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.
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:
Claim 1 recites “a first processing unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of processing; (C) the claim recites the structure of a first ram and a first spindle to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim 1 recites “a second processing unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of processing; (C) the claim recites the structure of a second ram and a second spindle to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim 2 recites “a third processing unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of processing; (C) the claim recites the structure of a third ram and a third spindle to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim 2 recites “a fourth processing unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of processing; (C) the claim recites the structure of a fourth ram and a fourth spindle to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim 4 recites “a first lower X-axis driving device”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of “drive a lower end portion of the first moving column”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the features of Claim 6.
Claim 4 recites “a first upper X-axis driving device”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of “drive a upper end portion of the first moving column”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the features of Claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “a first lower X-axis driving device”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of “drive a lower end portion of the first moving column”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the features of Claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “a first upper X-axis driving device”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of “drive a upper end portion of the first moving column”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the features of Claim 6.
Claim 9 recites “a first lower X-axis driving device”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of “drive a lower end portion of the first moving column”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the features of Claim 6.
Claim 9 recites “a first upper X-axis driving device”. (A) the term device is a generic placeholder term; (B) “device” performs the function of “drive a upper end portion of the first moving column”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the features of Claim 6.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1) and Goellner (US20030121362A1).
Claim 1
Uetake teaches a lateral processing machine (Figure 1-4), comprising: a bed (Figure 2, Item 1); a floor surface X-axis guide (2) disposed on an upper surface of the bed (Figure 2); a first moving column (3) guided by the floor surface X-axis guide (Figure 2) to reciprocate in X direction (¶0023); a first Y-axis guide (13) disposed on the first moving column (Figure 3); a first processing unit including a first body (18) guided by the first Y-axis guide (13) to reciprocate in Y direction (¶0028 teaches the spindle saddle (18) is fed in the Y-axis direction using a feed screw and nut.), a first spindle (32), and the first processing unit includes a first ram (30) that rotatably supports the first spindle (32) and advances or retracts in Z direction (¶0029); a cover (50 and 60); a first Y box (51) receiving the first ram (30) to extend therethrough, the first Y box (51) supported by the first body (18, ¶0034 “the guide plate 51 fixed in the front of the spindle saddle 18”)
Uetake does not explicitly disclose a second processing unit guided by the first Y-axis guide to reciprocate in Y direction, the second processing unit includes a second ram that rotatably supports a second spindle and advances or retract in Z direction. Uetake does disclose that the tool system uses a ram and spindle that advances and retracts in the Z direction.
However, Passerini teaches a second processing unit (Figure 1 shows first (150) and second (150) processing units on the same tracks.) including a second body (151) guided by the first Y-axis guide (Figure 1 shows the two units move along the same support portion (113).) to reciprocate in Y direction (The two units move in the same direction, which in the combination with Uetake, will be the Y direction.), a second spindle (The tool carriers in Passerini represent mounts for tool that operate on a workpiece (¶0070). Uetake already provides a teaching of a ram and spindle as the tool that operates on a workpiece.) the second processing unit includes a second ram that rotatably supports a second spindle and advances or retract in Z direction. (The tool carriers in Passerini represent mounts for tool that operate on a workpiece (¶0070). Uetake already provides a teaching of a ram and spindle as the tool that operates on a workpiece.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known dual tool carrier on the same column technique of Passerini to the single spindle per column device of Uetake in order to give the device high machining flexibilities for simultaneous machining of a workpiece at different portions and provide many tool types. (See Passerini ¶0067)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known dual tool carrier on the same column technique of Passerini to the single spindle per column device of Uetake because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the system of Uetake will use two spindles per column. It is noted that this combination also arrives as the limitations regarding the second Y box supported by the second body since Uetake already teaches this structure in regards to the first processing unit.
Uetake in view of Passerini does not explicitly disclose the cover includes: a box cover disposed on the bed, a first X box extending in Y direction inside the box cover to reciprocate in X direction together with the first moving column, a first X telescopic cover configured to cover between the first X box and the box cover, a first Y box receiving the first ram to extend through, the first Y box configured to reciprocate in Y direction inside the first X box, a second Y box receiving the second ram to extend through, the second Y box configured to reciprocate in Y direction inside the first X box, a first Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the first Y box and the first X box, a second Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the first Y box and the second Y box, and a third Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the second Y box and the first X box, a second processing unit guided by the first Y-axis guide to reciprocate in Y direction, the second processing unit includes a second ram that rotatably supports a second spindle and advances or retract in Z direction.
In the combination, Uetake in view of Passerini does disclose a second spindle/ram that moves in the Y direction.
However, Goellner teaches the cover system includes: a box cover (1) disposed on the bed (¶0030 teaches the cover (1) is connected to the machine tool. The machine tool of Uetake has a bed.), a first X box (Figure 3, Item 4, spindle frame) extending in Y direction inside the box cover (Figure 2) to reciprocate in X direction together with the first moving column (Figure 3 shows the box cover (4) has moved to the right with the column holding the spindle (8).), a first X telescopic cover (3) configured to cover between the first X box and the box cover (Figures 2-3), the first Y box (7) configured to reciprocate in Y direction inside the first X box (¶0014 teaches the spindle box moves in the X-Y or X-Z directions.), a second Y box (When applied to Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner’s Y box (7) will be used on both Y axis moving spindles.) receiving the second ram to extend through (8), the second Y box configured to reciprocate in Y direction inside the first X box (¶0014 teaches the spindle box moves in the X-Y or X-Z directions.), a first Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the first Y box and the first X box (5), a second Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the first Y box and the second Y box (Goellner teaches a cover system that includes Y axis telescopic covers (5, 6) in between the Y box (7) and other parts of the system. When applied to Uetake in view of Passerini, which teaches having two Y boxes reciprocating on the same column, the teachings of Goellner arrive at a second Y telescopic cover between said Y boxes.), and a third Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the second Y box and the first X box (6).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known cover apparatus technique of Goellner to the machine tool cover device of Uetake order to use a cover that has increased move out and move in speed (¶0004); with high stability (¶0006 or ¶0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known cover apparatus technique of Goellner to the machine tool cover device of Uetake because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the cover system of Uetake will use the Y box, X box and interleaved covers are described in Goellner.
Claim 2
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising: a second moving column (Uetake, Figure 1, Item 4) disposed in a first X direction from the first moving column (Uetake, Figure 1), the second moving column guided by the floor surface X-axis guide to reciprocate in X direction (Uetake, Figures 1-2, Item 2); a second Y-axis guide disposed on the second moving column (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 13); a third processing unit (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 30) including a third body (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 18) guided by the second Y-axis guide (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 13) to reciprocate in Y direction (Uetake, ¶0028 teaches the spindle saddle (18) is fed in the Y-axis direction using a feed screw and nut.), a third ram (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 30) that rotatably supports a third spindle (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 32) and advances or retracts in Z direction (Uetake, ¶0029); a fourth processing unit including a fourth body (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 18) guided by the second Y-axis guide (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 13) to reciprocate in Y direction (Passerini teaches a fourth processing unit (lower 150) that shares a track with the third (lower 150) located on the opposite side of the workpiece from the first and second units (Figure 1). This teaching applied to Uetake arrives at the second column (Uetake, 4) having an analogous fourth processing unit.), the fourth processing unit includes a fourth ram (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 30) that rotatably supports a fourth spindle (Uetake, Figure 2, Item 32) and advances or retract in Z direction (Uetake, ¶0029); wherein the expansion cover (Goellner teaches the expansion cover applied to a single column