Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 20, 2025 has been entered.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure commonly refers to unit “F” as pressure when it is meant to refer to a force since the units of “F” are Newtons—which is a unit of force not pressure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of an informality: the word “a” should be inserted before “corresponding one of” in the second line after equation (9). Claim 10 is objected to because of an informality: the phrase “an unloading force is not in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction” should be changed to “an unloading force is not in the vertical direction or the horizontal direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding step 2A, Claim 7 recites mathematical concepts (i.e. stress balance equations, deformation compatibility equations, a mathematical model, and calculations), and mental processes (i.e. analyzing of step 4, integrating/analyzing of step 5, taking the maximum value of step 6, solving of step 7, calculating of step 8 and the completing a part design of a booster mechanism of step 9, including calculating a component force). The steps reciting mental processes can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Regarding prong two of step 2a, these judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the abstract ideas recited in steps 1-8 are not used by the claim to improve upon any technology. The abstract ideas of steps 1-8 are not used to provide an improved structure or operation of the unloading device or unloading method. Nothing is done with the equations, mathematical model, calculations, etc. of steps 1-8 to improve upon an unloading device or unloading method. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of step 9 includes designing booster mechanisms (on paper, in the mind, or on software) by at least making the claimed calculation. This step does not improve upon any technology because it is unclear from the claim how the calculation is used to design the booster mechanisms (step 9 also gives no requirements as to how the selected unloading force is chosen so as to improve upon booster mechanisms), and the claim does not require the components or steps that provide booster mechanisms or an unloading device designed to achieve the desired improvements disclosed in ¶ [0002]-[0006] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. The examiner also notes that the claim does not require any physical product/part, further illustrating how the claim as a whole does not improve upon an unloading device or unloading method, and also does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Assuming arguendo that a computer is required, a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding step 2B, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 (directed to a design method or part design method) does not include any physical structure as the entire process can be performed in computer software or with pen and paper. Step 2B has a lot of overlap with prong two of Step 2A, thus the analysis of the prong two of Step 2A is incorporated herein. The other limitations of the claim add insignificant extra-solution activity and generally links the abstract ideas to a particular technology (i.e. gantry type machining centers). Further step 9 (i.e. completing a part design) is an abstract idea, and a judicial exception alone cannot provide an improvement.
Regarding claim 9, this claim merely expands upon the judicial exceptions of steps 2-4 by adding additional mathematical concepts and mental processes. Thus, claim 9 does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 merely expands upon how the calculations and other abstract ideas of claim 7 are performed. Thus, claim 10 does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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
Claims 7 and 9-10 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Some of the below rejections are for limitations present in the original claims. While original claims are generally viewed as part of the written description, “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” See MPEP 2163(1)(A). In addition, “The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.” See MPEP 2163(I). In this case, as detailed below, numerous limitations are not described with sufficient particularity and/or contradict the originally filed specification, thus one of skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the limitations at the time of filing.
Step 4 of claim 7 recites analyzing a maximum pressure that each guide rail surface can bear according to a maximum moving speed of the sliding plate assembly, calculating a maximum allowable pressure of each guide rail surface, which enables that after unloading, the vertical pressure on each horizontal guide rail surface is p0.025 MPa and the vertical unloading ratio of a gantry-type machining center beam is less than or equal to 0.7, and calculating a minimum pressure of each guide rail surface after unloading; solving an allowable range of an unloading force based on the allowable range of the pressure on each guide rail surface. Contrary to this limitation, Applicant’s originally filed specification gives an example of the method where a maximum allowable acting force is calculated according to a maximum moving speed of the sliding plate assembly and calculating a minimum force in order to solve an allowable range of unloading force. As detailed in the specification objections above, Applicant’s specification makes this confusing as it refers to “F” as pressure when it is clearly a force since the units of “F” are Newtons.
Step 9 of claim 7 recites the booster mechanisms are configured to complete the unloading process for the gantry-type machining center beam guide rail. This is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The disclosure teaches to complete part design on the booster mechanisms, but does not teach the booster mechanisms configured to complete an unloading process.
Claim 10 recites when unloading forces are only in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction, selection of the unloading forces in the two directions is analyzed independently according to the step 6 and the step 7. This is not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim 10 recites Fsz and Fsy, as a group of interrelated horizontal unloading force and vertical unloading force are analyzed according to the step 5, selected according to the step 6 and the step 7, subjected to an inverse operation according to the step 9 to obtain a resultant unloading force, and then subjected to booster mechanism calculation in the step 9. This is not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim 9 is rejected for depending from claim 7.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 7 and 9-10 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites a design method of an unloading process. However, the body of the claim does not describe an unloading process and recites a part design step of booster mechanisms. Thus, the preamble has a different scope than the body of the claim making it unclear what the scope of the claim is. It appears based on the body of the claim that the unloading process should be unloading device?
