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.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “the second processing unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no second processing unit had been claims in claim 20 or any claim from which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoi (JP 2002079431 A) in view of Neubert (US 20180085879 A1).
As to claim 1, Aoi teaches a lateral processing machine (flat plate finishing machine 10), comprising: an upper beam and a lower beam extending in an X direction (as identified in Figure 1 below); an upper X guide (20C) disposed on a rear surface of the upper beam, the upper X guide (20C) extending in the X direction; a lower X guide (20C) disposed on a rear surface of the lower beam, the lower X guide (20C) extending in the X direction (the upper and lower X guides are identified in Figure 1 below); a first moving column (21, 21A) extending in a Y direction orthogonal to the X direction (as illustrated in Fig 1), the first moving column (21) including, a first connection block (upper 21A) disposed on the upper X guide (as illustrated in Fig 1), the first connection block (upper 21A) configured to move in the X direction, a second connection block (lower 21A) disposed on the lower X guide (as illustrated), the second connection block (lower 21A) configured to move in the X direction (as illustrated), and a first column portion (column 21) connecting the first connection block (upper 21A) and the second connection block (lower 21A, as illustrated).
Aoi does not teach a pair of first Y guides disposed on the first moving column, each of the first Y guide extending in the Y direction.
Rather, Aoi teaches the processing head 30 is moved in the Y direction by Y-axis drive motor 23, but it otherwise silent regarding Y guides.
However, in the field of X-Y-Z machining tools, it was well known to provide for Y guides in order to allow a motor to provide motive force to a machining head. See Neubert which teaches guides 11, 11’ which are useful for guiding the movement of the machining units 2, 2’ in the Y direction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the Y guides of Neubert in the device of Aoi. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to more exactly guide the movement of the processing head 30 in order to improve precision.
Aoi in view of Neubert thus teaches: a first Y table (the vertical guides 10, 10’ of Neubert are Y tables as they move in the Y direction and allow movement of the machining head 2, 2’ in the Z direction.) disposed on the pair of the first Y guides (as illustrated in Neubert Fig 2, for example), the first Y table (251) configured to move in the Y direction (as described above, Neubert’s guide 10, 10’ moves in the Y direction).
Aoi in view of Neubert teach: a first processing unit (processing head 30) detachably attached to the first Y table (the processing head 30 of Aoi is attached to the guides 10, 10’), the first processing unit including, a first ram configured to move in a Z direction orthogonal to both the X direction and the Y direction (Aoi teaches the motor 24 moved the spindle 31 in the Z direction. The component which pushes the spindle 31 is a ram), and a first spindle supported by the first ram (spindle 31 is pushed by a component which a ram which moves the spindle according to motor 24).
As to claim 2, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the first column portion (Aoi’s column 21) has a cross-section extending in the Z direction (the column is a 3-dimensional object, and thus extends in the Z direction), and the pair of the first Y guides (Neubert’s guides 11, 11’) are arranged in the Z direction (as illustrated in Neubert Fig 2).
As to claim 3, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising: a second moving column (Neubert teaches a column 4 and a second column 4’. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have formed a second column 21 of Aoi in order to achieve the benefit of controlling a second processing head 30.) extending in the Y direction (the columns of Aoi and Neubert each extend in the Y direction), the second moving column (Neubert shows the columns are next to each other) disposed on a first side from the first moving column in the X direction (accordingly, the arrangement of the columns of Aoi would similarly be next to each other), the second moving column including, a third connection block disposed on the upper X guide, the third connection block configured to move in the X direction, a fourth connection block disposed on the lower X guide, the fourth connection block configured to move in the X direction (Aoi teaches a single column having an upper X block and a lower X block. A copy of this column would correspondingly having an upper X block and a lower X block), and a second column portion connecting the third connection block and the fourth connection block (this is a copy of the first column 21 of Aoi); a pair of second Y guides disposed on a second side of the second moving column (Neubert teaches that each column 4 has its own Y guides. Thus, this feature is made obvious when duplicating the column 21 of Aoi), the second side being opposite to the first side (as shown in Neubert), each of the second Y guide extending in the Y direction (as illustrated by Neubert); a second Y table (guide 10, 10’) disposed on the pair of the second Y guides (as illustrated by Neubert), the second Y table (guide 10, 10’) configured to move in the Y direction (Neubert’s guides 10, 10’ move in the Y direction); and a second processing unit (as Aoi’s column 21 is duplicated, so is the processing unit thereon) detachably attached to the second side of the second Y table (as is the case for the first processing unit, above), the second processing unit including, a second ram configured to move in the Z direction, and a second spindle supported by the second ram; wherein the first processing unit is disposed on the first side of the first moving column (all of these features are found on the first column 21 of Aoi, and are accordingly made obvious by the duplicated column of Aoi.).
As to claim 11, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising a lower X helical rack (the screw of screw drive 7 described at Neubert Paragraph [0053]) disposed on the lower beam (as illustrated in Neubert Fig 2), the lower X helical rack extending in the X direction (as illustrated in Neubert Fig 2); a second X motor (drive 7) including a second X output shaft, the second X motor (242) disposed on the second connection block (Neubert teaches the drive 7 may be placed at any reasonable place: “Furthermore, the drive 7, 7′ does not have to be attached to the ends of the guides 6, 6′ as in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, but can be placed on any other position of the machine tool 1 or outside the machine tool 1.” Placement on the stand unit 4 itself would have been an obvious choice here among the limited choices available. See MPEP § 2143 E.); a second X helical gear fastened to the second X output shaft to mesh with the lower X helical rack (a gear meshing with a rack is the way in which a drive described by Neubert operates).
Aoi in view of Neubert does not teach: an upper X helical rack. Rather, Neubert discloses only a lower rack. However, duplication of the bottom rack in the top beam would have provided for more precise control over the position of the column. Thus, Aoi in view of Neubert suggests: an upper X helical rack disposed on the upper beam, the upper X helical rack extending in the X direction; a first X motor including a first X output shaft, the first X motor disposed on the first connection block; a first X helical gear fastened to the first X output shaft to mesh with the upper X helical rack (all of these components are merely duplications of the lower X helical rack, described above); and a control device (Neubert teaches a control device 8) configured to synchronize a rotation of the first X output shaft with a rotation of the second X output shaft (Examiner takes Official Notice that an artisan having ordinary skill would have understood the motors are controlled in order to control the position of the processing units and thus the machining of the workpiece. Moreover, motors achieving the same purpose (X axis movement) should be synchronized to improve precision.).
As to claim 12, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising: a first Y helical rack (291) disposed on the first moving column (191), the first Y helical rack (291) extending in the Y direction; a first Y motor (301) including a first Y output shaft (30a1), the first Y motor (301) disposed on the first Y table (251); a first Y helical gear (281) fastened to the first Y output shaft (30a1) to mesh with the first Y helical rack (291); a second Y motor (302) including a second Y output shaft (30a2), the second Y motor (302) disposed on the second Y table (252); and a second Y helical gear (282) fastened to the first Y output shaft (30a1) to mesh with the first Y helical rack (291) (Neubert teaches at Paragraph [0022]: “the movement of the machining units is preferably realized by means of a linear motor or a screw drive, wherein the form and arrangement of such a drive on the machine tool is variable and can be adjusted to the respective operating conditions.” Examiner notes the same structure as described in relation to the X helical racks are made obvious to have been applied to the Y helical racks as claimed.).
As to claim 13, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 2, further comprising: a second moving column (Neubert makes obvious two columns, 4, 4’) extending in the Y direction, the second moving column (192) disposed on a first side from the first moving column (191) in the X direction, the second moving column (192) including, a third connection block (19d3) disposed on the upper X guide (211), the third connection block (19d3) configured to move in the X direction, a fourth connection block (19d4) disposed on the lower X guide (212), the fourth connection block (19d4) configured to move in the X direction, and a second column portion (19e2) connecting the third connection block (19d3) and the fourth connection block (19d4); a pair of second Y guides (272) disposed on a second side of the second moving column (192), the second side being opposite to the first side, each of the second Y guide (272) extending in the Y direction; a second Y table (252) disposed on the pair of the second Y guides (272), the second Y table (252) configured to move in the Y direction; and a second processing unit (352) detachably attached to the second side of the second Y table (252), the second processing unit (352) including, a second ram (35b2) configured to move in the Z direction, and a second spindle (35c2) supported by the second ram (35b2); wherein the first processing unit (351) is disposed on the first side of the first moving column (191) (all of these limitations are duplicates of corresponding limitations of a first column, which are described above. As Neubert makes obvious a second column, so too are all of the features of that column made obvious).
As to claim 19, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing system (the entire device shown in Fig 1 of Aoi), comprising: the lateral processing machine (processing machine 10) according to claim 1; and an equerre (jig 2) to which a workpiece is attached (work 1 is attached to jig 2), the equerre including, an upper portion connected to the upper beam (as illustrated in Aoi, the jig 2is connected to the upper beam), and a lower portion connected to the lower beam (as illustrated by Aoi, the jib 2 is connected to the lower beam of the processing machine 10).
As to claim 20, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches a lateral processing system, comprising: the lateral processing machine (processing machine 10 of Aoi) according to claim 1 (Aoi in view of Neubert); a pallet (Aoi’s jig 2) to which a workpiece is attached (workpiece 1 is attached to jig 2); and a pallet clamp connected to the upper beam and the lower beam (the jig 2 is connected to the upper and lower beams as illustrated in Aoi Fig 1. Any reasonable surface connecting the beams and the jig may be considered the clamp); wherein the pallet clamp fixes the pallet while the first processing unit or the second processing unit processes the workpiece (this is an intended use. The jig 2 of Aoi is useful for holding the workpiece 1 during the machining of workpiece 1).
Claims 4, 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoi in view of Neubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KLUCZINSKI (EP 3498420 A1).
As to claim 4, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, but does not teach a third Y table disposed on the pair of the first Y guides, the third Y table configured to move in the Y direction; and a third processing unit detachably attached to the third Y table, the third processing unit including, a third ram configured to move in the Z direction, and a third spindle supported by the third ram.
Instead, Aoi in view of Neubert teach a single processing unit on each column. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for more than one processing unit on a given column. See Kluczinski Fig 4 and associated description: “In addition, two functional units 311, 312, which can be moved independently along the carriage 310, are arranged on the carriage 310. At least the functional unit 312 can thereby be moved beyond the boundary of the working area 360.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the processing unit of Aoi in view of Neubert by adding a third processing unit as a second unit on one of the columns. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control a third processing unit for better parallel processing of the workpiece.
As to claim 5, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, but does not teach a fourth Y table disposed on the pair of the second Y guides, the fourth Y table configured to move in the Y direction; and a fourth processing unit detachably attached to the fourth Y table, the fourth processing unit including, a fourth ram configured to move in the Z direction, and a fourth spindle supported by the fourth ram.
Instead, Aoi in view of Neubert teach a single processing unit on each column. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for more than one processing unit on a given column. See Kluczinski Fig 4 and associated description: “In addition, two functional units 311, 312, which can be moved independently along the carriage 310, are arranged on the carriage 310. At least the functional unit 312 can thereby be moved beyond the boundary of the working area 360.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the processing unit of Aoi in view of Neubert by adding a fourth processing unit as a second unit on one of the columns. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control a third processing unit for better parallel processing of the workpiece.
As to claim 18, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 4, but does not teach: a fourth Y table (254) disposed on the pair of the second Y guides (272), the fourth Y table (254) configured to move in the Y direction; and a fourth processing unit (354) detachably attached to the fourth Y table (254), the fourth processing unit (354) including, a fourth ram (35b4) configured to move in the Z direction, and a fourth spindle (35c4) supported by the fourth ram (35b4).
Instead, Aoi in view of Neubert teach a single processing unit on each column. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for more than one processing unit on a given column. See Kluczinski Fig 4 and associated description: “In addition, two functional units 311, 312, which can be moved independently along the carriage 310, are arranged on the carriage 310. At least the functional unit 312 can thereby be moved beyond the boundary of the working area 360.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the processing unit of Aoi in view of Neubert by adding a fourth processing unit as a second unit on one of the columns. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control a third processing unit for better parallel processing of the workpiece.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoi in view of Neubert as applied to claims 2 and 3 above respectively, and further in view of KLUCZINSKI (EP 3498420 A1).
As to claim 14, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 2, but does not teach: a third Y table (253) disposed on the pair of the first Y guides (271), the third Y table (253) configured to move in the Y direction; and a third processing unit (353) detachably attached to the third Y table (253), the third processing unit (353) including, a third ram (35b3) configured to move in the Z direction, and a third spindle (35c3) supported by the third ram (35b3).
Instead, Aoi in view of Neubert teach a single processing unit on each column. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for more than one processing unit on a given column. See Kluczinski Fig 4 and associated description: “In addition, two functional units 311, 312, which can be moved independently along the carriage 310, are arranged on the carriage 310. At least the functional unit 312 can thereby be moved beyond the boundary of the working area 360.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the processing unit of Aoi in view of Neubert by adding a third processing unit as a second unit on one of the columns. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control a third processing unit for better parallel processing of the workpiece.
As to claim 15, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 3, but does not teach: a third Y table (253) disposed on the pair of the first Y guides (271), the third Y table (253) configured to move in the Y direction; and a third processing unit (353) detachably attached to the third Y table (253), the third processing unit (353) including, a third ram (35b3) configured to move in the Z direction, and a third spindle (35c3) supported by the third ram (35b3).
Instead, Aoi in view of Neubert teach a single processing unit on each column. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for more than one processing unit on a given column. See Kluczinski Fig 4 and associated description: “In addition, two functional units 311, 312, which can be moved independently along the carriage 310, are arranged on the carriage 310. At least the functional unit 312 can thereby be moved beyond the boundary of the working area 360.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the processing unit of Aoi in view of Neubert by adding a third processing unit as a second unit on one of the columns. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control a third processing unit for better parallel processing of the workpiece.
As to claim 16, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 2, but does not teach: a fourth Y table (254) disposed on the pair of the second Y guides (272), the fourth Y table (254) configured to move in the Y direction; and a fourth processing unit (354) detachably attached to the fourth Y table (254), the fourth processing unit (354) including, a fourth ram (35b4) configured to move in the Z direction, and a fourth spindle (35c4) supported by the fourth ram (35b4).
Instead, Aoi in view of Neubert teach a single processing unit on each column. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for more than one processing unit on a given column. See Kluczinski Fig 4 and associated description: “In addition, two functional units 311, 312, which can be moved independently along the carriage 310, are arranged on the carriage 310. At least the functional unit 312 can thereby be moved beyond the boundary of the working area 360.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the processing unit of Aoi in view of Neubert by adding a fourth processing unit as a second unit on one of the columns. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control a third processing unit for better parallel processing of the workpiece.
As to claim 17, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 3, but does not teach: a fourth Y table (254) disposed on the pair of the second Y guides (272), the fourth Y table (254) configured to move in the Y direction; and a fourth processing unit (354) detachably attached to the fourth Y table (254), the fourth processing unit (354) including, a fourth ram (35b4) configured to move in the Z direction, and a fourth spindle (35c4) supported by the fourth ram (35b4).
Instead, Aoi in view of Neubert teach a single processing unit on each column. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for more than one processing unit on a given column. See Kluczinski Fig 4 and associated description: “In addition, two functional units 311, 312, which can be moved independently along the carriage 310, are arranged on the carriage 310. At least the functional unit 312 can thereby be moved beyond the boundary of the working area 360.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have duplicated the processing unit of Aoi in view of Neubert by adding a fourth processing unit as a second unit on one of the columns. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control a third processing unit for better parallel processing of the workpiece.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoi in view of Neubert and Kluczinski as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Seo (EP 2965862 B1).
As to claim 6, Aoi in view of Neubert and Kluczinski teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 4, but does not teach the claimed a expansion cover case.
Rather, similar machining devices use expansion covers for the purpose of protecting components from dust and debris while providing for the free movement of a cutting head in three directions. See Seo which teaches a curtain 340 which has portions that move in the x and y directions.
Seo’s curtain meets the limitations of the expansion cover case as claimed: disposed on the upper beam and the lower beam (frame 310), the expansion cover case extending both in the X direction and in the Y direction (as illustrated); a first X box extending in the Y direction (320), the first X box receiving the first ram and the third ram to pass through (Seo teaches a spindle head 110 passes through the transfer frame 320. Any reasonable number of spindles are made obvious to pass through the frame 320), the first X box configured to move in the X direction inside the expansion cover case (frame 320 moves left-right); a first Y box (frame 330) receiving the first ram (spindle head 110) to pass through, the first Y box configured to move in the Y direction inside the first X box (the frame 330 moves up-down within frame 320); a plurality of first X expansion covers disposed between the expansion cover case and the first X box (covers 341, 342), the plurality of the first X expansion covers configured to expand and contract in the X direction (in the left-right direction); and a plurality of first Y expansion covers (covers 343, 344) disposed between an end of the first X box and the first Y box, the plurality of the first Y expansion covers configured to expand and contract in the Y direction (the up-down direction).
As to claim 7, Aoi in view of Neubert, Kluczinski, and Seo teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 6, further suggesting: a second X box (17b2) extending in the Y direction, the second X box (17b2) receiving the second ram (35b2) and the fourth ram (35b4) to pass through, the second X box (17b2) configured to move in the X direction inside the expansion cover case (17a); a second Y box (17c2) receiving the second ram (35b2) to pass through, the second Y box (17c2) configured to move in the Y direction inside the second X box (17b2); and a plurality of second Y expansion covers (17g) disposed inside the second X box (17b2) between an end of the second X box (17b2) and the fourth Y box (17c4), the plurality of the second Y expansion covers (17g) configured to expand and contract in the Y direction; wherein the plurality of the first X expansion covers (17f) are partially disposed between the expansion cover case (17a) and the second X box (17b2), and the plurality of the first X expansion covers (17f) are partially disposed between the first X box (17b1) and the second X box (17b2).
(The features of the second X box are made obvious in view of the four processing heads of Aoi in view of Neubert and Kluczinski. In other words, an X box for each column, and a Y box for each processing head, with accordion appropriate covers therebetween.)
As to claim 8, Aoi in view of Neubert, Kluczinski, and Seo teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 6, further suggesting: a third Y box (17c3) receiving the third ram (35b3) to pass through, the third Y box (17c3) configured to move in the Y direction inside the first X box (17b1); wherein the plurality of the first Y expansion covers (17g) are partially disposed between the first Y box (17c1) and the third Y box (17c3), and the plurality of the first Y expansion covers (17g) are partially disposed between an end of the first X box (17b1) and the third Y box (17c3).
(The features of the second X box are made obvious in view of the four processing heads of Aoi in view of Neubert and Kluczinski. In other words, an X box for each column, and a Y box for each processing head, with accordion appropriate covers therebetween.)
As to claim 9, Aoi in view of Neubert, Kluczinski, and Seo teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 6, further suggesting: a fourth Y box (17c4) receiving the fourth ram (35b4) to pass through, the fourth Y box (17c4) configured to move in the Y direction inside the second X box (17b2); wherein the plurality of the second Y expansion covers (17g) are partially disposed between the second Y box (17c2) and the fourth Y box (17c4), and the plurality of the second Y expansion covers (17g) are partially disposed between an end of the second X box (17b2) and the fourth Y box (17c4).
(The features of the second X box are made obvious in view of the four processing heads of Aoi in view of Neubert and Kluczinski. In other words, an X box for each column, and a Y box for each processing head, with accordion appropriate covers therebetween.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoi in view of Neubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wohlfahrt (DE 3704952 A1).
As to claim 10, Aoi in view of Neubert teaches the lateral processing machine (10) according to claim 1, but does not teach: a support frame (11) supporting the upper beam (13) and the lower beam (15), the support frame (11) having a truss structure, the support frame (11) having an opening (11g) extending in the vertical direction for the first processing unit (351) to be exposed.
However, a frame having a truss structure in a machine tool useful for machining was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Wohlfahrt. Since the first processing unit is vertically exposed, said structure is considered as having such an opening. The inclusion of the frame of Wohlfahrt in Aoi’s machine is considered an obvious alternative for holding both beams.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (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 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 4 February 2026