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 Objections
Claims 8 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8 and 17 recite “a center axis” in line 4. Since the same limitation was already recited in line 2, it should be changed to “the center axis.”
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:
a first elastic member in claim 10; and
a second elastic member in claim 10.
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.
A first elastic member is interpreted as “a compression coil spring” according to [0054] or equivalent thereof.
A second elastic member is interpreted as “a compression coil spring” according to [0054] or equivalent therefore.
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.
Claims 4-7, 9 and 14-19 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first X direction" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallinger (EP3943239) of which its corresponding U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0375228) is cited in view of Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0167187).
Regarding Claim 1, Dallinger teaches a lateral processing machine, comprising:
a bed (Fig. 1, 2);
a floor surface X-axis guide (Fig. 1, 13) disposed on an upper surface of the bed (Fig. 1, 2) ([0074]);
a first moving column (Fig. 1, 12) guided by the floor surface X-axis guide (Fig. 1, 13) to reciprocate in X direction ([0075]);
a first Y-axis guide (Fig. 1, 15) disposed on the first moving column (Fig. 1, 12) ([0076]);
a first processing unit (Fig. 1, a first module comprising a drive (31), spindle (5) and a first Z-axis linear guide (16)) guided by the first Y-axis guide to reciprocate in Y direction ([0077]), the first processing unit includes a first ram that rotatably supports a first spindle (Fig. 1, 5) and advances or retracts in Z direction ([0080]) (Although the reference is silent about a ram, Fig. 1 shows what appears to be a ram that rotatably supports a first spindle and advances or retracts in Z direction.);
a second processing unit (Fig. 1, a second module comprising a drive (31), spindle (6) and a first Z-axis linear guide (16)) guided by the first Y-axis guide to reciprocate in Y direction ([0077]),
the second processing unit includes a second ram that rotatably supports a second spindle (Fig. 1, 6) and advances or retract in Z direction ([0080]);
a first tool changer (Fig. 4, 47) disposed on the bed (Fig. 1, 2) to exchange a tool (Fig. 4, 40) with the first spindle (Fig. 1, 5) positioned at a first tool changing position and the second spindle (Fig. 1, 6) positioned at a second tool changing position when the first spindle is positioned at the first tool changing position ([0115]-[0116]).
Dallinger does not teach a second tool changer disposed on the bed to exchange the tool with the second spindle.
Burkhardt teaches a first tool changer (Fig. 5, first chain run 79) disposed on the bed (Fig. 5, 11) to exchange a tool (Fig. 5, 25) with the first spindle (Fig. 3, 24; first spindle on a spindle assembly (22)) positioned at a first tool changing position ([0089]: in the tool changing region W) ([0085]-[0087]); and
a second tool changer (Fig. 5, second chain run 79) disposed on the bed (Fig. 5, 11) to exchange the tool (Fig. 5, 25) with the second spindle (Fig. 3, 24: second spindle on a spindle assembly (22)) positioned at a second tool changing position ([0089]: in the tool changing region W) when the first spindle (Fig. 3, 24) is positioned at the first tool changing position ([0089]: in the tool changing region W) ([0085]-[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single tool changer of Dallinger to provide a plurality of tool changers corresponding to multiple spindles as taught by Burkhardt, such that each tool changer could be loaded with tools dedicated to a respective spindle without the need to account for the tooling requirements of the other spindles. In the modified configuration, the tool changer of Dallinger would comprise a plurality of smaller chain circulation magazines (48) stacked in the Y direction, with each magazine positioned to correspond to the Y-position of its respective spindle.
Regarding Claim 2, Dallinger/Burkhardt teach the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, wherein
the second processing unit (Dallinger Fig. 1, a second module comprising a drive (31), spindle (6) and a first Z-axis linear guide (16)) is disposed in a first Y direction (Dallinger Fig. 1, a negative direction in Y axis (11)) from the first processing unit (Dallinger Fig. 1, a first module comprising a drive (31), spindle (5) and a first Z-axis linear guide (16)), and
the second tool changer (one of the smaller chain circulation magazines (48) corresponding to the second processing unit) is disposed in the first Y direction (Dallinger Fig. 1, a negative direction in Y axis (11)) from the first tool changer (as noted in the prior art rejection of claim 1, in the modified configuration, a plurality of smaller chain circulation magazines (48) stacked in the Y direction, with each magazine positioned to correspond to the Y-position of its respective spindle.).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Dallinger/Burkhardt teach a second set of processing units having spindles (Dallinger Fig. 7, 58-60) disposed in the first X direction (Dallinger Fig. 7, a positive direction in X axis (10)) from the first set of processing units having the spindles (5, 6, 34) (Dallinger [0123]) (see Fig. 7) and
a third tool changer (Dallinger Fig. 7, 66 modified by 79 of Burkhardt) disposed on the bed and disposed in the first X direction (Dallinger Fig. 7, a positive direction in X axis (10)) from the second set of spindles (Dallinger Fig. 7, 58-60) (Fig. 7 shows the third tool changer (66) on the right side of the second set of spindles (58-60)), the third tool changer (Dallinger Fig. 7, 66 modified by 79 of Burkhardt) configured to exchange the tool with the third spindle positioned at a third tool changing position (Dallinger [0115]-[0116]); and
a fourth tool changer (Dallinger Fig. 7, 66 modified by 79 of Burkhardt) disposed on the bed to exchange the tool with the fourth spindle (Dallinger Fig. 7, 59) positioned at a fourth tool changing position when the third spindle is positioned at the third tool changing position (Dallinger [0115]-[0116]);
wherein the first tool changer (Dallinger Fig. 7, 47 modified by 79 of Burkhardt) and the second tool changer (Dallinger Fig. 7, 47 modified by 79 of Burkhardt) are disposed in a second X direction (Dallinger Fig. 1, a negative direction in X axis (10)) that is opposite to the first X direction (Fig. 1, a positive direction in X axis (10)) from the first moving column (Dallinger shows the tool changer 47 left of the spindles (5, 6, 34)).
Since the second set of spindles (58-60) in Fig. 7 of Dallinger are expected to be identical to the first set of spindles (5, 6, 34) in terms of their design and function, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second set of processing units and spindles (58-60) would be disposed on a second moving column similar to the first moving column, which would be disposed in the first X direction from the first moving column and that the second set of processing units and the second set of spindles (58-60) would be guided in Y direction and Z direction by a second Y-axis guide and a second X-axis guide respectively similar to the first set of processing units and the first set of spindles.
The following portion of rejection cites the same reference numbers for the second moving columns and the guides to designate the same parts as the embodiment in Fig. 1 of Dallinger.
Dallinger/Burkhardt teach the lateral processing machine according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second moving column (Fig. 1, 12) disposed in the first X direction (Fig. 1, a positive direction in X axis (10)) from the first moving column, (Dallinger Fig. 7 shows a second set of spindles (58-60) which would be mounted on a second moving column similar to the first moving column (12).) the second moving column guided by the floor surface X-axis guide (Dallinger Fig. 1, 13) to reciprocate in X direction (Dallinger [0075]);
a second Y-axis guide (Dallinger Fig. 1, 15) disposed on the second moving column (Dallinger Fig. 1, 12) (Dallinger [0076]);
a third processing unit (Dallinger Fig. 7, a third module comprising a spindle (58)) guided by the second Y-axis guide (Fig. 1, 15) to reciprocate in Y direction, the third processing unit includes a third ram that rotatably supports a third spindle (Dallinger Fig. 7, 58) and advances or retracts in Z direction (Dallinger [0080]);
a fourth processing unit (Dallinger Fig. 7, a fourth module comprising a spindle (59)) guided by the second Y-axis guide (Fig. 1, 15) to reciprocate in Y direction, the fourth processing unit includes a fourth ram that rotatably supports a fourth spindle (Dallinger Fig. 7, 59) and advances or retract in Z direction (Dallinger [0080]).
Regarding Claim 5, Dallinger/Burkhardt teach the lateral processing machine according to claim 4, wherein
the fourth processing unit (Dallinger Fig. 7, a fourth module comprising a spindle (59)) is disposed in a first Y direction (Fig. 1, a negative direction in Y-axis (11)) from the third processing unit (Dallinger Fig. 7, a third module comprising a spindle (58)), and
the fourth tool changer (Dallinger Fig. 7, 66 modified by 79 of Burkhardt) is disposed in the first Y direction (Fig. 1, a negative direction in Y-axis (11)) from the third tool changer (Dallinger Fig. 7, 66 modified by 79 of Burkhardt) (as noted in the prior art rejection of claim 1, in the modified configuration, a plurality of smaller chain circulation magazines (48) stacked in the Y direction, with each magazine positioned to correspond to the Y-position of its respective spindle.).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dallinger (EP3943239) of which its corresponding U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0375228) is cited in view of Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0167187), as applied to Claims 4 and 5, further in view of Chen et al. (CN219747180) of which attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Dallinger/Burkhardt teach the lateral processing machine according to claims 4 and 5, but do not teach wherein
the first Y-axis guide is disposed on the first X direction side of the first moving column,
the first processing unit and the second processing unit are disposed on the first
X direction side of the first moving column,
the second Y-axis guide is disposed on the second X direction side of the second
moving column, and
the third processing unit and the fourth processing unit are disposed on the second X
direction side of the second moving column.
Chen teaches the first Y-axis guide (see Fig. below) is disposed on the first X direction side (Fig. 1, a positive direction of Z axis) of the first moving column (Fig. 1, 9),
the first processing unit (Fig. 1, 61) are disposed on the first X direction side (Fig. 1, a positive direction of Z axis) of the first moving column (Fig. 1, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first and second processing units and the first moving column in Dallinger’s machine such that the processing units are disposed on the first X direction side of the moving column as taught by Chen such that the Y-axis guides are only required only on one side of the processing unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the third and fourth processing units on the second X direction side of the second moving column, so that the third and fourth processing units can process the workpiece alongside the first and second processing units without any interference of the second moving columns.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 10-11 and 13 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.
Claims 6, 9, 14 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Uchikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0145498) teaches Claim 1 except for “a second tool changer … when the first spindle is positioned at the first tool changing position” as the tool on each spindle can be exchanged independently.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 10/11/2026
