DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
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.
Claims 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites a position corresponding to one of furthest protruding points in horizontal directions. This feature is indefinite because it does not define a starting point from which the furthest is being measured, nor what is protruding. The feature horizontal directions (plural) also in unclear. Is the claim reciting a horizontal plane? Furthermore, multiple tools are held in multiple tool pots. Which specific tool is being used as the reference for the location. Claim 4 as written cannot be examined on the merits.
Claim 6 recites the tool pots adjacent to each other. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2005/0032615 to Sato in view of U.S. 5,542,899 to Yamada.
Claim 1 recites a tool magazine device. Sato relates to such a device. See Sato [0002]. Sato teaches a tool transport unit (21) in which a plurality of tool pots (23) are disposed at predetermined intervals. See Sato Figs. 4a-b. Sato further teaches that sprockets (22) drive to rotate the tool transport device which causes the intended use of circulat[ing] and transport[ing] each tool pot. See Sato [0037] and Figs. 4a-b. Sato further teaches a cleaner (9a, b) in the form of cleaning nozzles. See Sato [0035]-[0037] and Fig. 4a. Sato teaches these nozzles spray liquid (coolant) to clear away “swarf,” which is a form of machining chip. Thus, Sato teaches a cleaner that leads [i.e. directs] chips to another location.
Claim 1 also recites a chip guide including a guide surface that receives and guides chips separated from a tool [and] a chip container provided adjacent to the chip guide. Sato does not explicitly teach such a chip guide or container. But it would have been obvious to modify Sato in view of Yamada. Yamada relates to a tool transport unit (21a, b) having multi-spinder heads (16) to which tools are attached. See Yamada col. 6, ll. 5-22. As such, it is a multi-tool system in the same vein as Sato and constitutes analogous art. Yamada teaches that a chip guide (30) exists below the tool transport in the form of a sloped surface that guides chips towards a chip container (32). See Yamada col. 10, ll. 44-56 and Fig. 1. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Sato to include a sloped floor under the tool pots to direct both the coolant and swarf towards a drain, as taught by Yamada. Indeed, it is possible Sato actually already has this feature as figure 1b shows a sloped floor surface that may be similar in function to Yamato’s surface (30) with (presumably) a drain at the bottom.
Regarding claim 2, figure 4b of Sato shows the plurality of tool pots (23) are disposed…on an outer periphery of the tool transport unit. Figures 4a-4b also shows that each tool pot is circulated and transported along a trajectory that circulates in up-and-down direction because part of the circulated path on the curved end moves up and down, as shown in the axis of figure 4a. Likewise, in the embodiment of figure 1b, the rotation of the tool pots is angled resulting in both lateral and vertical movement, but this includes circulation in an up-down direction because claim 2 does not recite only vertical movement. Claim 2 then recites that the chip guide is arranged along a tip trajectory of the tool held in the tool pots. Claim 2 does not defined what the tip of the tool is. Figure 2a shown the tools (3) held with a machining end up and a chuck end down. But the chuck end is also a tip. Thus, figures 1b and 2a shown the tool (3) facing downward towards the chip guide floor (30). Regarding claim 3, figures 1b and 2a show an annular trajectory that circulates [partially] in up-and-down direction.
Claim 6 recites the cleaner is disposed between the tool pots adjacent to each other. Figure 2a of Sato shows an embodiment with the cleaning nozzles existing between the positions on the middle lower tool pot and the both adjacent pots.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 5 and 7 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 should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”