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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 4 (of the marked-up substitute specification filed 11/28/2023), line 17, it appears that “rotating tool holding drum 35” should be changed to –rotating workpiece holding drum 35—to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with Figures 1-2. See, for example, page 4, lines 19, 21, 24, and page 5, lines 6-12, all of the marked-up substitute specification filed 11/28/2023.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
“supporting structure” in at least claim 12.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“guiding means” in claim 13 (though it is noted that the term “guiding means” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claim 12 because claim 12 does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function); and
“rotary support means” in claim 14 (though it is noted that the term “rotary support means” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claim 12 because claim 12 does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 12-22 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.
In claim 12, lines 1-4, the claim recites “two independent carriages, both supported, so as to slide along respective longitudinal translation axes, by a pair of parallel horizontal rails which are extended along a longitudinal direction and are fixed in a raised position to a supporting structure”. However, it is unclear as claimed with respect to what the fixing of the pair of parallel horizontal rails is “in a raised position”, i.e., raised as compared to what frame of reference?
In claim 12, lines 4-7, the claim sets forth “each one of said independent carriages supporting a respective machining head configured to move along a respective transverse translation axis and along a respective vertical translation axis by respective guiding means”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many, and of what configuration/function, guiding means are intended to be required by this limitation. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in this limitation whether “by respective guiding means” is intended to only go with “along a respective vertical translation axis”, or whether “by respective guiding means” is also intended to go with “a respective transverse translation axis”.
In claim 12, lines 7-8, the claim recites “each machining head supporting a respective tool holding spindle so that it is configured to rotate about a horizontal rotation axis by rotary support means”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what “it” is intended to refer, i.e., each machining head, or the corresponding tool spindle thereof. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed how many (and of what configuration) horizontal rotation axis/axes and rotary support means are intended to be required, i.e., one horizontal rotation axis and rotary support means re the plural machining heads/tool spindles (i.e., the claim requires only one horizontal rotation axis and one rotary support means), or one horizontal rotation axis and one rotary support means per machining head and tool holding spindle (i.e., the claim requires two horizontal rotation axes and two rotary support means in some capacity).
In claim 12, line 10, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “it” is intended to refer (in the limitation “it is configured to rotate about a first rotation axis…”).
In claim 12, last three lines, the claim sets forth “and two tool magazines supported at the opposite longitudinal ends of said supporting structure in order to be accessible by each one of said tool holding spindles”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what this limitation is intended to go, i.e., “machining center further comprising”, “extended in…”, etc.
In claims 12 and 13, it is unclear as claimed with respect to what axis or frame of reference the recited “transverse” axis/axes are “transverse”, i.e., “transverse” with respect to/relative to what?
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the opposite longitudinal ends of said supporting structure” in claim 12, line 12;
“said guiding means” in claim 13, lines 1-2 (in the event that plural guiding means were intended to be previously recited in claim 12¸ lines 6-7);
“the carriage” in claim 13, line 3 (noting that plural carriages were previously recited);
“the slider” in claim 13, penultimate line (in the event that plural sliders were intended to be previously recited);
“said rotary support means” in claims 14 and 21 (in the event that claim 12 was previously intended to require that each machining head of the plural machining heads is supported by a respective rotary support means, and thus, previously set forth plural rotary support means);
“said base” in claim 16 (noting that it is unclear whether such is intended to refer to the “base” previously set forth in claim 15, line 2, or whether such is instead intended to refer to the “base” previously set forth in claim 12, line 10);
“the central chip discharge area” in claim 16 (noting that no “central chip discharge area” was previously recited, and it is not inherent that the “chip discharge area” previously set forth in claim 15 is a “central” chip discharge area);
“said shield” in claim 20 (in the event that plural shields were intended to be recited in claim 19); and
“the respective rotating tool holding drum” in claim 20 (noting that no rotating tool holding drum(s) were previously recited in this claim).
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 13, the claim recites “wherein said guiding means comprise, for each one of said carriages, a slider configured to slide along a respective horizontal guide which is integral with the carriage and is extended in a transverse direction”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many sliders are intended to be recited, and how many horizontal guides. It is also unclear as claimed what being required to be “extended in a transverse direction”, i.e., the slider, a horizontal guide, etc.
In claim 13, the claim recites “for each slider, a vertical guide which is integral with the slider and is engaged slidingly by a respective one of the machining heads”. However, it is unclear how many vertical guides are intended to be recited, i.e., one total, or one per slider.
In claim 14, the claim recites “a fork-like support”. However, it is unclear as claimed what configuration(s) of support meet this limitation vs. what configuration(s) of support are excluded by this limitation. In particular, it is unclear how or in what regard a given support must be “like” a fork in order for the support to be considered to be “fork-like”, and how dissimilar from a fork or what characteristics a given support must lack (or have) in order to be excluded by the term.
In claim 15, the claim sets forth “wherein said supporting structure has a base which comprises at least one chute which leads into a chip discharge area”. However, noting that claim 12 already previously recited a base (see lines 9-10 of claim 12, which sets forth “a workpiece holding table which is supported at a base of said supporting structure”), it is unclear as claimed whether the base of the supporting structure set forth in claim 15 is intended to be the same base previously set forth in claim 12, or whether the base set forth in claim 15 is instead intended to be an additional base.
In claim 16, the claim recites “wherein said base comprises two longitudinally mutually opposite chutes which lead into the central chip discharge area”. However, noting that claim 16 depends from claim 15, it is unclear as set forth in claim 16 whether the “two longitudinally mutually opposite chutes” set forth in claim 16 are intended to be in addition to the “at least one chute” previously set forth in claim 15, or whether the “two longitudinally mutually opposite chutes” set forth in claim 16 are instead intended to be a subset of the previously recited “at least one chute”. Thus, it is unclear as claimed whether claim 16 requires a minimum of three chutes, or a minimum of two chutes, in order to be met.
In claim 16, the claim recites “wherein said base comprises two longitudinally mutually opposite chutes which lead into the central chip discharge area”. However, it is unclear what configuration(s) is/are intended to be encompassed by “longitudinally mutually opposite”, and what configuration(s) is/are intended to be excluded by “longitudinally mutually opposite”. It is unclear as claimed whether the (opposite) chutes are intended to extend in a longitudinal direction of some sort (though not necessarily any previously recited longitudinal direction as claimed), whether such is instead intended to attempt to indicate that the chutes are on opposite longitudinal ends of something unspecified in the claim (or are on opposite longitudinal ends of the base), etc.
In claim 17, the claim recites “wherein said workpiece holding table is arranged in a position that is longitudinally centered and transversely offset”. However, it is unclear as claimed with respect to what element or frame of reference the position of the workpiece holding table is to be “longitudinally centered” and “transversely offset”, e.g., in a longitudinal center of what? (Transversely) offset from/relative to what? It is additionally unclear as claimed relative to what axis or frame of reference or element the claimed offset is “transverse”, i.e., transverse relative to what?
In claim 18, the claim sets forth “wherein at least one of said tool magazines comprises a rotating tool holding drum which is arranged so that an axis whereof is horizontal and transverse and supports peripherally a plurality of tools”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what “an axis whereof” is intended to refer. Even assuming arguendo that Applicant may have meant to use “thereof” rather than “whereof”, it is unclear as claimed to what/where “whereof” or “thereof” is intended to refer, i.e., an axis of what/where? An axis of the tool holding drum, or an axis of at least one of said tool magazines? Additionally, it is unclear as claimed with respect to what axis or frame of reference the claimed axis is “transverse”, i.e., transverse with respect to what?
