/34, 36) shown in the figures has a male portion/pin arrangement (28/34) having a plurality of pins (28/34) mounted to the second body (24), which can be selectively fitted into corresponding seats (36) on the electrospindle (26) for “mutual centering and locking” (paragraphs 0027-0030, 032, 0036-0038 and the translation of claims 1-2 and 8-9, for example, as well as Figures 1-10, for example), wherein said pins (28/34) and seats (36) are “positioned at vertices of a rectangle” (such as a rectangle in the plane of the aforedescribed coupling surface 30 and/or 32; see particularly paragraph 0038 and Figures 7-8), it is noted that DE ‘926 does not expressly teach that “each seat” (36) “comprises a collet that is configured and selectively movable along an axis of the collet to exert a locking/unlocking action on one of said pins”, as set forth in independent claim 1. Furthermore, DE ‘926 does not expressly teach the details of the operation of the automatic connection means that are set forth in dependent claims 2-9.
That being said, DE ‘926 does teach that the “means of connection 28 are individually and separately known technology and are easily conceivable by a person skilled in the art” and that “[T]hese can be of any type that can be solved on command…” (see paragraph 0036).
That said, attention is directed to JP ‘180. It is noted that a machine translation of JP ‘180 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re JP ‘180.
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘180 teaches an (automated) coupling device/“connection means” with a self aligning function (see title and at least paragraphs 0001 and 0013, for example).
The automatic connection means taught by JP ‘180 comprise a pin (8), which can selectively fit into a corresponding seats (1), for a “mutual” centering and locking (see Figures 1-3B, as well as at least paragraphs 0001, 0013, 0029, and 0044-0051, for example). The seat (1) comprises a “collet” (24) that is configured and selectively movable along an axis (vertically with respect to Figures 1, 2A, and 3A, which is the longitudinal direction of the collet 24 and the longitudinal direction of the pin 8) of the collet to exert a locking/unlocking action on one of said pins (8). See Figures 1-3B. See also at least paragraphs 0014-0015. See also particularly paragraphs 0044-0051 re the locking of the pin (8) and collet (24), and at least paragraphs 0052 through at least paragraph 0054 re the unlocking of the pin (8) and collet (24).
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘180 teaches that the seat (1) comprises a central element (10) inserted inside said collet (24), said central element (10) having a recess for housing a corresponding pin (8) and an outer cylindrical surface for guiding an axial (in the vertical direction re Figures 1, 2A, 3A) movement of said collet (24). See Figures 1, 2A, 3A, and at least paragraphs 0015, 0023, 0025, 0034-0039, 0043, 0048, as well as the translation of claims 1-5 of JP ‘180, and particularly paragraph 0038, for example.
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘180 teaches that the seat (1) comprises a series of counteracting members (22) configured to be accommodated in corresponding angularly offset holes (20) formed on said central element (10) (see Figures 1-3B and paragraphs 0015 and 0037, for example), each of said counteracting members (22) being designed to interact with an inner surface (24a, 24b, 24c) of said collet (24). See Figures 1, 2A, 3A, and at least paragraphs 0038, 0050, for example.
Regarding claim 4, JP ‘180 discloses axial thrust means (46) that push the collet (24) from an idle initial position (Figure 1, for example), in which the collet (24) does not interact with the series of counteracting members, (22) to an operating closed position (Figure 3A), in which the collet (24) interacts and radially pushes said series of counteracting members (22). See Figures 1-3B and also at least paragraphs 0015, 0023-0026, 0037-0056, for example.
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘180 teaches that said collet (24) has the inner surface (24a+24b+24c) with a surface (24b) of conical shape with a predetermined taper angle (see Figures 1, 2A, and 3A, for example) at one longitudinal end adapted to interact with said series of counteracting members (22). See Figures 1, 2A, 3A, and at least paragraphs 0038 and 0050.
Regarding claim 6, JP ‘180 teaches that the pin (8) comprises an “expanded” end (the bottom end portion of 8, shown in Figure 1, for example) with a flat front surface (the bottom horizontal surface of 8 depicted in Figure 1) and an annular rear surface (8a) tilted at a “predetermined tilt angle” from “an” axis (such as the vertical longitudinal center axis of 8 re Figure 1) of the pin (8) to cooperate with said series of counteracting members (22). See Figures 1, 2A, 3A, and at least paragraphs 0015, 0033, 0037-0038, and 0048-0050, for example.
Regarding claim 7, JP ‘180 teaches that the pin (8) comprises an “expanded” end (the bottom end portion of 8, shown in Figure 1, for example) with a flat front surface (the bottom horizontal surface of 8 depicted in Figure 1) and an annular rear surface (8a) tilted at a “predetermined tilt angle” from “an” axis (such as the vertical longitudinal center axis of 8 re Figure 1) of the pin (8) to cooperate with said series of counteracting members (22) (see Figures 1, 2A, 3A, and at least paragraphs 0015, 0033, 0037-0038, and 0048-0050, for example), and wherein said taper angle (of surface 28b) differs from said tilt angle (of 8a). See Figure 1, for example, noting that due to the shape/curvature of surface 8a, there are a variety of portions of 8a that extend at different “tilt angles” than the taper angle of surface 28b.
Regarding claim 8, JP ‘180 teaches that the pin (8) comprises an “expanded” end (the bottom end portion of 8, shown in Figure 1, for example) with a flat front surface (the bottom horizontal surface of 8 depicted in Figure 1) and an annular rear surface (8a) tilted at a “predetermined tilt angle” from “an” axis (such as the vertical longitudinal center axis of 8 re Figure 1) of the pin (8) to cooperate with said series of counteracting members (22) (see Figures 1, 2A, 3A, and at least paragraphs 0015, 0033, 0037-0038, and 0048-0050, for example), and wherein said taper angle (of surface 28b) is “less than” said tilt angle (of 8a) to prevent the pin (8) from slipping off its seat (1) when said collet (24) it is in this operating closed position (of Figure 3A, for example). See Figures 1, 2, and 3A noting that the taper angle of surface 28a is “less than” the tilt angle (of 8a) at least at some portions of 8a (noting the curvature of 8a).
Regarding claim 9, each counteracting member (22) of JP ‘180 has a spherical shape designed to interact with said expanded (bottom re Figure 1) end of a corresponding pin (8). See Figures 1-3B and at least paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0037-0038, and the translation of claims 1-3, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the specific connection means taught by JP ‘180 for each of the four connection means (28/34, 36) (located at the four vertices as described above and as shown in Figures 7-8 of DE ‘926) of DE ‘926, particularly noting DE ‘926’s teaching that the means of connection can be of any automatic type (that can be solved/actuated on command), and for the purpose of providing a coupling arrangement that is configured such that even if compressed air is discharged form the release chamber for some reason, a coupling malfunction will not occur, and damage to the pin (8) and engagement balls (22) can be prevented, as expressly taught by JP ‘180 (see at least paragraph 0056, for example).
Additionally, regarding claim 10, DE ‘926 teaches that said electrospindle (26) has a rotation axis (X) of a working tool (shown in dashed lines in at least Figures 2, 3, 5-6 and described in at least paragraph 0025) clamped thereon (see Figures 2, 3, 5-6 and at least paragraphs 0025, 0050, and 0052, for example), said a rotation axis (X) being parallel to said coupling surface (30 and/or 32). See, for example, Figures 1-6, 9-10, and paragraph 0028, for example.
Regarding claim 12, DE ‘926 teaches that said first polar axis (C) is parallel to one of the three Cartesian axes that is horizontal in horizontal machine tools (as taught by at least paragraph 0026 of DE ‘926) or to a one of the three Cartesian axes that is vertical in vertical machine tools (as shown in at least Figures 1-6 and 11-12 and as taught by paragraph 0026) (note that it is only necessary to meet one of the alternatives in order to meet the claim language, paragraph 0026 of DE ‘926 expressly teaches that C can be either vertical or horizontal).
Regarding claim 13, DE ‘926 teaches an example value of said first predetermined angle (α, between the first polar axis C and the second polar axis A) of 45°, which is within the claimed range. See, for example, at least paragraph 0026 and Figure 1, for example.
Regarding claim 14, DE ‘926 teaches that the coupling surface (30 and/or 32) is tilted at a predetermined second angle (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as “2A”) from said second polar axis (A). See Figure 1. DE ‘926 teaches that the angle 2A is equal to the angle α between the first (C) and second (A) polar axes of rotation. See paragraph 0029 and the translation of claims 1-2 and 7.
However, (re claim 14) while DE ‘926 teaches that the angle α (and thus, the angle between the coupling surface and the second polar axis A) can be between 40 and 50 degrees (paragraph 0026 and the translation of claim 6, for example), DE ‘926 does not expressly teach that the coupling surface (30 and/or 32) is tilted at a predetermined angle from said second polar axis (A) that ranges from 10o to 25o, as set forth in claim 14.
[AltContent: textbox (2A)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
550
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it is noted that the angle between the coupling surface (30 and/or 32) and the second polar axis (A) is a result effective variable that affects the placement of the tool bit, especially in, for example, the undercutting configuration shown in Figures 3, and the cutting orientation/configuration shown in Figure 5. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the DE ‘926 reference to have such an angle within the claimed range, as it only involves a very slight adjustment of the angle (given the range of 40 to 50 degrees taught by DE ‘926), and the present application only teaches that such angle allows for the working head to be able to work in undercut conditions as shown in present Figure 1 (see paragraph 0043 of the present application), which capability of DE ‘926 (depicted in Figure 3 of DE ‘926) is unchanged in such a modification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the teachings of DE ‘926 (of DE ‘926 in view of JP ‘180) such that the angle between the coupling surface (30 and/or 32) and the second polar axis (A) is in the claimed range recited in claim 14, particularly since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either:
(i) DE 10 2012 221 926 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘926”) in view of JP 2014-092180 A (hereinafter, “JP ‘180”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 10 above, or, in the alternative,
(ii) DE 10 2012 221 926 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘926”) in view of JP 2014-092180 A (hereinafter, “JP ‘180”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of WO 2018/179412 A1 (hereinafter, “WO ‘412”).
DE ‘926 in view of JP ‘180 teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claim 11, DE ‘926 teaches that said electrospindle (26) has a front end surface (such as either of the front end surfaces of 26 that are labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as F1 or F2) with the (aforedescribed) working tool (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as T) clamped thereon, said rotation axis (X) intersecting said second polar axis (A) at a predetermined point (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as P1) of said rotation axis (X).
[AltContent: textbox (T)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (F2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (F1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (P1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
556
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore regarding claim 11, DE ‘926 teaches that the distance “d” shown in Figure 1 (the distance between X and A) is between 50 and 300 mm (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0054), and that distance “d” is shown in Figures 1 and 6 as being larger than the distance (such as the vertical distance re Figure 6) between point P1 and either of surfaces F1 or F2, DE ‘926 (of DE ‘926 in view of JP ‘180), and thus, the (vertical re Figure 6) distance between point P1 and either of surfaces F1 or F2 appears to be less than 50 mm (i.e., since the smallest dimension of “d” is disclosed as 50 mm, and since the vertical distance between P1 and either F1 or F2 is shown as being less than “d”), thus meeting the limitation “ranging from 0 to 50 mm”.
However, in the alternative regarding claim 11, while DE ‘926 teaches that the distance “d” shown in Figure 1 (the distance between X and A) is between 50 and 300 mm (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0054), which distance appears to be larger than the distance between point P1 and either of surfaces F1 or F2, DE ‘926 (of DE ‘926 in view of JP ‘180) is silent about the value of the distance (such as in the vertical direction re Figure 6) between the point (P1) and either of the front end surfaces (F1, F2) labeled above, and thus, does not expressly teach that a distance between said predetermined point (P1) and said front end surface (F1 or F2) ranges from 0 to 50 mm.
However, attention is directed to WO ‘412. It is noted that WO ‘412 is not in the English language. However, application no. 16/498716, published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0107103 to Sano, is the national stage (filed under 35 USC 371) of WO ‘412. That said, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0107103 to Sano is being relied upon as an English-language equivalent to WO ‘412, and for any references herein to paragraph numbers, page numbers, line numbers, or the like re WO ‘412, attention is directed to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0107103 to Sano.
WO ‘412 teaches a working head for a machine tool (100; see Figure 1), the working head comprising a toolholder electrospindle (152) having a rotation axis (O) of a working tool to be clamped thereon. See Figures 1, 4, 5, and 9, for example, as well as at least paragraphs 0024-0026, for example. The electrospindle (152) has a “front” end surface “with the working tool clamped thereon”. See Figure 9, noting the rightmost surface of 152. Furthermore, the rotation axis (O) of the electrospindle (152) intersects the (tilted) “second” polar axis (O1, about which the spindle 152 rotates/pivots) at a reference point (PR) that is located on the tip/front end surface of the spindle (152). See, for example, paragraphs 0031-0038 and 0010-0010, as well as at least Figures 8-10. This arrangement (with the intersection of the axes O and O1 occurring at the front/tip of the spindle) is desirable because “interference between the spindle and the workpiece is less likely to occur, whereby rigidity of the tool is increased” and “rotational positioning errors of the spindle head do not become significant at the tool tip”, all as taught by WO ‘412 (see paragraphs 0010-0011, and particularly paragraph 0011).
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 (further) modified DE ‘926 such that the axis of rotation (X) of the electrospindle (26) intersects the second polar/tilt/pivot axis (A) at the front surface of the electrospindle (26), as taught by WO ‘412, for the purpose of achieving the benefits of such an arrangement that were expressly taught by WO ‘412 (“interference between the spindle and the workpiece is less likely to occur, whereby rigidity of the tool is increased” and “rotational positioning errors of the spindle head do not become significant at the tool tip”, all as taught by WO ‘412; see paragraphs 0010-0011, and particularly paragraph 0011 of WO ‘412). Resultantly, note that the distance between the “predetermined point” (at which the spindle rotation axis X and the second polar axis A intersect) and the front end surface of the electrospindle 26 of DE ‘926 (as so modified by WO ‘412) is 0 mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights