DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezawa (US 2019/0151990) in view of Otawa et al. (JP 2017189843 A).
As to claim 1, Mezawa teaches a work machine (manufacturing machine 100), comprising: a cover body (splashguard 210) that forms a first space (separate machining area 200 as illustrated in Fig 1), and a second space separated from the first space (outside-of-machining-area 250); a work head (additive manufacturing head 21) that performs work on a workpiece in the first space (as shown in Fig. 8, the additive manufacturing head 21 adds powdered material to workpiece 400, and then melts it with a laser to form a built-up portion, cladding 315. This takes place in the first space as shown in Fig 1); and a head stocker (head stocker 151) that stores the work head in the second space (See Paragraph [0094]: “Head stocker 151 stores additive manufacturing head 21 in an outside-of-machining-area 250.”), wherein the head stocker (head stocker 151) includes: a head holding part (head support 152) that holds the work head ([0096]: “Head support 152 is configured to be able to support additive manufacturing head 21.”).
Mezawa does not teach: the head stocker includes a swing mechanism part that swings the head holding part centered on a predetermined axis.
Rather, as shown in Figs 18-19, the head support 152 and associated movement mechanism 153 move the additive manufacturing head linearly, and not as a swing centered on a predetermined axis.
However, in the field of manufacturing machines, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a head holding part of a head stocker which swings centered on a predetermined axis. See Otawa which teaches a similar processing head 21 stored outside of the machining area 200. The processing head 21 is carried by support members 51, 41. The support members 41 and 51 move linearly as shown in figure 5 and also, support member 41 swings around axis 253 as shown for example in Figs 6-9.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Mezawa (which includes a merely linear movement of the head holding part) to include both a linear movement and a swing mechanism that swings the head holding part centered on a predetermined axis. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success since this arrangement is taught by Otawa. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits of the swing mechanism of Otawa which are described at Page 5 lines 46-49: “he second support member 41 follows the change in the positional relationship between the additional processing head 21, the second support member 41, and the first support member 51 with respect to the additional processing head 21 and the first support member 51.” In other words, the swing mechanism of Otawa provides greater positional control over the additive manufacturing head 21.
As to claim 2, Mezawa in view of Otawa teaches the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a tool holding part (tool spindle 121) that is movably provided in the first space (the tool spindle moves within the machining area 200), and holds a tool for subtractive manufacturing for a workpiece (Mezawa [0042]: “Tool spindle (upper tool rest) 121 causes a rotary tool to rotate in a milling process performed by means of the rotary tool.”), wherein the work head (additive manufacturing head 21) is detachably attached to the tool holding part ([0054]: “Head body 22 of additive manufacturing head 21 is mounted detachably on tool spindle 121.”).
As to claim 6, Mezawa in view of Otawa teaches the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the head stocker further includes a base that is provided in the second space (Mezawa teaches a movement mechanism 153 which is within the area 250 as shown in Fig 1), and mounts the head holding part and the swing mechanism part (the movement mechanism mounts the components which hold and manipulates the manufacturing head 21 as shown in Mezawa Figs 18-20. This would correspondingly also hold the swing mechanism of Otawa.).
As to claim 7, Mezawa in view of Otawa teaches the work machine according to claim 6, wherein the head stocker further includes a linear motion mechanism part that is mounted on the base (movement mechanism 153 is a linear motion mechanism part), and moves the head holding part back and forth between the first space and the second space by linearly moving the head holding part in a horizontal direction (this is illustrated in Fig 18-20 which show the mechanism 153 moving the head 21 from the area 250 to the area 200 by crossing over the cover 141).
As to claim 8, Mezawa in view of Otawa teaches the work machine according to claim 6, wherein the work head (additive manufacturing head 21) includes a head main body held by the head holding part (head body 22 as described in paragraph [0049]), and a cable extending from the head main body (cable 24), and the head stocker further includes a cable support part that is mounted on the base, and supports the cable (Otawa teaches a cable support structure shown in Fig 5 which supports cable 31).
As to claim 10, Mezawa in view of Otawa teaches the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the work head (Mezawa’s additive manufacturing head 21) includes a head main body held by the head holding part (head body 22 as described in paragraph [0049]), and a cable extending from the head main body (cable 24), and the cover body (splashguard 210) includes: an inner cover (head stocker cover 141) provided with an opening part (the opening is illustrated in Fig 12) that causes the first space and the second space to communicate with each other (See Fig 18 which shows the two spaces separated by door the opening (unlabeled)); and a first opening and closing cover and a second opening and closing cover that are provided at the opening part (head stocker door 142, see Fig 12 is a single part. However, dividing a single door into two doors to access the same space would have been obvious as a matter of common sense as it is well established that a single door and a double door each perform the same function of separating one space from another, choosing one option (a single door) over the other option (a double door) is not a patentable jump), and allow an opening and closing operation, when the work head performs work on the workpiece in the first space (the door 142 of Mezawa performs this intended use), the first opening and closing cover is brought into a closed state, and the second opening and closing cover is brought into an open state, thus allowing the cable to be drawn from the first space into the second space through the opening part, when the work head is delivered to the head holding part in the first space, the first opening and closing cover and the second opening and closing cover are brought into the open state, thus allowing the work head to be moved between the first space and the second space through the opening part (each of these limitations represent the intended use of the double-door made obvious in view of the single door 143 of Mezawa. As the double door of Mezawa is made obvious, so too is the use of said doors in the fashion claimed), and when the work head is stored in the second space, the first opening and closing cover and the second opening and closing cover are brought into the closed state, thus separating the first space and the second space from each other (Mezawa’s door 143 separates the areas 200, 250 when the door is closed).
As to claim 11, Mezawa in view of Otawa teaches the work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a workpiece spindle (Mezawa teaches a headstock 111), a tailstock, or a workpiece steady rest (second headstock 116) that is provided below the work head stored in the second space (this configuration is shown in Mezawa Fig 1).
As to claim 12, Mezawa in view of Otawa teaches the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the work head (Mezawa’s additive manufacturing head 21) is an additive manufacturing head that emits laser light while supplying material powder to the workpiece (see Mezawa Fig 8 which shows powder 312 and laser 311).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 3, Examiner’s best art (as found in the Notice of References Cited) does not teach or suggest the swing mechanism part as claimed, including the requirement of two separate postures of the work head holding part distinguished by being stored in a second space, or delivering a work head in the first space.
Examiner notes that Otawa teaches the head holding part swings, but does not teach the swing causes a posture which is distinguished by the first and second spaces.
As to claim 9, Examiner’s best art does not teach or suggest the head stocker support part that supports the base slidably in a horizontal direction between the second space and an external space outside the cover body. Examiner notes the movement mechanism 153 of Mezawa can be reasonably interpreted to “slide,” however, this component can not reasonably be considered the head stocker support part which supports the base since the movement mechanism 153 is already interpreted as the linear motion mechanism part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 5 February 2026