In claim 19, the claim sets forth “wherein each one of said tool magazines is provided with a shield adapted to shelter, during machining, the respective tool magazine from machining chips”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many (and what configuration) shields are intended to be required, i.e., each tool magazine is provided with a respective shield, or each of the tool magazines is provided (collectively) with a shield.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 12, last three lines, the claim recites “and two tool magazines supported at the opposite longitudinal ends of said supporting structure in order to be accessible by each one of said tool holding spindles”. However, it does not appear that the specification describes such in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof. Specifically, it does not appear that both of the tool spindles 28’, 28” are able to access both of the tool magazines 36’, 36”. In particular, it is noted that as disclosed, the tool magazine 36’ is taught as being accessible by tool holding spindle 28’, and the (other) tool magazine 36” is taught as being accessible by the (other) tool holding spindle 28”. See page 5, lines 1-4 and 13-18 of the marked-up substitutes specification filed 11/28/2023, which teaches that the magazines 36’, 36” can be accessed by the two tool spindles 28’, 28” “respectively”, i.e., 28’ accesses 36’, and 28” accesses 36”. See also Figures 1-2. It does not appear that the tool holding spindle 28’ is able to access the tool magazine 36” (as opposed to just tool magazine 36’), and it does not appear that the tool holding spindle 28” is able to access the tool magazine 36’ (as opposed to just tool magazine 36”). Thus, it does not appear that the disclosure teaches, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, that the two tool magazines 36’, 36” are supported at the opposite longitudinal ends of the supporting structure 12 “in order to be accessible by each one of said tool holding spindles” 28’, 28”, as set forth in independent claim 12.
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 12-17 and 21-22, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 199 48 822 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘822”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0189525 to Tatsuda (hereinafter, “Tatsuda”).
It is noted that a machine translation of DE ‘822 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re DE ‘822.
DE ‘822 teaches a machining center (such as, for example, 46; see Figures 8-9 and paragraph 0103, for example) comprising:
two independent carriages (4, 4; see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103-0104, for example), both supported, so as to slide along respective longitudinal translation axes (Y), by a pair of parallel horizontal rails (10, 10) which are extended along a longitudinal direction (Y) and are fixed in a “raised” position (see Figure 8, noting that rails 10 are located at a position that is “raised” as compared to a bottom surface of the machining center 46, for example) to a supporting structure (3) (see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103-0107, and particularly paragraphs 0104 and 0106, for example),
each one of said independent carriages (4, 4) supporting a respective machining head (5, 5) configured to move along a respective transverse translation axis (such as X, for example) and along a respective vertical translation axis (such as Z, for example) by respective guiding means (rails 47 re X; rails labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 9 below as G1, G2, G3, G4 re Z; see Figures 8-9 and at least paragraphs 0103-0107; alternatively re G1-G4, noting that paragraph 0104 expressly teaches that the spindle heads 5 can be moved along the slides 4 in the Z direction, and paragraph 0107 further teaches the independent movement of each 5 in Z, at the very least, it is considered to be inherent that the vertical Z-axis movement is guided via some sort of guiding structure, or else no such Z-axis movement would be able to occur),
each machining head (5, 5) supporting a respective tool holding spindle (8, 8) (see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103; see also at least paragraph 0069 which indicates that element 8 is a tool spindle; see also the tools 6 shown in Figures 8-9 and paragraph 0105, for example),
said machining center further (46) comprising a workpiece holding table (15) (see Figure 8 and at least paragraph 0103, for example) which is supported at a “base” (for example, at least one of the monoblock units described in paragraph 0106, for example) of said supporting structure (3) so that “it” (such as 15) is configured to rotate about a first rotation axis (such as B) which is extended in a horizontal and longitudinal (Y) direction (see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103 and 0106, for example), and
two tool magazines (24, 24) supported at the opposite longitudinal (Y) ends of said supporting structure (3) in order to be accessible by “each one” (as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112) of said tool holding spindles (8, 8). See Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103-0107, and particularly paragraph 0105, for example.
[AltContent: textbox (G4)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (G3)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (G2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (G1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
514
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, DE ‘822 does not expressly teach that either of the tool holding spindles (8, 8) is supported by its respective machining head (5, 5) so that “it” (either tool spindle 8, 8) is configured to rotate about a horizontal rotation axis by rotary support means as set forth in independent claim 12. Furthermore, regarding claim 14, DE ‘822 likewise thus does not teach that the rotary support means comprise a “fork-like” support. Likewise regarding claim 21, DE ‘822 does not teach that each of the rotary support means is “configured to rotate about a vertical rotation axis” that is parallel or coincident with the corresponding vertical translation axis Z.
However, attention is directed to Tatsuda. Tatsuda teaches a machine tool (1) (Figure 5, paragraph 0024) having a ram/machining head (8) (Figure 5, paragraphs 0002-0003, 0024, for example) that is vertically movable (along 7; see Figure 5 and at least paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0024) and to which (machining head 8) a “fork-like” support (30 of 10, the fork-like support having a pair of “forks”/leg segments 30a, 30b) (regarding claim 14) is provided (Figures 5, 1, paragraphs 0085, 0088). The “fork-like” support is a “rotary support means” that rotatably supports a tool spindle (21 of spindle unit 20) for rotation about the horizontal A-axis (Figures 1, 4, paragraphs 0087-0088, 0137, for example) (regarding claim 12). Additionally, the rotary support means/”fork-like support” (30) is attached to a support head component (50, which 50 is in turn supported by ram/machining head 8; see Figures 3, 5, 1, and at least paragraphs 0085, 0121-0124) that is provided for rotating the “fork-like” support (30) (and thus, the spindle 21 and spindle unit 20) about the vertical Z/C axis (regarding claim 21). See Figures 1-3, 5, and at least paragraph 0121-0131, and particularly 0122, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom of each of the machining heads (5, 5 of Figures 8-9 of DE ‘822) taught by DE ‘822 to include a respective rotary support means in the form of a “fork-like support” (re claim 14) as taught by Tatsuda, which fork-like support is configured (via the provision of the arrangement of the support head component 50 taught by Tatsuda, and the necessary appurtenances thereof for causing the rotation about the vertical axis) to rotate the corresponding tool spindle about a vertical (C/Z re Tatsuda) rotation axis (re claim 21), as taught by Tatsuda, and further, which fork-like support is configured to support the corresponding tool spindle for rotation (re claim 12) about a horizontal rotation axis (A re Tatsuda), as taught by Tatsuda, for the purpose of expanding the functionality of DE ‘822’s device by providing the tool spindles of the machining center with additional degrees of freedom of movement, thus facilitating the machining of workpieces of higher complexity and facilitating access of the tool spindle for maintenance, for example, as would be benefits of additional degrees of freedom of movement that would be readily understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, and for the purpose of providing a spindle arrangement that facilitates easy maintenance (as expressly taught by Tatsuda; see paragraphs 0013, 0017-0019, for example).
Regarding claim 13, the guiding means comprise, for each one of said carriages (4, 4) of DE ‘822), a slider (48, 48) configured to slide along a respective horizontal guide (47) which is integral with “the” carriage (4, 4) and is extended in (has a dimension in; additionally/alternatively, as a longitudinal direction in) a “transverse” direction (such as X, which is “transverse” with respect to an infinite number of directions, such as Y or Z) (see Figures 8-9 and paragraph 0104), and, for each slider (48, 48), a vertical guide (G1, G2, G3, G4, labeled above; see also paragraphs 0103-0104 and 0107, for example) which is integral with the slider (48, 48) and is engaged slidingly by a respective one of the machining heads (5, 5) (see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103-0104 and 0107).