in Figures 1-3. When applied to Uetake, both columns will incorporate the cover including the X/Y box and telescopic covers. The citations from Goellner to the single column and spindle will be applied to the combined apparatus of Uetake, Passerini and Goellner.) includes, a second X box (Goellner, Figure 3, Item 4) extending in Y direction inside the box cover (Goellner, Figure 2) to reciprocate in X direction together with the second moving column (Goellner Figure 3 shows the box cover (4) has moved to the right with the column holding the spindle (8).), a second X telescopic cover configured to cover between the first X box and the second X box (Uetake, Figure 1 teaches a cover (60) between the columns. When combined with the teachings from Goellner, this cover will be a telescopic cover as claimed.), a third X telescopic cover configured to cover between the second X box and the box cover (Goellner, Figure 3, Item 2), a third Y box (Goellner, Figure 3, Item 7) receiving the third ram to extend through (Goellner, Figure 3, Item 8), the third Y box (Uetake, Figure 4, Item 51) configured to reciprocate in Y direction inside the second X box (Goellner ¶0014 teaches the spindle box moves in the X-Y or X-Z directions.), the third Y box supported by the third body (Uetake, Figure 3, Item 18 and ¶0034 “the guide plate 51 fixed in the front of the spindle saddle 18”) a fourth Y box (Uetake, Figure 4, Item 51) receiving the fourth ram to extend through (Goellner, Figure 3, Item 8), the fourth Y box configured to reciprocate in Y direction inside the second X box (Goellner ¶0014 teaches the spindle box moves in the X-Y or X-Z directions.), the fourth Y box supported by the fourth body (Uetake, Figure 3, Item 18 and ¶0034 “the guide plate 51 fixed in the front of the spindle saddle 18”) a fourth Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the third Y box and the second X box (Goellner, Item 5), a fifth Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the third Y box and the fourth Y box (Goellner teaches a cover system that includes Y axis telescopic covers (5, 6) in between the Y box (7) and other parts of the system. When applied to Uetake in view of Passerini, which teaches having two Y boxes reciprocating on the same column, the teachings of Goellner arrive at a second Y telescopic cover between said Y boxes.), and a sixth Y telescopic cover configured to cover between the fourth Y box and the second X box. (Goellner, Item 6)
Claim 5
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 2, wherein the first Y-axis guide (Uetake, Item 13) is disposed on a lateral side of the first moving column in the first X direction (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the column (3) has the guide (13) disposed on the side of 9’.), the first processing unit and the second processing unit are disposed on the lateral side of the first moving column in the first X direction (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the processing unit (18, 30) is connected to the guide (13), and therefore is disposed on the guide and the same lateral side as the guide. The combination with Passerini teaches two processing units disposed on the same guide.), the second Y-axis guide is disposed on a lateral side of the second moving column in a second X direction, the second X direction being opposite direction of the first X direction(Uetake, figure 3 shows the second guide (13) is disposed on the column (4) on the opposite side (left side of the column vs the right in the first column (3).), and the third processing unit and the fourth processing unit are disposed on the lateral side of the second moving column in the second X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the processing unit (18, 30) is connected to the guide (13), and therefore is disposed on the guide and the same lateral side as the guide. The combination with Passerini teaches two processing units disposed on the same guide.)
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1) and Goellner (US20030121362A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Tokuma (US20050022351A1).
Claim 3
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1.
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner does not disclose a pair of fixed support columns disposed at both ends of the bed in X direction; a fixed beam bridged between upper ends of the pair of the fixed support columns; and an upper X-axis guide disposed on the fixed beam.
However, Tokuma teaches a pair of fixed support columns (15) disposed at both ends of the bed in X direction (Figure 1); a fixed beam (15) bridged between upper ends of the pair of the fixed support columns (Figure 1); and an upper X-axis guide (40) disposed on the fixed beam.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known fixed rectangular frame structure technique of Tokuma to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner in order to increase provide a low weight frame that ensures rigidity. (See Tokuma ¶0035) and move a movable frame under the guidance of two guide rails (See Tokuma ¶0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the fixed rectangular frame structure technique of Tokuma to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the machine tool of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner will incorporate a fixed structure including the claimed columns, beam, and guide.
Claim 9
Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Tokuma teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 3, further comprising: a first lower X-axis driving device disposed on the bed to drive a lower end portion of the first moving column in X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 teaches a driving device (5, 6) that is located at a lower end portion of the columns (3, 4). This device includes a feed screw and motor (¶0042) which is a functional equivalent to applicant’s driving device as required by 112(f).) a first upper X-axis driving device (Tokuma, Figure 1, Item 71 / 73) disposed above the bed (Figure 1) to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device. (Tokuma, Figure 1 teaches a movable frame (16) that moves in the X direction using two guide rails (41) and driven by two feed motors (71 and 72).)
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1) and Goellner (US20030121362A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Mototani (US20180079044A1).
Claim 3
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1.
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner does not disclose a pair of fixed support columns disposed at both ends of the bed in X direction; a fixed beam bridged between upper ends of the pair of the fixed support columns; and an upper X-axis guide disposed on the fixed beam.
However, Mototani teaches a pair of fixed support columns (12a, 12b) disposed at both ends of the bed (11) in X direction (Figure 1); a fixed beam (12b) bridged between upper ends of the pair of the fixed support columns (Figure 1); and an upper X-axis guide disposed on the fixed beam. (52)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known fixed structure technique of Mototani to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner in order to increase the rigidity of the device (See Mototani ¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known fixed structure technique of Mototani to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the machine tool of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner will incorporate a fixed structure including the claimed columns, beam, and guide.
Claim 10
Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Mototani teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 3, wherein the first Y-axis guide (Uetake, Item 13) is disposed on a lateral side of the first moving column in the first X direction (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the column (3) has the guide (13) disposed on the side of 9’.), the first processing unit and the second processing unit are disposed on the lateral side of the first moving column in the first X direction (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the processing unit (18, 30) is connected to the guide (13), and therefore is disposed on the guide and the same lateral side as the guide. The combination with Passerini teaches two processing units disposed on the same guide.), the second Y-axis guide is disposed on a lateral side of the second moving column in a second X direction, the second X direction being opposite direction of the first X direction(Uetake, figure 3 shows the second guide (13) is disposed on the column (4) on the opposite side (left side of the column vs the right in the first column (3).), and the third processing unit and the fourth processing unit are disposed on the lateral side of the second moving column in the second X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the processing unit (18, 30) is connected to the guide (13), and therefore is disposed on the guide and the same lateral side as the guide. The combination with Passerini teaches two processing units disposed on the same guide.)
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1) and Goellner (US20030121362A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Yasuda (US20090121113A1).
Claim 4
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising: a first lower X-axis driving device disposed on the bed to drive a lower end portion of the first moving column in X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 teaches a driving device (5, 6) that is located at a lower end portion of the columns (3, 4). This device includes a feed screw and motor (¶0042) which is a functional equivalent to applicant’s driving device as required by 112(f).)
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner does not disclose a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device.
However, Yasuda teaches a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device. (Figure 2 teaches a machining tool (1) that has a movable frame (8) that is moved in the horizontal direction using upper and lower driving mechanisms (28, 29) (¶0058). Both upper and lower driving mechanisms include a motive force generator (¶0071 and ¶0074).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Yasuda to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner in order to apply horizontal force at the upper and lower portions such that the force acts of the center of gravity and cause the driving of the movable unit to be stable and smooth even at high speeds. (See Yasuda ¶0019)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Yasuda to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the machine tool of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner will incorporate an upper driving device in addition to the lower.
Claim 11
Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Yasuda teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 4, wherein the first Y-axis guide (Uetake, Item 13) is disposed on a lateral side of the first moving column in the first X direction (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the column (3) has the guide (13) disposed on the side of 9’.), the first processing unit and the second processing unit are disposed on the lateral side of the first moving column in the first X direction (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the processing unit (18, 30) is connected to the guide (13), and therefore is disposed on the guide and the same lateral side as the guide. The combination with Passerini teaches two processing units disposed on the same guide.), the second Y-axis guide is disposed on a lateral side of the second moving column in a second X direction, the second X direction being opposite direction of the first X direction(Uetake, figure 3 shows the second guide (13) is disposed on the column (4) on the opposite side (left side of the column vs the right in the first column (3).), and the third processing unit and the fourth processing unit are disposed on the lateral side of the second moving column in the second X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 shows the processing unit (18, 30) is connected to the guide (13), and therefore is disposed on the guide and the same lateral side as the guide. The combination with Passerini teaches two processing units disposed on the same guide.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1) and Goellner (US20030121362A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Tokuma (US20050022351A1).
Claim 4
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising: a first lower X-axis driving device disposed on the bed to drive a lower end portion of the first moving column in X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 teaches a driving device (5, 6) that is located at a lower end portion of the columns (3, 4). This device includes a feed screw and motor (¶0042) which is a functional equivalent to applicant’s driving device as required by 112(f).)
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner does not disclose a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device.
However, Tokuma teaches a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device. (Figure 1 teaches a movable frame (16) that moves in the X direction using two guide rails (41) and driven by two feed motors (71 and 72).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Tokuma to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner in order to move a movable frame under the guidance of two guide rails (See Tokuma ¶0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Tokuma to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the machine tool of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner will incorporate an upper driving device in addition to the lower.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1), Goellner (US20030121362A1) and Tokuma (US20050022351A1), as applied in Claim 9, further in view of Zimmer (US20220379417A1) as evidenced by Min (CN108381246A).
Claim 6
Uetake, Passerini, Goellner and Tokuma teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 4, wherein the first lower X-axis driving device includes, a lower X rack (Uetake, Figure 3, Item 5) disposed on the bed (Uetake, Figure 1 or 3), and a lower X motor (Uetake, Figure 3, Item 7), the connection between the column and the rack disposed on a lower end portion of the first moving column (Uetake, Figure 3), the first upper X-axis driving device (See Tokuma, Figure 1, Item 41 and 71) includes, an upper X rack (Tokuma, Figure 1, Item 41) disposed on the fixed beam (Tokuma, Figure 1, top of Item 15), and an upper X motor (Tokuma, Figure 1, Item 71), the connection between the column and the rack disposed on an upper end portion of the first moving column. (Tokuma, Figure 1)
Uetake, Passerini, Goellner and Tokuma does not disclose a lower X helical rack; a first lower X helical gear configured to mesh with the lower X helical rack; the lower X motor disposed on a lower end portion of the first moving column; an upper X helical rack; a first upper X helical gear configured to mesh with the upper X helical rack; the upper X motor disposed on an upper end portion of the first moving column. The combination of references does teach upper and lower racks, motors, and connections between the column and racks located at the upper and lower ends of the column.
However, Zimmer teaches a movable column (114-117) for a machine tool (Figure 2) that includes a helical rack (Figure 3 and ¶0031 teaches the gear (126) of the transmission is helical and interacts with a toothed rack (66). Therefore, the rack is helical.); a first helical gear (126) configured to mesh with the helical rack (66); a motor (125) connected to the first helical gear (¶0031); a motor disposed on a lower end portion of the first moving column. (Figure 4-5) When applying the known helical gear and motor of Zimmer, it will be applied to both racks of Uetake, Passerini, Goellner and Tokuma.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known helical gear/rack and motor motive force technique from Zimmer to the movable columns of Uetake, Passerini, Goellner and Tokuma based on the teachings from Min, which discloses that helical gear/rack combinations allow for a stable drive and smaller noise. (See Machine Translation of Min Lines 64-65)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known helical gear/rack and motor motive force technique from Zimmer to the movable columns of Uetake, Passerini, Goellner and Tokuma because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1) and Goellner (US20030121362A1), as applied in Claim 2, further in view of Mototani (US20180079044A1).
Claim 7
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 2.
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner does not disclose a pair of fixed support columns disposed at both ends of the bed in X direction; a fixed beam bridged between upper ends of the pair of the fixed support columns; and an upper X-axis guide disposed on the fixed beam.
However, Mototani teaches a pair of fixed support columns (12a, 12b) disposed at both ends of the bed (11) in X direction (Figure 1); a fixed beam (12b) bridged between upper ends of the pair of the fixed support columns (Figure 1); and an upper X-axis guide disposed on the fixed beam. (52)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known fixed structure technique of Mototani to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner in order to increase the rigidity of the device (See Mototani ¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known fixed structure technique of Mototani to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the machine tool of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner will incorporate a fixed structure including the claimed columns, beam, and guide.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1) and Goellner (US20030121362A1), as applied in Claim 2, further in view of Yasuda (US20090121113A1).
