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: “control unit” in claims 13 and 14.
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.
Claims 11-14 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 11 recites “the first position sensor optionally being a first optical scale” in line 3. The term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the sensor is an optical scale or not. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 12 recites “the second position sensor optionally being a second optical scale” in line 3. The term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the sensor is an optical scale or not. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 13 recites that a control unit is configured “to manage an open-loop operation of the machine tool, wherein each position of the slide having been tested” in lines 3-4. The ways these limitations have been set forth is confusing and thus, renders the claim indefinite. How does the control unit is managing this “open-loop operation”? How is each position of the slide “been tested”? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 14 recites that a control unit is configured “to manage a closed-loop operation of the machine tool” in line 3. The way these limitations have been set forth is confusing and thus renders the claim indefinite. How does the control unit is managing this “closed-loop operation”? Further clarification is needed.
Claim limitation “control unit” in both claims 13 and 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no specific structure of what exactly is the “control unit” or “unit” that controls. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 13, 15-18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2013 207 125 (hereafter—DE’125--) in view of CN 206 296 669 (herafter—CN’669--).
In regards to claim 1, DE’125 discloses a machine tool (Figures 1-5) for chip removal processing, comprising: an upright (15) having a prevailing extension along a vertical axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant) substantially orthogonal to a base plane (13) for supporting the machine tool, wherein the upright (15) comprises a front side (13a) lying on a front upright plane and a rear side (directional opposite to 13a) lying on a rear upright plane, said front side (13a) and said rear side (22) being connected to each other by a right side (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and a left side (in the same way as presented by Applicant), the upright further comprising a base support (in the same way as presented by Applicant); a bench (3) having a prevailing extension along a longitudinal axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see Figure 1 of DE’125) and being suitable to be fixed to the base plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant), said bench being further engaged by the base support (in the same way as presented by Applicant), so as to make the upright (15) longitudinally translatable on the bench (Figure 1 and Machine Translation); and a machining group (9, in the same way as presented by Applicant) connected to the upright to be translatable along the vertical axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and along an advancement axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant) orthogonal to both the vertical axis and the longitudinal axis, said machining group being suitable to perform chip removal operations on a workpiece, wherein the upright (15) further comprises a front pair of vertical translation means (19/20) and a rear vertical translation means (29/30) suitable to engage the machining group (9), and wherein the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20) and the rear vertical translation means (29/30) adjust a vertical translation of the machining group (9) and keep the machining group orthogonal to the vertical axis. For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
DE’125 fails to disclose a rear pair of vertical translation means.
CN’669 teaches that it is well known in the art to have a machine tool (Figures 1-5) for chip removal processing, comprising: an upright substantially orthogonal to a base plane (13) for supporting the machine tool, and a machining group (11) connected to the upright to be translatable along a vertical axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and along an advancement axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant) orthogonal to both the vertical axis and a longitudinal axis, wherein the upright further comprises a front pair of vertical translation means (4 with respective synchronous motors) and a rear pair vertical translation means (13 with respective synchronous motors) suitable to engage the machining group (11), and wherein the front pair of vertical translation means (4 with respective synchronous motors) and the rear pair vertical translation means (13 with respective synchronous motors) adjust a vertical translation of the machining group (11) and keep the machining group orthogonal to the vertical axis. This arrangement overcomes: bad rigidity of the system, bad synchronization, unstable operation and high failure rate (see Abstract of CN’669 of the Machine Translation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to include an additional one rear vertical translation means, to DE’125, so as to have a pair of rear vertical translation means, based on the teachings of CN’669 in an attempt to overcome bad rigidity of the system, bad synchronization, unstable operation and high failure rate.