Claim 7 recites the application point in step 2, the increasing and decreasing trend in step 3, the pressure variation trend in step 3, the results in step 5, and the geometric accuracy in step 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Step 3 of claim 7 recites the application point of the resultant force on each guide rail surface. Since the previously introduced application point and resultant force were on each main load-bearing guide rail surface, it is unclear if the application point and resultant force are on each guide rail surface or each main load-bearing guide rail surface.
Step 6 of claim 7 recites the allowable range of the vertical unloading force. Since the previously recited allowable range was for an unloading force (without the word “vertical”) it is unclear if the allowable range in step 6 is the same allowable range in step 4, or if the allowable range in step 6 is another allowable range.
Steps 5 and 8 of claim 7 respectively recite: analyze the relationship between a load-bearing condition, and, calculating the load-bearing condition. Since step 8 occurs after step 5, it is unclear how the load-bearing condition can be analyzed in step 5 if it is not calculated until step 8.
Step 6 of claim 7 recites the lower guide rail surface. Since the claim previously introduced lower guide rail surfaces (plural), it is unclear if this limitation is referring to the surfaces (plural) or referring to one of the lower guide rail surfaces.
Step 7 of claim 7 recites so as to make the lives of the guide rail surfaces be the same and make the overall life of the guide rail be the longest. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what “lives” mean. It is also unclear what the metes and bounds of “longest” is as this is a subjective term. This limitation should be removed since it is generally narrative and indefinite.
Claim 9 is generally unclear since it appears multiple steps are being introduced but are not in proper format (i.e. don’t use active language such as “establishing”, “calculating”, etc.). In addition, if new steps are being introduced, the claim should recite something similar to: “wherein step 3 further includes the following steps: …”.
Claim 9 recites a TSF soft belt. It is unclear what “TSF” refers to. The examiner recommends writing the acronym out for the first recitation.
Claim 9 also recites S is the stressed area of each guide rail surface. Step 2 of claim 7 recites “a stressed area S of each main load-bearing guide rail surface”. Since the previously introduced stressed area was on each main load-bearing guide rail surface, it is unclear if the stressed area is on each guide rail surface or each main load-bearing guide rail surface.
Claim 9 also recites the mathematical model, and then provides a different model than the previous model of claim 7. Thus, there appears to be lack of antecedent basis for the mathematical model.
Claim 9 recites a sliding plate assembly. It is unclear if this is referring to the sliding plate assembly introduced in claim 7, or is introducing a second sliding plate assembly.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limiting pv value, the design principle, and the limit pressure.
Claim 9 also recites: the pressure on the main load-bearing guide rail surface is obtained: Fmax=…”, and, pressure Fi. It is unclear how these are pressures since Applicant’s originally filed specification teaches “F” referring to force since its units are Newtons.
Claim 10 recites an unloading force. It is unclear if this is referring to the unloading force introduced in claim 7, or is introducing another unloading force.
Claim 10 recites the two directions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should recite: “the vertical and horizontal directions”.
Claim 10 recites when unloading forces are only in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction, selection of the unloading forces in the two directions is analyzed independently according to the step 6 and the step 7. It’s unclear how steps 6 and 7 can analyze the vertical and horizontal forces independently since steps 6 and 7 don’t have an analyzing step.
Claim 10 recites in the step 5, if during designing of the unloading process, … . it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation is since step 5 doesn’t recite a limitation of designing of an unloading process. As further detailed above, the body of claim 7 as a whole does not recite a limitation of designing an unloading process.
Claim 10 recites Fsz and Fsy, as a group of interrelated horizontal unloading force and vertical unloading force are analyzed according to the step 5, selected according to the step 6 and the step 7, subjected to an inverse operation according to the step 9 to obtain a resultant unloading force, and then subjected to booster mechanism calculation in the step 9. It is unclear how these group of forces can be selected according to the step 6 and the step 7 or subjected to an inverse operation according to the step 9 since neither steps 6 nor 7 have a selecting step, and step 9 does not have an inverse operation. The “inverse operation” also being indefinite as it is unclear what it is.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are moot as new grounds of rejection have been made. However, examiner will respond to one argument below as it relates to the 101 rejections.
Applicant argues that claim 7 provides a way for obtaining an optimal unloading scheme. The examiner disagrees. The only design step of claim 7 is the last step (step 9). This step does not require any calculations/results/elements of any of the previous steps. The part design of step 9 merely requires calculating a component force provided by each of the booster mechanisms according to a selected unloading force and number of the booster mechanisms arranged at the same position. The component force, booster mechanisms, and selected unloading force are all new elements introduced in step 9. Thus, the part design step of step 9 does not achieve the desired improvements disclosed in ¶ [0002]-[0006] of Applicant’s originally filed specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.