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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czwielong et al. (EP 2703119, hereinafter ‘Czwielong’).
Regarding claim 1, Czwielong discloses a tool post comprising a body 2 extending according to an axis 10 including at one of its ends a base for fastening to a numerically-controlled machine tool 7 and at an other end a head 3 movable in rotation. The head includes at least two tool-holder spindles 12, each of the at least two tool-holder spindles is configured to receive in engagement a cutting tool. The at least two tool-holder spindles occupy, depending on the angular position of the head, a working position to carry out a machining operation on a workpiece 18 held in position in a fitting, or a standby position in which the two tool-holder spindles are withdrawn from a workpiece. Each of the at least two tool-holder spindles is configured to be controlled independently of the other in order to immobilize or drive in rotation the cutting tool carried thereby, irrespective of a position each spindle occupies. An axis of rotation of the head is coincident with the axis 10. The at least two tool-holder spindles are distributed around the axis of rotation of the head, each of the at least two tool-holder spindles are arranged so that an axis of each of the at least two tool-holder spindles 14 forms an angle γ with respect to the axis 10. The angle formed between the axis of each tool-holder spindle and the axis 10 is the same in both the standby position and the working position.
Regarding claim 6, Czwielong discloses the at least two tool-holder spindles being arranged so that their axes 14 are separated from the axis 10 by a distance larger than the radius of a spindle (see e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Czwielong discloses each of the at least two tool-holder spindles comprising its own motor for rotating or immobilizing the cutting tool carried thereby (Second Paragraph of Page 4 of the English translation of the document attached to this Action).
Regarding claim 8, Czwielong discloses at least one spindle being adapted to occupy at least two distinct working positions, each of which is defined by a predetermined angular position of the head of the tool post (see e.g. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Czwielong discloses at least one spindle being capable of occupying a working position continuously during rotation of the tool post.
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 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czwielong et al. (EP 2703119).
Regarding claim 3, Czwielong discloses the base being configured so that the axis 10 forms an angle (α – β) with respect to the vertical axis 6. Czwielong discloses angle α as being “about 70˚” and angle β being “about 40˚” and therefore does not explicitly disclose the axis forming an angle between 35 and 55 degrees with respect to a vertical axis.
However, Czwielong also discloses adjusting the sizes of the inclination angles to ensure that a variety of workpieces can be manufactured (Sixth Paragraph of Page 4 of the English translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the angles such that the axis forms an angle of between 35 and 55 degrees with respect to a vertical axis to ensure that a desired workpiece is capable of being machined, as taught by Czwielong. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Czwielong discloses the at least two tool-holder spindles being distributed around an axis of rotation of the head 10, each spindle being arranged so that its axis 14 forms an angle γ with respect to the axis 10, the axes not being secant with each other. Czwielong discloses angle γ as being “about 70˚” and therefore does not explicitly disclose the axis forming an angle between 35 and 55 degrees with respect to the axis.
However, Czwielong also discloses adjusting the sizes of the inclination angles to ensure that a variety of workpieces can be manufactured (Sixth Paragraph of Page 4 of the English translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the angles such that each spindle axis forms an angle of between 35 and 55 degrees with respect to the axis 10 to ensure that a desired workpiece is capable of being machined, as taught by Czwielong. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Czwielong discloses a numerically-controlled machine tool 5 capable of machining micromechanical workpieces, comprising at least one tool post according to claim 1, fastened by the base directly to a frame or a carriage moveable in translation according to an XYZ trihedron, so that the axis 10 forms an angle with respect to the vertical axis, said machine tool further inherently comprising a fitting intended to hold a workpiece 18 to be machined in position. Czwielong discloses the base being configured so that the axis 10 forms an angle (α – β) with respect to the vertical axis 6. Czwielong discloses angle α as being “about 70˚” and angle β being “about 40˚” and therefore does not explicitly disclose the axis forming an angle between 35 and 55 degrees with respect to a vertical axis.
However, Czwielong also discloses adjusting the sizes of the inclination angles to ensure that a variety of workpieces can be manufactured (Sixth Paragraph of Page 4 of the English translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the angles such that the axis forms an angle of between 35 and 55 degrees with respect to a vertical axis to ensure that a desired workpiece is capable of being machined, as taught by Czwielong. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czwielong et al. (EP 2703119) in view of Delacou (US 6279438).
Regarding claim 11, Czwielong does not disclose two tool posts, arranged on either side of the fitting as claimed.
Delacou discloses a similar tool, wherein as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, it is well known to provide two tool posts on either side of a fitting holding a workpiece, in order to provide more tools to perform different operations on the workpiece if desired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a second tool post on the other side of the fitting of the tool of Czwielong, as taught by Delacou, in order to expand the capabilities of the machine tool. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czwielong et al. (EP 2703119) in view of Hiramoto et al. (JP 2005088103, hereinafter ‘Hiramoto’).
Regarding claim 12, Czwielong does not disclose the claimed protective walls.
Hiramoto discloses a protective wall 5b/16 being provided to a similar machine tool, the wall having an opening 5a through which the tool post extends in a liquid-tight manner. Said protective wall serves to keep splashes of swarf and/or cutting fluid from entering the ways of the machine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the protective wall(s) taught by Hiramoto to the tool of Czwielong in order to keep the tool in good working order by preventing swarf and/or cutting fluid from interfering with the ways of the machine.
Regarding claim 13, Czwielong discloses an inherent method for changing the tool of a machine tool according to claim 10 wherein a first cutting tool engaged in a spindle in the working position carries out a first machining phase and a second cutting tool engaged in a spindle in the standby position is intended to carry out a second machining phase and is prevented from rotating. Once the first machining phase is finished, the head is pivoted about the axis so as to drive the spindle carrying the second cutting tool into the working position so that the latter starts the second machining phase and so as to drive the spindle carrying the first cutting tool into the standby position, the latter being prevented from rotating once said spindle carrying it has reached its standby position. Czwielong does not explicitly disclose the step of rotating the second cutting tool about its axis until it reaches a rotational speed specific to the second machining phase before the end of the first machining phase.
Hiramoto discloses a similar method, wherein the spindles provided with individual motors are configured such that before the end of the first machining phase, the second cutting tool is rotated about its axis until it reaches a rotational speed specific to the second machining phase (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the step of rotating the second cutting tool up to speed before the end of the first machining phase, as taught by Hiramoto, in order to reduce cycle time of the machining operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4 and 6-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