Regarding claim 15, said supporting structure (3 of DE ‘822) has a base (one or both monoblock units, described in paragraph 0106 of DE ‘822, for example, which have cantilevers/horizontal legs 14 that have end faces 49 that lie against each other; see Figures 8-9 so as to result in a tunnel that extends in the X direction through the machining center 46; see Figures 8-9 and paragraph 0106; see also the other figures of the reference, the tunnel of Figures 8-9 being located similarly, as in below 14, to space 26 of Figures 15-17 and paragraph 0115, for example) which comprises at least one chute (the aforedescribed tunnel re paragraph 0106) which leads into a(n area that can be considered to be a) chip discharge area (see, for example, paragraph 0032 which teaches that in the area below the workpiece, the chips can fall freely and preferably directly into a chip conveyor; either the chip conveyor itself or wherever the chips land as they fall through the space/tunnel below the workpiece can be considered, as broadly claimed, a “chip discharge area” in that it is an “area” to which chips are capable of being “discharge”, and it is likewise an “area” from which chips are capable of being “discharged”/removed, either inherently manually or via a chip conveyor as described in paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 16, the base (one or both of the monoblock units of 3 of DE ‘822, described previously) comprises two longitudinally mutually opposite chutes (i.e., one such area/chute for each monoblock) which lead into the (aforedescribed) central chip discharge area. (See above discussion re claim 15. See also paragraphs 0106, 0032, and Figures 8-9, for example).
Regarding claim 17, the workpiece holding table (15 of DE ‘822) is arranged in a position that is “longitudinally centered” {see Figures 8-9 of DE ‘822, noting the location of the section line VIII-VIII, and noting that the shown table 15 is “longitudinally”, in the Y direction, for example, “centered” re the lower (re Figure 9) one of the monoblock units of 3 whose face 49 lies against the face 49 of the upper (upper re Figure 9) one of the monoblock units of 3} and “transversely” offset (such as in the X direction, from, for example, the leftmost face of 3).
Regarding claim 22, DE ‘822 teaches that said workpiece holding table (15) is supported so that it is also configured to rotate about a second rotation axis (C) which is perpendicular to the first rotation axis (B). See Figures 21-23 and paragraphs 0122-0123. See also especially paragraph 0134, which expressly teaches that the C-axis arrangement can be provided in the other described embodiments, including the twin-spindle machining centers, which includes the embodiment of Figures 8-9. See also the translation of claims 20-21, as well as the translation of claims 17-18, for example.
In the alternative re claim 22, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Figures 8-9 in view of the teachings of Figures 21-23 and paragraphs 0122-0123 such that the workpiece carrier (15) that is rotatable about axis B is provided to a cradle (57) so as to be rotatable about axis C (which is parallel to or coincident with X), particularly in view of the teachings of paragraph 0134 that the cradle 57 can be provided to the embodiments other than Figures 21-23, and noting that such also adds the benefit of providing an additional degree of freedom of movement to the machining center to thus further increase the complexity of the workpieces that can be machined (see paragraphs 0122-0123 of DE ‘822).
Claims 18-20, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 199 48 822 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘822”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0189525 to Tatsuda (hereinafter, “Tatsuda”) as applied to at least claim 12 above, and further in view of JP 2013-248709 A (hereinafter, “JP ‘709”).
DE ‘822 in view of Tatsuda teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above-rejection(s) based thereon.
DE ‘822 (of DE ‘822 in view of Tatsuda, hereinafter, “DE ‘822/Tatsuda”) expressly teaches the two tool magazines (24, 24; Figures 8-9, discussed above) located as claimed. DE ‘822 (of DE ‘822/Tatsuda) additionally teaches that the magazines (24, 24) support a plurality of tools at the periphery of the corresponding magazine (paragraphs 0075, 0105, 0108, Figures 8-9, for example). Furthermore, it is noted that each of the magazines (24, 24) of DE ‘822 has “an” axis that is horizontal (see Figures 8-9, noting that an infinite number of axes pass through the magazines 24, 24, including an infinite number of horizontal axes, such as, for example, axes parallel to either of the X or Y directions and that pass through the magazines 24).
It is noted that the magazines (24, 24) of Figures 8-9 of DE ‘822 (of DE ‘822/Tatsuda) are each located in the corresponding monoblock unit of the machine frame (3) in a location behind the respective spindle head (5) (and, per paragraph 0105, are designed like the magazines of the embodiment of Figures 1-2); see Figures 8-9, 1-2, paragraphs 0105, 0108, and 0075), i.e., such that each of the horizontal legs 14 of each of the monoblock units of the machine frame (3) is provided with a respective recess in which the corresponding magazine 24 is received so that the corresponding tool spindle 8 can be moved into the corresponding tool change position (see Figures 8-9, 1-2, and paragraphs 0105, 0108, 0075, 0020, for example).
However, it appears that the magazines shown by DE ‘822 (of DE ‘822/Tatsuda) are chain magazines, rather than each comprising a “rotating tool holding drum”, as set forth in claim 18.
Additionally, DE ‘822/Tatsuda does not teach the shield of claims 19-20.
However, attention is directed to JP ‘709.
It is noted that a machine translation of JP ‘709 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re JP ‘709.
JP ‘709 teaches a machining center (Figures 1, 9) having a frame/bed arrangement (1) configured such that a saddle (12) is supported on a column (8) of the frame/bed arrangement (1) so as to move in the direction labeled by JP ‘709 as “X”, the main spindle elevating body (6)/spindle head (5) (on which a tool spindle 4 for rotating a mounted tool T is disposed) is movable vertically up and down on the saddle (12) (see Figures 1, 3, 9, and at least paragraphs 0013-0015). JP ‘709 also teaches an automatic tool changer (7) that comprises a tool magazine (20). See Figures 1, 3, 5-11, and at least paragraphs 0007, 0013, 0017, and 0019-0022, for example.
The tool magazine (20) is provided in a space (E2; see Figures 1, 3, 7, 9-10, and paragraph 0017, for example) in the frame/bed arrangement (1) that is behind the tool spindle (4), and is accessible to the tool spindle (4) so that the tool spindle (4) can move into the space (as shown in Figures 9-10, for example). A shielding plate (11) is provided between the tool magazine (20) and the spindle (4), and has an opening (30) therein to allow passage of the spindle (4). See Figures 3-4, 7-11, and paragraphs 0013, 0017-0027, for example.
Regarding claim 18, the tool magazine (20) comprises a rotating tool holding drum (20; see paragraphs 0019-0022 and Figures 1, 3, and 5-11, for example) which is arranged so that an axis {for example, either of a respective horizontal dimension/axis extending in each the shown Y and X directions (see Figures 1 and 9, as well as paragraph 0020, for example) and passing through the magazine (20)} “whereof” is horizontal and transverse (such as with respect to the vertical direction) and supports peripherally (via plural tool gripping portions 21) a plurality of tools (T) (see Figures 1, 3, 5-11, and paragraph 0020, for example).
Regarding claim 19, the tool magazine (20) is provided with a shield (23) adapted to shelter, during machining, the respective tool magazine (20) from machining chips. See Figures 1, 3, 5-10, and at least paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0013, 0017-0022, for example.
Regarding claim 20, the shield (23) is fixed to the rotating tool holding drum (20). See Figures 1, 3, 5-10, and at least paragraphs 0019-0022, 0028-0029, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a respective disk/drum magazine (20) (and the shield 23 attached thereto) that is located behind the spindle and within a space within the machining center frame/base as taught by JP ‘709 for each of the chain-type magazines (24, 24) that are located behind a respective tool spindle inside a space within a frame/base of the machining center as taught by DE ‘822, and to have provided a respective shielding plate (11) that is located between the spindle and the magazine as taught by JP ‘709 to a respective location between each of the tool spindles (that support the tools 6) and the corresponding one of the tool magazines (24) taught by DE ‘822 (of DE ‘822/Tatsuda), for the purpose of isolating the machining region(s)/processing area (in which the spindle(s) machine the workpiece(s)) from the non-machining region(s) (in which the tool magazines is/are located) so as to prevent, via the use of a “simple structure” (to use the verbiage of JP ‘709), chips and coolant from entering the non-machining region and undesirably adhering to a tool held in the magazine, as expressly taught by JP ‘709 (see at least the statement under the heading “Problem to be solved” and “solution” on page 3 of the machine translation, as well as paragraphs 0005-0007, 0011, 0013, 0028, for example).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-13 and 15-22, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-13 and 15-22 of the most recent claim set (which was filed September 15, 2025) of copending Application No. 18/027,737 in view of DE 19948822 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘822”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
For double patenting to exist as between the rejected claims and the indicated patent claims, it must be determined that the rejected claims are not patentably distinct from the indicated patent claims. In order to make this determination, it first must be determined whether there are any differences between the rejected claims and the indicated patent claims, and, if so, whether those differences render the claims patentably distinct.
It is clear that all the elements of present claim 12 are to be found in claim 12 of the ‘737 application except for the present claim 12 limitation re the workpiece holding table being supported at a base of the supporting structure “so that it is configured to rotate about a first rotation axis which is extended in a horizontal and longitudinal direction”.
However, it is noted that DE ‘188 teaches such.
It is noted that a machine translation of DE ‘822 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying this Office Action. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re DE ‘822.
In particular, DE ‘822 teaches a machining center (such as, for example, 46; see Figures 8-9 and paragraph 0103, for example) comprising:
two independent carriages (4, 4; see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103-0104, for example), both supported, so as to slide along respective longitudinal translation axes (Y), by a pair of parallel horizontal rails (10, 10) which are extended along a longitudinal direction (Y) and are fixed in a “raised” position (see Figure 8, noting that rails 10 are located at a position that is “raised” as compared to a bottom surface of the machining center 46, for example) to a supporting structure (3) (see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103-0107, and particularly paragraphs 0104 and 0106, for example),
each one of said independent carriages (4, 4) supporting a respective machining head (5, 5) configured to move along a respective transverse translation axis (such as X, for example) and along a respective vertical translation axis (such as Z, for example) by respective guiding means (rails 47 re X; rails labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 9 below as G1, G2, G3, G4 re Z; see Figures 8-9 and at least paragraphs 0103-0107; alternatively re G1-G4, noting that paragraph 0104 expressly teaches that the spindle heads 5 can be moved along the slides 4 in the Z direction, and paragraph 0107 further teaches the independent movement of each 5 in Z, at the very least, it is considered to be inherent that the vertical Z-axis movement is guided via some sort of guiding structure, or else no such Z-axis movement would be able to occur),
each machining head (5, 5) supporting a respective tool holding spindle (8, 8) (see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103; see also at least paragraph 0069 which indicates that element 8 is a tool spindle; see also the tools 6 shown in Figures 8-9 and paragraph 0105, for example),
said machining center further (46) comprising a workpiece holding table (15) (see Figure 8 and at least paragraph 0103, for example) which is supported at a “base” (for example, at least one of the monoblock units described in paragraph 0106, for example) of said supporting structure (3) so that “it” (such as 15) is configured to rotate about a first rotation axis (such as B) which is extended in a horizontal and longitudinal (Y) direction (see Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103 and 0106, for example), and
two tool magazines (24, 24) supported at the opposite longitudinal (Y) ends of said supporting structure (3) in order to be accessible by “each one” (as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112) of said tool holding spindles (8, 8). See Figures 8-9 and paragraphs 0103-0107, and particularly paragraph 0105, for example.
[AltContent: textbox (G4)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (G3)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (G2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (G1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
514
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the workpiece table that is supported at the base of the supporting structure of claim 12 of the ‘737 application be supported so that “it” (such as 15 of DE ‘822) is configured to rotate about a first rotation axis (such as B of DE ‘822) which is extended in a horizontal and longitudinal (Y) direction, as taught by DE ‘822, for the purpose of enhancing the functionality of the machining center of claim 12 of the ‘737 application by providing an additional degree of freedom of movement (to the workpiece table), thereby enabling workpieces of higher complexity to be machined, as would be a benefit of an additional degree of freedom of movement that would be readily understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, and further, such a design “creates short force paths in the frame between the workpiece and the working spindle or headstock”, allows chips to “fall freely”/ “unimpeded” to thus achieve “a high level of process reliability” (see DE ‘822, paragraphs 0032-0033, for example).
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 13 are found in ‘737 application claim 13.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 15 are found in ‘737 application claim 15.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 16 are found in ‘737 application claim 16.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 17 are found in ‘737 application claim 18.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 18 are found in ‘737 application claim 19.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 19 are found in ‘737 application claim 20.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 20 are found in ‘737 application claim 21.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 21 are found in ‘737 application claim 22.
Additionally, it is noted that all of the elements of present claim 22 are found in ‘737 application claim 17 (in view of DE ‘188), noting that given that the first rotation axis B of the workpiece holding table of DE ‘188 described above (re claim 12) is horizontal, and a second axis of rotation that is vertical as taught by claim 17 of the ‘737 application is “perpendicular to the first rotation axis” as set forth in present claim 22.
Claim 14, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of the most recent claim set (which was filed September 15, 2025) of copending Application No. 18/027,737 in view of DE 19948822 A1 (hereinafter, “DE ‘822”) (as applied to claim 12 above), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0189525 to Tatsuda (hereinafter, “Tatsuda”).
Claim 12 of the ‘737 application in view of DE ‘822 teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, regarding present claim 14, claim 12 of the ‘737 application does not expressly teach that the rotary support means comprise a “fork-like” support, as set forth in claim 14
However, attention is directed to Tatsuda. Tatsuda teaches a machine tool (1) (Figure 5, paragraph 0024) having a ram/machining head (8) (Figure 5, paragraphs 0002-0003, 0024, for example) that is vertically movable (along 7; see Figure 5 and at least paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0024) and to which (machining head 8) a “fork-like” support (30 of 10, the fork-like support having a pair of “forks”/leg segments 30a, 30b) (regarding claim 14) is provided (Figures 5, 1, paragraphs 0085, 0088). The “fork-like” support is a “rotary support means” that rotatably supports a tool spindle (21 of spindle unit 20) for rotation about the horizontal A-axis (Figures 1, 4, paragraphs 0087-0088, 0137, for example). Additionally, the rotary support means/”fork-like support” (30) is attached to a support head component (50, which 50 is in turn supported by ram/machining head 8; see Figures 3, 5, 1, and at least paragraphs 0085, 0121-0124) that is provided for rotating the “fork-like” support (30) (and thus, the spindle 21 and spindle unit 20) about the vertical Z/C axis. See Figures 1-3, 5, and at least paragraph 0121-0131, and particularly 0122, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the rotary support means of claim 12 of the ‘737 reference be respective rotary support means in the form of a “fork-like support” (re claim 14) as taught by Tatsuda, which fork-like support is configured (via the provision of the arrangement of the support head component 50 taught by Tatsuda, and the necessary appurtenances thereof for causing the rotation about the vertical axis) to rotate the corresponding tool spindle about a vertical (C/Z re Tatsuda) rotation axis, as taught by Tatsuda, and further, which fork-like support is configured to support the corresponding tool spindle for rotation about a horizontal rotation axis (A re Tatsuda), as taught by Tatsuda, for the purpose of providing a spindle arrangement/spindle support arrangement that facilitates easy maintenance (as expressly taught by Tatsuda; see paragraphs 0013, 0017-0019, for example).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
February 5, 2026