In regards to claim 2, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 1, DE’125 as modified also discloses that the machining group (9 of DE’125) comprises: a carriage (16) delimited by a front end engaged to (see Figure 2 of DE’125) the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) and a rear end engaged to the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) so as to translate vertically along the vertical axis, said front end lying on a carriage front plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and said rear end lying on a carriage rear plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant); a slide (17 of DE’125), housed in the carriage (16 of DE’125) to translate along the advancement, said slide (17 of DE’125) comprising a tool-holder table (18 of DE’125), the tool-holder table (18 of DE’125) being suitable to house a machining tool (see Figure 2 of DE’125), wherein a translation along the advancement axis of the slide relative to the carriage horizontally displaces a position of a center of gravity of the machining group (in the same way as presented by Applicant), the center of gravity of the machining group (9 of DE’125) being positioned between an imaginary front plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant), which that connects the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125), and an imaginary rear plane that connects the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) (in the same way as presented by Applicant), and wherein the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) and the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) keep the carriage front plane parallel to the front upright plane independently of the position of the center of gravity of the machining group (9 of DE’125) (in the same way as presented by Applicant). For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
In regards to claim 8, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 2, DE’125 as modified also discloses that the slide (17 of DE’125) is movable between a forward position, wherein in which the center of gravity of the machining group (9 of DE’125)(in the same way as presented by Applicant) is near the front imaginary front plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and the tool-holder table (18 of DE’125) tends to bend downward, and a retracted position, wherein in which the center of gravity (in the same way as presented by Applicant) of the machining group (9 of DE’125) is near the rear imaginary rear plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and the tool-holder table (18 of DE’125) tends to bend upward, and wherein between the forward position and the retracted position there is an intermediate equilibrium position, wherein in which the center of gravity (in the same way as presented by Applicant) of the machining group (9 of DE’125) is at an intermediate position between the front imaginary front plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and the rear imaginary rear plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant) so that the front carriage front plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant) is parallel to the front upright plane (in the same way as presented by Applicant) and a force applied by the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) is substantially coincident with a force applied by the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669). For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
In regards to claim 9, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 8, DE’125 as modified also discloses that the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125), are capable of in the forward position, applying a force directed upwards which is greater than the one applied by the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) so as to restore a parallelism between the front plane of the carriage front plane and the front upright plane. For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
In regards to claim 10, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 8, DE’125 as modified also discloses that the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125), are capable of in the retracted position, applying a force directed upwards which is smaller than the one applied by the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) so as to restore a parallelism between the carriage front plane and the front upright plane. For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
In regards to claim 13, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 8, DE’125 as modified discloses a control unit, wherein, each position of each the slide (17 of DE’125) having been tested, the control unit controls movement of the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) and of the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669), so as to keep the carriage front plane always parallel to the front upright plane. DE’125 fails to disclose that the control unit is configured to manage an open-loop operation of the machine tool, however, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that controllers perform and manage open-loop operations, as such, the Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have the control unit of DE’125 be configured to manage open-loop operations, as this operation is well known where the system’s output is not measured or fed back to influence an input.
In regards to claim 15, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 1, DE’125 as modified also discloses that the machine tool is a drilling machine or a milling-boring machine (23, see machine translation of DE’125).
In regards to claim 16, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 2, DE’125 as modified also discloses that the slide (17 of DE’125) is a ram slide.
In regards to claim 17, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 2, DE’125 as modified also discloses that the tool-holder table (18 of DE’125) is provided with a spindle (22 of DE’125) rotatable relative to a machining axis.
In regards to claim 18, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 9, DE’125 as modified also discloses that that the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125), are capable of in the forward position, counteracting a downward bending of the tool-holder table (18 of DE’125) by vertically translating the carriage (16 of DE’125) upwards with a front force greater than a rear force with which the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) vertically translates the carriage upwards.
In regards to claim 19, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 10, DE’125 as modified also discloses that that the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125), are capable of in the retracted position, counteracting an upward bending of the tool-holder table (18 of DE’125) by vertically translating the carriage (16 of DE’125) upwards with a front force smaller than a rear force with which the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) vertically translates the carriage upwards.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2013 207 125 (hereafter—DE’125--) in view of CN 206 296 669 (hereafter—CN’669--) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lyman US 4,674,928.
In regards to claim 3, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 1, DE’125 as modified discloses that the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) comprises a front pair of actuating motors (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125) and a front pair of ball screws (19 of DE’125), and wherein a first motor (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125) of the front pair of actuating motors actuates a first ball screw (19 of DE’125) of the front pair of ball screws and a second motor (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125) of the front pair of actuating motors actuates a second ball screw (19 of DE’125) of the front pair of ball screws. For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
Although there is a suggestion in DE’125’s motor’s structures, that they are actuating “gear” motors, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Nevertheless, Lyman teaches that it is well known in the art, to have an actuating motor, be an actuating gear motor, to actuate ball screws.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to substitute DE’125’s motor, with Lyman’s motor, as it is a simple substitution of one actuating motor, for another to obtain a predictable result of actuating a ball screw and thus, move a slide.
