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 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, 15 and 16 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the at least three levels " in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the tool spindle " in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the main time " in lines 2 and 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a change of the tool magazine is enabled in parallel to the main time, and wherein during the change of the tool magazine at least one further tool can be exchanged by the tool gripper”. The recited limitations relate to method steps of using the claimed invention. As the statutory category of the Claim 1 is related to a product and not a method, claim 16 is rendered indefinite.
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) 1-5, 8-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmieder et al. (US 2017/0282316 A1).
Re Claim 1, Schmieder discloses a tool changing device for a machine tool 200, comprising: a handling unit comprising a handling robot 50, 60, an interchangeable tool magazine 100, and a provisioning site 125 for the tool magazine 100, the handling unit comprises a tool gripper 10 for gripping tools 20, the tool magazine 100 is configured as an upright disk magazine with a vertical rotation axis (See figures 7 and 8), the tool magazine 100 is detachably mounted at the provisioning site 125 on a rotary table that is rotatable to provide a desired rotational position of the tool magazine 100 for a tool change in which a selected tool location in the tool magazine 100 is accessible for the tool gripper 10 of the handling unit, the handling unit is adapted to change tools 20 between the tool magazine 100 and a tool holder 200 in a workspace of the machine tool, the handling unit and the tool magazine 100 are arranged in a setup cell that is arranged to be coupled to the workspace of the machine tool via a closable setup interface, and the handling robot 50, 60 is adapted to move the tool gripper 10 through the setup interface into the workspace to change tools 20 there (Pars. 0001; 0007; 0008; 0054-0064 and 0069-00; Figs. 7 and 8). Note: Schmieder satisfies the limitation “the handling unit and the tool magazine are arranged in a setup cell that is arranged to be coupled to the workspace of the machine tool via a closable setup interface”, as the setup cell of Schmieder is “arranged” to be coupled to the workspace of the machine tool.
Re Claim 2, Schmieder discloses the tool magazine 100 comprises at least two levels that are arranged one above the other (See figure 7), each comprising a plurality of tool locations 103 (Pars. 0052-0054, Fig. 7).
Re Claim 3, Schmieder discloses the tool magazine 100 comprises at least three levels that are arranged one above the other (See figure 7), each comprising a plurality of tool locations 103 (Pars. 0052-0054, Fig. 7).
Re Claim 4, Schmieder discloses the tool locations 103 are distributed along a tool receiving diameter about the rotation axis, and the tool receiving diameter of each of the at least three levels is the same (See Figure 7).
Re Claim 5, Schmieder discloses the tool magazine 100 is arranged to be rigid in itself, and the levels that are arranged one above the other are non-rotatably connected to each other via a common center 125 (Par. 0054, Fig. 7).
Re Claim 6, Schmieder discloses the rotary table has a bearing surface (the upper surface of the rotary table that contacts a bottom surface of the support column 120), the tool magazine 100 has a support surface (the bottom surface of the support column that contacts the bearing surface), the tool magazine 100 rests with the support surface on the bearing surface (See figure 7), and the support surface is spaced along a longitudinal extension of the tool magazine by at least 30% of the longitudinal extension from a lower end of the tool magazine 100 (Par. 0056, Fig. 7).
Re Claim 7, Schmieder discloses the support surface is disposed within a central profile of the tool magazine 100, and the tool locations 103 in the tool magazine 100 are distributed around the central profile (See figure 7).
Re Claim 8, Schmieder discloses the tool magazine has a handle 120 for a manual handling of the tool magazine (Par. 0054, Fig. 7).
Re Claim 9, Schmieder discloses the tool magazine 100 is configured to accommodate tools 20 in a suspended manner (Pars. 0051-0053, Fig. 6).
Re Claim 10, Schmieder discloses the accommodated tools 20 are covered from above in the tool magazine 100 (See figure 6).
Re Claim 11, Schmieder discloses the tool locations 103 in the tool magazine 100 have a vertically downwardly orientation, and a tool shank 21 of a tool 20 is insertable by an axial insertion movement into the tool locations 103 from below (Pars. 0051-0053, Fig. 6).
Re Claim 12, Schmieder discloses the handling robot 50, 60 is mounted outside the workspace of the machine tool in the setup cell (See figures 7 and 8). Note: as only the tool holder 200 and the machine handling device are shown in relation to one another, the Examiner is of the opinion that the handling robot 50, 60 is inherently mounted outside the workspace of the machine tool in the setup cell.
Re Claim 13, Schmieder discloses the handling robot 50, 60 has a translational lifting axis having a vertical orientation and at least one swivel axis having a vertical orientation (Pars. 0057 and 0058, Figs. 7 and 8).
Re Claim 14, Schmieder discloses the tool gripper 10 is arranged as a multiple gripper for gripping multiple tools 20 (Pars. 0047 and 0062).
Re Claim 15, Schmieder discloses the tool gripper 10 serves as a foreground magazine that is configured to provide two or more different tools 20 close to a tool spindle (Par. 0062, Figs. 7 and 8).
Re Claim 17, Schmieder discloses the tool magazine 100 at the provisioning site 125 serves as a background magazine, and the tool gripper 10 changes tools 20 with the background magazine (Pars. 0047 and 0062).
Re Claim 20, Schmieder discloses a manufacturing system for machining workpieces (not shown), comprising: at least one machine tool 20 that is configured for multi-axis machining, and which has a tool holder and a workpiece holder (not shown, Pars. 0001, 0007, and 0008), which can be moved relative to one another in at least three axes, the tool holder and the workpiece holder are arranged at a rear side of a workspace of the machine tool, and a tool changing device, comprising: a handling unit comprising a handling robot 50, 60, an interchangeable tool magazine 100, and a provisioning site 125 for the tool magazine 100, the handling unit comprises a tool gripper 10 for gripping tools 20, the tool magazine 100 is configured as an upright disk magazine (See figures 7 and 8) with a vertical rotation axis, the tool magazine 100 is detachably mounted at the provisioning site 125 on a rotary table that is rotatable to provide a desired rotational position of the tool magazine 100 for a tool 20 change in which a selected tool location in the tool magazine 100 is accessible for the tool gripper 10 of the handling unit, the handling unit is adapted to change tools 20 between the tool magazine 100 and a tool holder 200 in a workspace of the machine tool, the handling unit and the tool magazine 100 are arranged in a setup cell, which is arranged to be coupled to the workspace of the machine tool via a closable setup interface, and the handling robot 50, 60 is adapted to move the tool gripper 10 through the setup interface into the workspace to change tools 20 there (Pars. 0001; 0007; 0008; 0054-0064 and 0069-00; Figs. 7 and 8). Note: Schmieder satisfies the limitation “the handling unit and the tool magazine are arranged in a setup cell that is arranged to be coupled to the workspace of the machine tool via a closable setup interface”, as the setup cell of Schmieder is “arranged” to be coupled to the workspace of the machine tool.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 19 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 BAYAN SALONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-60 PM.
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, David Bryant can be reached at (571)272-4526. 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.
/BAYAN SALONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726