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.
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: “the power transmission mechanism” in claim 1.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakawa (GB 2163980) in view of Yuguchi et al. (WO 2017203824, hereinafter ‘Yuguchi’).
Regarding claim 1, Miyakawa discloses a machine tool comprising a tool post 1 to which a rotary tool 16 that machines the workpiece is attached. A tool post base 1 supports the tool post. The tool post includes a power transmission mechanism 6/11 that transmits a driving force for rotationally driving the rotary tool, a base table 3 and a tool mounting member 5 to which the rotary tool is attached. The power transmission mechanism is disposed between the base table and the tool mounting member. A back side of the base table faces the tool post base and the tool mounting member is disposed on a front side of the base table. The power transmission mechanism is disposed on the front side of the base table and is exposed to the front side of the base table by removing the tool mounting member. Miyakawa does not explicitly disclose the details of the machine to which the tool post is attached in order to actually be used as a machining tool.
Yuguchi discloses a machine tool 1 which utilizes a multi-spindle tool post 12 to machine a workpiece W1 which is gripped in a spindle 30 and rotated about a spindle axis AX1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the tool post of Miyakawa in a machine tool such as the one taught by Yuguchi, in order to machine a workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, Miyakawa discloses the tool mounting member being attached to the base table with a fastening member 6, and the fastening member is removable from the front side of the base table, for example, an operator is capable of removing the fastening member from the front side of the base table by being located on the front side of the base table and reaching behind the base table to remove the fastening member(s).
Alternatively, it would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made to the tool post of Miyakawa, to reverse the fastening member(s) if desired, such that the head of the fastening member is located on the front side of the base table, to enable the user to remove the fasteners more easily and without less interference, depending on the machine tool to which the tool post is attached. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, A.
Regarding claims 3-4, the modified machine tool of claim 1, wherein the tool post of Miyakawa is disposed on the machine of Yuguchi, discloses the tool post base having a guide (not labeled, but the rail system visible in Fig. 9) which guides movement of the tool post in an orthogonal axis direction Y2 that is orthogonal to the spindle axis, by being guided by the guide (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 5-6, the modified machine tool of claim 1, wherein the tool post of Miyakawa is disposed on the machine of Yuguchi, discloses the tool post base extending across the spindle axis in the orthogonal direction (see e.g. Fig. 1, wherein the spindle is shown in dashed line being arranged in a location aligned with the tool, such that the tool post base extends across the spindle axis).
Regarding claims 7-8, the modified machine tool of claim 1, wherein the tool post of Miyakawa is disposed on the machine of Yuguchi, discloses the tool post base extending across the spindle axis in the orthogonal direction (see e.g. Fig. 1, wherein the spindle is shown in dashed line being arranged in a location aligned with the tool, such that the tool post base extends across the spindle axis). As the guide extends along the back of the tool post base, the guide extends across the spindle axis in the orthogonal direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights