DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 rotating portion, a single power source, a switching mechanism in claim 1 and a first engaging portion, a second engaging portion in Claim 3, a moving mechanism in Claim 4 and a second rotating portion in Claim 5.
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.
A rotating portion is interpreted as at least one of the second housing 22, the first rotating shaft 24, the first support cylinder 22a, the second support cylinder 22b according to [0058].
A single power source is interpreted as a motor 10 according [0048].
A switching mechanism is interpreted as at least one of gears and clutches according [0008].
A first engaging portion is interpreted as a protruding portion according to [0069].
A second engaging portion is interpreted as a protruding portion according to [0070].
A moving mechanism is interpreted as at least one of the air cylinder, the rod, the support shaft and the fork according to [0073].
A second rotating portion is interpreted as the second rotating shaft according to [0063].
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (KR101457405) of which the attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Lim teaches a machine tool comprising:
a rotating portion (Fig. 2, 200) that is configured to rotate around a first axis (Fig.1, vertical central axis of first shaft 110) ([0041]: the middle body (300) is configured to be installed so as to be angle-adjustable between the fixed body (100) and the spindle body (200));
a first arm (Fig. 1, 300) that extends from the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200) ([0042]: the middle body (300) is fixedly connected to the lower portion of the first movable body (200));
a second arm (Fig. 1, 500) that is connected to the first arm (Fig. 1, 300) and supports an end effector (Fig. 1, 510);
a single power source ([0001]: spindle motor) that is configured to supply power to the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200) ([0071]) and the second arm (Fig. 1, 500) ([0063]); and
a switching mechanism (Fig. 2, 150, 250, 160, 260; Fig. 1, 110, 310, 512) that is configured to switch a power supply destination from the power source ([0001]: spindle motor) from one of the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200) ([0071]) or the second arm (Fig. 1, 500) ([0063]) to the other,
wherein the second arm (Fig. 1, 500) is configured to rotate around a second axis (Fig. 1, a central axis of the second shaft (310)) that intersects the first axis (Fig.1, a vertical central axis of first shaft 110).
Regarding Claim 2, Lim teaches the machine tool according to claim 1 further comprising:
a supporting portion (Fig. 1, 100) that supports the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200),
wherein the switching mechanism (Fig. 2, 111, 150, 250, 160, 260; Fig. 1, 110, 310, 512) includes:
a transmission mechanism (Fig. 1, 110, 310, 512) that is provided on the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200) and the first arm (Fig. 1, 300) for transmitting power to the second arm (Fig. 1, 500);
a driving gear (Fig. 2, 111 & 150) that is configured to be driven by the power of the power source ([0063]) and connected to the transmission mechanism (Fig. 1, 110); and
a clutch (Fig. 2, 250 & 260) that is provided on the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200) and configured to fix the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200) to the supporting portion (Fig. 1, 100) (Fig. 1 shows the first moving part (200) fixed to the fixed body (100) via a pair of first couplings (160, 260) when the clutches (150) and (250) are disengaged.) or to connect the rotating portion (Fig. 1, 200) to the driving gear (Fig. 2, 111 & 150) ([0071]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lim teaches the machine tool according to claim 1,
wherein the switching mechanism (Fig. 2, 150, 250, 160, 260; Fig. 1, 310 & 512) includes a transmission gear unit (Fig. 1, 110, 310, 510) with four bevel gears (Fig. 1, 111, 311, 312, 512).
Claim(s) 1 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goulot et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4657453).
Regarding Claim 1, Goulot teaches a machine tool comprising:
a rotating portion (Fig. 1, a portion of main body (2) near milling head (1)) that is configured to rotate around a first axis (Fig. 1, XX1);
a first arm (Fig. 1, a portion of main body (2) near spindle holder unit (3)) that extends from the rotating portion;
a second arm (Fig. 1, 3) that is connected to the first arm (Fig. 1, a portion of main body (2) near spindle holder unit (3)) and supports an end effector (Fig. 1, 4);
a single power source (Col. 2, line 58: motorized) that is configured to supply power to the rotating portion (Fig. 1, a portion of main body (2) near milling head (1)) and the second arm (Fig. 1, 3) (Col. 2, lines 32-40) (Col. 3, lines 28-31: rotation of the spindle 4 would inherently require a power source); and
a switching mechanism (Fig. 2, 15-20, 24, 25) that is configured to switch a power supply destination from the power source from one of the rotating portion (Fig. 1, a portion of main body (2) near milling head (1)) or the second arm (Fig. 1, 3) to the other (Col. 2, lines 43-47) (Col. 3, lines 10-16),
wherein the second arm (Fig. 1, 3) is configured to rotate around a second axis (Fig. 1, YY1) that intersects the first axis (Fig. 1, XX1) (Col. 2, lines 25-31: allowing the rotation of the unit 3 about axis YY1).
Regarding Claim 7, Goulot teaches he machine tool according to claim 1,
wherein an angle between the first axis (Fig. 1, XX1) and the second axis (Fig. 1, YY1) is greater than 45 degrees and equal to 90 degrees. (Col. 1, lines 65-66: perpendicular)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR101457405) of which the attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 5, Lim teaches the machine tool according to claim 2,
wherein the transmission mechanism (Fig. 1, 110, 310, 512) includes:
a second rotating portion (Fig. 1, 400) that is connected to the second arm (Fig. 1, 500) ([0056]) and configured to rotate around the second axis (Fig. 1, a central axis of the second shaft (310));
at least one intermediate shaft (Fig. 1, 310) that is provided between the second rotating portion (Fig. 1, 400) and the driving gear (Fig. 2, 111 & 150);
a first gear mechanism (Fig. 1, 311) that is provided between the intermediate shaft (Fig. 1, 310) and the driving gear (Fig. 2, 111 & 150); and
a second gear mechanism (Fig. 1, 312; Fig. 12, 350) that is provided at a position between the second rotating portion (Fig. 1, 400) and the intermediate shaft (Fig. 1, 310).
Although Lim does not explicitly teach a second gear mechanism has a higher reduction ratio than the first gear mechanism, examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to consider a reduction ratio in the design of a gear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a reduction ratio of the second gear mechanism that could be higher or lower than the first gear mechanism depending on the desired rotational speed and force of the second rotating portion.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR101457405) of which the attached English translation is cited in view of Suyama (JP2013039633) of which attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 6, Lim does not explicitly teach a cover that covers the rotating portion, the first arm, and the second arm, wherein the power source is arranged at a position outside the cover.
Suyama teaches a cover (Fig. 1, 105) that covers the first arm (Fig. 1, 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cover that encloses the rotating portion, the first arm, and the second arm of Lim as taught by Suyama in order to contain cutting chips within the cover as suggested in Suyama page 2, lines 30-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place of the power source inside or outside of the cover depending on various design considerations (e.g. cooling of the power source, overall size of the cover, accessibility of the power source) as the location of the power source does not have a direction impact on functions of the machine tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 2/12/2026