In regards to claim 4, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 3, DE’125 as modified discloses that the first gear motor is capable of being a master motor and the second gear motor capable of being a slave motor (due to the machine control, through which the motors are controlled). For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
In regards to claim 5, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 1, DE’125 as modified discloses that the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669) comprises a rear pair of actuating motors (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125, as modified by CN’669) and a rear pair of ball screws (modified 30 of DE’125, as taught by CN’669), and wherein a third motor (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125, as modified by CN’669) of the rear pair of actuating motors actuates a third ball screw (one of modified 30 of DE’125, as taught by CN’669) of the rear pair of ball screws (modified 30 of DE’125, as taught by CN’669) and a fourth motor of the rear pair of actuating motors (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125, as modified by CN’669) actuates a fourth ball screw (another one of modified 30 of DE’125, as taught by CN’669) of the rear pair of ball screws. For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
Although there is a suggestion in DE’125’s motor’s structures, that they are actuating “gear” motors, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Nevertheless, Lyman teaches that it is well known in the art, to have an actuating motor, be an actuating gear motor, to actuate ball screws.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to substitute DE’125’s motor, with Lyman’s motor, as it is a simple substitution of one actuating motor, for another to obtain a predictable result of actuating a ball screw and thus, move a slide.
In regards to claim 6, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 5, DE’125 as modified discloses that the third gear motor is capable of being a master motor and the fourth gear motor capable of being a slave motor (due to the machine control, through which the motors are controlled). For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
In regards to claim 7, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 6, DE’125 as modified discloses that the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) comprises a front pair of actuating motors (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125) and a front pair of ball screws (19 of DE’125), and wherein a first motor (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125) of the front pair of actuating motors actuates a first ball screw (19 of DE’125) of the front pair of ball screws and a second motor (see Figures 1-4 of DE’125) of the front pair of actuating motors actuates a second ball screw (19 of DE’125) of the front pair of ball screws; the first motor is capable of being a master motor and the second motor capable of being a slave motor (due to the machine control, through which the motors are controlled). For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
Although there is a suggestion in DE’125’s motor’s structures, that they are actuating “gear” motors, this is not explicitly disclosed.
Nevertheless, Lyman teaches that it is well known in the art, to have an actuating motor, be an actuating gear motor, to actuate ball screws.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to substitute DE’125’s motor, with Lyman’s motor, as it is a simple substitution of one actuating motor, for another to obtain a predictable result of actuating a ball screw and thus, move a slide.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2013 207 125 (hereafter—DE’125--) in view of CN 206 296 669 (hereafter—CN’669--) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of WO 2004/091854 (hereafter—WO’854--).
In regards to claims 11 and 12, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claims 1 and 11 respectively, DE’125 as modified discloses that a controller controls positioning of the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) and the positioning of the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669). For clarity, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
However, DE’125 as modified fails to disclose a first position sensor optionally being a first optical scale (claim 11) and a second position sensor optionally being a second optical scale (claim 12).
Nevertheless, WO’854 teaches that it is well known in the art, to have a position sensor (39), optionally being an optical scale (35) be used for controlling a positioning of translation means. The sensors enable the stop of the translation, when there is a known length, to be placed in a position for later fixing to obtain a desired total length (see at least Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to further modify DE’125’s machine tool, with a first position sensor optionally being a first optical scale (claim 11) and a second position sensor optionally being a second optical scale (claim 12), based on the teachings of WO’854 to enable the stop of the translation, when there is a known length, to be placed in a position for later fixing to obtain a desired total length.
In regards to claim 14, DE’125 as modified discloses the machine tool of claim 12, DE’125 as modified discloses a control unit configured to adjust movement of the front pair of vertical translation means (19/20 of DE’125) and of the rear pair of vertical translation means (29/30 of DE’125 as modified with an additional one taught by CN’669), so as to keep the carriage front plane always parallel to the front upright plane. DE’125 fails to disclose that the control unit is configured to manage a closed-loop operation of the machine tool, however, CN’669 further teaches that it is well known in the art that controllers perform and manage closed-loop operations, so as move up and down electric control system in accordance with the actual operation state of feedback information and drive unit in real time, dynamically adjusting the operation parameter of each drive unit to make the main shaft box two sides parallel, thus improving the rigidity of the followability vertical direction transmission system so as to improve the stability, accuracy and precision retentivity of the whole machine (see Machine Translation).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have the control unit of DE’125 be configured to manage closed-loop operations, on the basis of the measurements received from positions signals of the first and second optical scale scales, as this operation is well known where the system continuously monitors its output and automatically adjusts its input to maintain a desired setpoint using feedback to improve the stability, accuracy and precision retentivity of the whole machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights