DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 15, and 16, the phrase "possibly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-14 and 17-21 depend from claims 1 and 15 and incorporate the same deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warhanek et al., “Accurate Micro-tool Manufacturing by Iterative Pulsed-Laser Ablation” (“Warhanek”) in view of Hueller EP 1226899 A2.
Regarding claim 1, Warhanek discloses:
1. A machine tool for machining a piece having at least one surface of revolution with axis of rotation A (e.g., Figs. 1-2: “(C) rotary axis”), said machine tool comprising no-force precision machining means arranged to machine the piece (title: “pulsed-laser ablastion”),
recording means for predetermined final dimensions of the piece to be achieved following machining with a predefined tolerance (section “Laser Profile Correction process”: “if the measurement shows that the deviations are within the given tolerance”),
control means for the first optical measurement system in order to measure and record actual dimensions of the piece mounted on the first spindle (e.g., Fig. 5: “Measurement” in “2. Iteration”),
comparison means for comparing the actual measured dimensions of the piece with at least the predetermined final dimensions (e.g., Fig. 5: “Within tolerance” in “2. Iteration”),
correction means for adapting the machining parameters in accordance with the comparison of the actual measured dimensions of the piece with at least the predetermined final dimensions (e.g., Fig. 5: “no -> Laser process” in “2. Iteration”),
control means for the no-force precision machining means in order to machine the piece in accordance with the machining parameters, wherein said guidance system is arranged to guide said control means for the first optical measurement system, said comparison means, said control means for the no-force precision machining means, and possibly, said correction means, in order to control a first machining phase of the piece is programmed to obtain a blank
Warhanek does not explicitly disclose: (i) a first spindle and a clamping device; (ii) roughness and dimension values of the blank.
Hueller discloses a cutting machine based on laser-assisted turning (e.g., [0010]), wherein the machine includes a first spindle (e.g., [0014]) and a first clamping device (e.g., [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warhanek with Hueller since such a lathe as taught by Hueller is well known in the field of industrial cutting systems as providing an efficient and effective means of cutting industrial products.
With regard to feature (ii), the values described in this feature do not endow the subject matter of the claim with any particular technical effect. Producing the blank is not defined in Warhanek as modified by Hueller. To those skilled in the art, the limiting values of the blank, as defined in claim 1, are obvious: a minimum amount of material must be present on the workpiece in order for machining to be performed (i.e. >20%).
The result in terms of roughness after using the prototype machine of Warhanek as modified by Hueller is 55 nm (pg. 201 of Warhanek: “Results”). Warhanek also indicates that “The surface quality achieved by this laser setup is considered sufficient for tool manufacturing applications and most likely could be improved if necessary”. Those skilled in the art would therefore obviously define a more restrictive target Ra value, such as those set out in the subject matter of claim 1.
The reasoning relating to independent claim 1 (machine) applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of the corresponding independent claim, claim 15 (method), which therefore does not involve an inventive step.
Warhanek as modified by Hueller additionally disclose:
2. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the lathe comprises a second spindle having an axis of rotation B′ extending along the Z axis opposite the first spindle, said second spindle being movable in translation along the Z axis and in rotation around said second spindle's axis of rotation B′, wherein the machine tool comprises a second clamping device arranged to clamp the piece to be machined and to mount the piece on the second spindle and a second optical measurement system for the piece integrated into the second spindle arranged to at least measure the actual dimensions of the piece when it is mounted on the second spindle using the second clamping device, the guidance system comprising control means for the second optical measurement system in order to measure and record the actual dimensions of the piece mounted on the second spindle and being arranged to guide said control means for the second optical measurement system, said comparison means, said control means for the no-force precision machining means, and possibly said correction means, in order to control a third machining phase of the piece mounted on the second spindle that is programmed to obtain a blank mounted on the second spindle, of which the target dimensions are 0.5% to 20% greater than the predetermined final dimensions of the piece, and then to realize at least one measurement of the actual dimensions of the blank mounted on the second spindle and then to modify the machining parameters of the control means for the no-force precision machining means in order to control, starting from the blank mounted on the second spindle, a fourth machining phase to remove a sufficiently small quantity of material in order to obtain the finished piece mounted on the second spindle, having a roughness Ra of less than 40 nm, and having the predetermined final dimensions, the machining parameters for the fourth phase possibly being corrected in accordance with the comparison of the actual measured dimensions of the blank mounted on the second spindle with the predetermined final dimensions (e.g., [0014] and [0016] of Hueller).
3. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the no-force precision machining means are arranged to strike the material of the piece to be machined radially and/or tangentially and/or axially to said piece (e.g., Fig. 1: “Tangential laser turning process”).
4. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the no-force precision machining means comprise means for machining by femto laser turning, by electrochemical turning, or electrical discharge turning (e.g., Fig. 1: “Tangential laser turning process”).
5. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the guidance system is arranged to guide said control means for the no-force precision machining means and their machining parameters such that the energy applied to the piece during the second machining phase is at least 40% less than the energy applied to the piece during the first machining phase, the energy applied to the piece during the second machining phase being able to decrease as the interactions with the material progress (The design choice value selected in this claim of 40% less energy has no surprising effect. It is obvious that more energy would be required for first phase rough machining than second phase fine machining.).
6. The machine tool according to claim 4, wherein the no-force precision machining means are means for machining by femto laser turning arranged to emit a beam, the diameter of which is less than 20 μm, and wherein the guidance system is arranged to guide said control means for the no-force precision machining means to control the positioning of the beam in order to interact with the material of the piece such that more than 50% of the diameter of the beam is used during the first machining phase and such that less than 50% of the diameter of the beam is used during the second machining phase (The design choice values selected in this claim of 20 μm diameter and greater or less than 50% diameter have no surprising effect. It is obvious that less laser diameter would be required for second phase fine machining than first phase rough machining.).
7. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the optical measurement system comprises telecentric optics associated with telecentric lighting (The lighting means is not defined in Warhanek. In the field of image processing, it is obvious and well-known that the object of an optical unit of measurement must be correctly illuminated in order to ensure that the data can be processed).
8. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the clamping device comprises a vacuum clamping system for the piece to be machined (The clamping means is not described in detail in Hueller ([0014]). Those skilled in the art consider that vacuum retention (suction device) is obvious for defining a clamping device).
9. The machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising a vacuum holding system for the clamping device on its respective spindle (Retaining the clamping device is not described in detail in Hueller. Those skilled in the art consider that vacuum retention (suction device) is obvious to ensure that the clamping device is immovably fastened).
10. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the clamping device is arranged to be held on the clamping device's respective spindle along the Z axis and to be able to be moved in a XY plane at least along the Y axis by a control from the guidance system (moving the object that undergoes processing rather than the optical measurement unit is an obvious design choice alternative).
11. The machine tool according to claim 10, wherein the optical measurement system for the piece is arranged to measure the concentricity of the piece to be machined, mounted on its spindle between the axis of rotation A and the axis of rotation B, respectively B′ of the spindle, wherein the machine tool comprises a device for correcting the concentricity associated with a clamping device, said correction device being arranged to be able to move its clamping device in translation in the XY plane along the Y axis, and wherein the guidance system is arranged to control an angular movement of the spindle in the XY plane and/or to control a movement of the clamping device in translation along the Y axis via its correction device such that the axes of rotation of the piece to be machined and of its spindle coincide prior to machining (e.g., Warhanek: section “Measurement System” section: “capturing the envelope of the measured tool”, Hence, to those skilled in the art, it is obvious that the iterative procedure described applies to the parameters of the entire envelope that is captured, which includes the concentricity).
12. The machine tool according to claim 11, wherein the device for correcting the concentricity comprises a rod arranged to be able to cooperate with the associated clamping device and a correction cam cooperating with said rod and arranged to be driven in rotation and controlled by the guidance system in order to move said rod along the Y axis in order to move the clamping device in translation along the Y axis in accordance with the concentricity to be corrected (well-known means for correcting concentricity).
13. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the optical measurement system for the piece is arranged to measure the actual roughness of the piece to be machined, and wherein the guidance system is arranged to compare said actual roughness with a predetermined roughness to be achieved, and to modify the machining parameters in accordance with the comparison of the actual roughness of the piece with the predetermined roughness (Warhanek states that the assessment of the results (section “Result”) is based upon “the surface roughness”. It is therefore obvious that the measurement system that captures the envelope of the object (section “Measurement System”) also measures a true roughness that is compared with a predetermined roughness to be achieved during the iterative process).
14. The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the machining parameters comprise the operating characteristics of the no-force precision machining means, the rotational speed of the spindles and the inclination of the spindles (the correction made by the iterative loop obviously controls the position of the spindles (i.e., the inclination and a rotational speed) and the laser).
16. The machining method according to claim 15, wherein said method comprises, following machining of the piece on one of the spindles, the following steps: c′) withdrawing the machined piece from one of the spindles and mounting the machined piece in the other spindle of the machine tool using the other spindle's clamping device; d′) machining the piece mounted on its spindle in rotation by the no-force precision machining means according to the third machining phase in order to obtain a blank mounted on its spindle, of which the target dimensions are 0.5% to 20% greater than the predetermined final dimensions of the piece; e′) measuring the dimensions of the piece machined according to the third machining phase of the preceding step using the optical measurement system for the second spindle in order to obtain actual measured dimensions of the blank mounted on its spindle; f) comparing the actual dimensions measured in step e′) with the predetermined final dimensions recorded in step a); g′) modifying the machining parameters of the control means for the no-force precision machining means in order to control, starting from the blank mounted on its spindle, the fourth machining phase; h′) if the actual dimensions measured in step e′) differ from the target dimensions of the blank, correcting the machining parameters managed by the guidance system for the fourth machining phase in accordance with the comparison of the measurements obtained in step f′); i′) machining the blank mounted on its spindle in rotation by the no-force precision machining means in accordance with the machining parameters modified in step g′), and possibly corrected in step h′), according to the fourth machining phase to remove a sufficiently small quantity of material in order to obtain the finished piece mounted on the second spindle, having a roughness Ra of less than 40 nm, and having the predetermined final dimensions (e.g., [0014] and [0016] of Hueller).
17. The machining method according to claim 15, further comprising, prior to machining according to step d) or d′), the following intermediate steps: j) measuring the concentricity of the piece to be machined, mounted on its spindle between the axis of rotation A and the axis of rotation of the spindle by the optical measurement system associated with its spindle; k) correcting the concentricity of the piece to be machined with respect to the axis of rotation of its spindle by moving its clamping device such that the axes of rotation of the piece to be machined and of its spindle coincide (e.g., Warhanek: section “Measurement System” section: “capturing the envelope of the measured tool”, Hence, to those skilled in the art, it is obvious that the iterative procedure described applies to the parameters of the entire envelope that is captured, which includes the concentricity).
18. The machining method according to claim 15, wherein the no-force precision machining means comprise means for machining by femto laser turning, by electrochemical turning, or electrical discharge turning (e.g., Fig. 1: “Tangential laser turning process”).
19. The machining method according to claim 15, wherein the control means for the no-force precision machining means and their machining parameters are guided by the guidance system that is programmed such that the energy applied to the piece during the second machining phase is at least 40% less than the energy applied to the piece during the first machining phase, the energy applied to the piece during the second machining phase being able to decrease as the interactions with the material progress (The design choice value selected in this claim of 40% less energy has no surprising effect. It is obvious that more energy would be required for first phase rough machining than second phase fine machining.).
20. The machining method according to claim 18, wherein the no-force precision machining means are means for machining by femto laser turning arranged to emit a beam, the diameter of which is less than 20 μm, and wherein the guidance system of said control means for the no-force precision machining means is programmed to control the positioning of the beam in order to interact with the material of the piece such that more than 50% of the diameter of the beam is used during the first machining phase and such that less than 50% of the diameter of the beam is used during the second machining phase (The design choice values selected in this claim of 20 μm diameter and greater or less than 50% diameter have no surprising effect. It is obvious that less laser diameter would be required for second phase fine machining than first phase rough machining.).
21. The machining method according to claim 15, wherein the machining parameters comprise the operating characteristics of the no-force precision machining means, the rotational speed of the spindles and the inclination of the spindles (the correction made by the iterative loop of Warhanek obviously controls the position of the spindles (i.e., the inclination and a rotational speed) and the laser).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/RYAN A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
05/28/26
Prosecution Insights