Claim 8
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 2, further comprising: a first lower X-axis driving device disposed on the bed to drive a lower end portion of the first moving column in X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 teaches a driving device (5, 6) that is located at a lower end portion of the columns (3, 4). This device includes a feed screw and motor (¶0042) which is a functional equivalent to applicant’s driving device as required by 112(f).)
Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner does not disclose a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device.
However, Yasuda teaches a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device. (Figure 2 teaches a machining tool (1) that has a movable frame (8) that is moved in the horizontal direction using upper and lower driving mechanisms (28, 29) (¶0058). Both upper and lower driving mechanisms include a motive force generator (¶0071 and ¶0074).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Yasuda to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner in order to apply horizontal force at the upper and lower portions such that the force acts of the center of gravity and cause the driving of the movable unit to be stable and smooth even at high speeds. (See Yasuda ¶0019)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Yasuda to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the machine tool of Uetake in view of Passerini and Goellner will incorporate an upper driving device in addition to the lower.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetake (US20020009343A1) in view of Passerini (US20200070252A1), Goellner (US20030121362A1) and Mototani (US20180079044A1), as applied in Claim 3, further in view of Yasuda (US20090121113A1).
Claim 9
Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Mototani teaches the lateral processing machine according to claim 3, further comprising: a first lower X-axis driving device disposed on the bed to drive a lower end portion of the first moving column in X direction. (Uetake, Figure 3 teaches a driving device (5, 6) that is located at a lower end portion of the columns (3, 4). This device includes a feed screw and motor (¶0042) which is a functional equivalent to applicant’s driving device as required by 112(f).)
Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Mototani does not disclose a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device.
However, Yasuda teaches a first upper X-axis driving device disposed above the bed to drive an upper end portion of the first moving column in X direction in synchronization with the first lower X-axis driving device. (Figure 2 teaches a machining tool (1) that has a movable frame (8) that is moved in the horizontal direction using upper and lower driving mechanisms (28, 29) (¶0058). Both upper and lower driving mechanisms include a motive force generator (¶0071 and ¶0074).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Yasuda to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Mototani in order to apply horizontal force at the upper and lower portions such that the force acts of the center of gravity and cause the driving of the movable unit to be stable and smooth even at high speeds. (See Yasuda ¶0019)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known upper and lower driving device technique of Yasuda to the machine tool device of Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Mototani because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the machine tool of Uetake in view of Passerini, Goellner and Mototani will incorporate an upper driving device in addition to the lower.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Goellner does not teach the limitations as claimed.
The rejection above has been updated to suit the new limitations added in the latest amendment.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine the elements of Uetake, Passerini and Goellner, specifically the combination/incorporation of the cover system of Goellner with the device of Uetake due to the size requirements of each.
It is respectfully asserted that no details in Uetake were found (at the time of writing of this office action) regarding the size of the area needed to be covered by the cover system. Applicant’s arguments repeatedly mention that Goellner’s cover cannot be used with large area, but neither reference discusses the size or limitations of the cover systems. The figures of the two reference do not appear to be to scale and Goellner’s cover is able to function in the same areas of the machine tool as disclosed in Uetake (above/below the spindle and laterally next to the spindle/movable column). Therefore, the arguments regarding the large/small area coverage of the two covers is not currently convincing.
Applicant argues that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that MPEP 2143 (I)(D) has been mischaracterized throughout the office action.
It is respectfully asserted that for each combination of references, a rationale (improvement) for the combination either sourced from the references themselves or from general engineering knowledge is provided, the appropriate MPEP section is cited, and a predictable result is presented as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US6276427B1
2000-07-10
Figure 4 shows a spindle, Y box, cover (1) and outer X box / Y guide (4 / 6) used with a machining device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights