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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 22 May 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-14 and 16-20, in the reply filed on 22 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that any field of search for claim 15 would necessarily overlap with the field of search for claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Invention I would be searched in B23Q 3/15534 along with a unique text search. Invention II would not be searched as above; but would be searched in B23Q 39/00 along with a unique text search. In addition, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4-7 and 17-20 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.
Claims 4 and 17:
Claims 4 and 17 require a muzzle-type cutout. Unlike terms typically recited in the mechanical arts such as V-shaped notch, U-shaped recess, dovetail groove or semicircular slot, the phrase “muzzle-type” has no generally recognized structural meaning in the machine tool arts and Applicant’s written description fails to recite any standard for measuring the scope of the claim limitation. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would be unable to establish the metes and bounds of the structural geometry required to satisfy the claim.
In addition, the term "type" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Compact Prosecution and New Matter
The Office requires examiners to practice compact prosecution and should the examiner determine that an amended claim term or phrase renders the claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner should make a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well as a rejection(s) in view of prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 that renders the prior art applicable on the examiner’s interpretation of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bytow (US 4,587,716).
Claim 1:
Bytow discloses a tool magazine for a machine tool, the machine tool for chip removing machining of workpieces, made of metal, comprising:
a first tool storage device (43) comprising a loading station (29), which is configured for storing tools in a horizontal first direction (figs. 1-2, c3, ll. 62-68),
a loader (13) comprising an arm (15, 17), which is movable in a vertical second direction transverse to the horizontal first direction (inwardly and outwardly parallel to double headed arrow, 16) as well as in a horizontal third direction (inwardly and outwardly parallel to double headed arrow, 11) and which can be pivoted around a first pivot axis (along axis 22), which is orientated in the vertical second direction (figs. 1-5, c4, ll. 1-24), and
wherein the arm supports a gripper (42) at an end of the arm (15, 17) located away from the first pivot axis (along axis 22), wherein the gripper (42) is pivotably supported on the arm around a vertical second pivot axis (figs. 1-5, c4, ll. 33-43).
Claim 2:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 1, wherein the arm (15, 17) is configured in a single member type (figs. 1-5, c4, ll. 1-24).
Claim 3:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 1, wherein the vertical second pivot axis (axis of joint 24) is orientated parallel to the first pivot axis (along 22) (figs. 1-5, c4, ll. 33-43).
Claim 12:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 1, further comprising a tool changer (41) for linking the tool magazine with the machine tool (figs. 1-5, c4, ll. 33-43).
Claim 16:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 2, wherein the vertical second pivot axis is orientated parallel to the first pivot axis (figs. 1-5, c4, ll. 1-24).
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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bytow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muser (US 2007/0184954 A1).
Claim 4:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 1, and Bytow fails to disclose the first tool storage device comprises vertical walls that are provided with muzzle-type cutouts for holding of tool supports at two vertical edges of the tool supports.
Muser discloses a tool magazine for a machine tool (abstract) further comprising a first tool storage device (1) comprising vertical walls (20) that are provided with muzzle-type cutouts for holding of tool supports at two vertical edges of the tool supports (fig. 3, ¶40). Muser further teaches forming the vertical walls of the first tool storage device (1) from a layered sheet-metal structure because the individual walls may be fabricated simply and cost-effectively by laser cutting or jet cutting and assembled into a storage configuration having the desired tool capacity (fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the tool storage device of Bytow by providing a first tool storage device including vertical walls comprising layered sheet-metal members having receiving cutouts as taught by Muser in order to simplify manufacture, reduced manufacturing cost, and permit convenient adjustment or expansion of the storage capacity as expressly taught by Muser (Muser, fig.3, ¶40). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
1236
1278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 4, wherein the muzzle-type cutouts of the two vertical edges (Muser, 20) of the tool supports have opening directions facing away from one another (Muser, fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, above).
Claim 6:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to one of claim 4, wherein the vertical walls are arranged in a common vertical plane (Muser, fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, above).
Claim 7:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 4, wherein removal passages for the tools are provided between the vertical walls (Muser, fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, above).
Claim 8:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 1, wherein the first tool storage device comprises an immovable section (Muser, 20) and a movable section (Muser, 6, 9, 10, 17) (figs. 1-3, ¶30, 40).
Claim 9:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 8, wherein the movable section (Muser, 6, 9, 10, 17) is realized by a carriage (Muser, 6, 9, 10, 17), which can be moved in the horizontal first direction relative to the immovable section (Muser, 20) of the first tool storage device (Muser, 1) (figs. 1-3, ¶30, 40).
Claims 10-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bytow (US 4,587,716).
Claim 10:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 1, wherein the loader comprises a drive (hydraulic or pneumatic mechanisms) for linear movement of the arm in the vertical second direction and a drive (hydraulic or pneumatic mechanisms) for linear movement of the arm in the horizontal third direction and the loader comprises a first pivot drive (hydraulic or pneumatic mechanisms) for pivoting the arm around the first pivot axis and a second pivot drive (hydraulic or pneumatic mechanisms) for pivoting the gripper around the second pivot axis (figs. 1-2, c2, ll. 34-39 and c4, ll. 5-24).
Bytow discloses powered, numerically controlled movement of the respective robot components; and expressly discloses hydraulic or pneumatic mechanisms for linear movement of the arm in both the vertical and horizontal directions and hydraulic or pneumatic mechanisms for pivoting the arm around the first pivot axis. To the extent Bytow does not expressly identify a separate drive corresponding to each claimed movement, providing individual drive mechanisms for each independently controlled linear and pivotal movement would have been an obvious implementation of the disclosed robotic system, since independent actuation is necessary to achieve the programmed positioning and tool-transfer operations taught by Bytow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the hydraulic or pneumatic drives of Bytow for all independently controlled linear and pivotal movement as taught by Bytow in order to effectuate the required programmed control of the tooling center. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because Bytow explicitly discloses hydraulic or pneumatic mechanisms are used to effectuate controlled linear and pivotal movement of robotic arm components.
Claim 11:
Bytow renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 10, wherein the drive, the first pivot drive and the second pivot drive are connected to a control device (14, 14a) that is configured to pivot the gripper around its the second pivot axis during movement of the gripper in the horizontal first direction by means of the arm and to concurrently move the gripper in the horizontal third direction (figs. 1-5, c2, ll. 16-18; c2, ll. 38-39 and c5, ll. 18-27).
Claim 13:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 1, wherein the tool magazine comprises a complement magazine having a second tool storage device, which is configured for storage of tools in horizontal orientation in the horizontal third direction. Claim 13 requiring a complement magazine having a second tool storage device is mere duplication of the tool magazine having a first tool storage device and is rendered obvious over the first tool storage device as recited in claim 1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Bytow to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention as recited in claim 13 because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B “Duplication of Parts” which describes the prima facie obviousness of the use of duplicate parts to improve an apparatus disclosed in the prior art.
Claim 14:
Bytow renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 13, wherein the complement magazine (mere duplicate of the tool magazine of claim 1) comprises a loading station (29) (figs. 1-2, c3, ll. 62-68),
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bytow as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Muser (US 2007/0184954 A1).
Claim 17:
Bytow discloses the tool magazine according to claim 16; and, Bytow fails to disclose the first tool storage device comprises vertical walls that are provided with muzzle-type cutouts for holding of tool supports at two vertical edges of the tool supports.
Muser discloses a tool magazine for a machine tool (abstract) further comprising a first tool storage device (1) comprising vertical walls (20) that are provided with muzzle-type cutouts for holding of tool supports at two vertical edges of the tool supports (fig. 3, ¶40). Muser further teaches forming the vertical walls of the first tool storage device (1) from a layered sheet-metal structure because the individual walls may be fabricated simply and cost-effectively by laser cutting or jet cutting and assembled into a storage configuration having the desired tool capacity (fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the tool storage device of Bytow by providing a first tool storage device including vertical walls comprising layered sheet-metal members having receiving cutouts as taught by Muser in order to simplify manufacture, reduced manufacturing cost, and permit convenient adjustment or expansion of the storage capacity as expressly taught by Muser (Muser, fig.3, ¶40). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 18:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 17, wherein the muzzle-type cutouts of the two vertical edges (Muser, 20) of the tool supports have opening directions facing away from one another (Muser, fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, above).
Claim 19:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 18, wherein the vertical walls (Muser, 20) are arranged in a common vertical plane (Muser, fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, above).
Claim 20:
Bytow in view of Muser renders obvious the tool magazine according to claim 19, wherein removal passages for the tools are provided between the vertical walls (Muser, 20) (Muser, fig. 3, ¶40 – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 3, above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dreisig et al. (US 4,858,980) discloses a tool carrier including tool grippers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights