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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the scrapers recited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “said support structure comprises a horizontal surface coplanar to said worktable and a lateral surface entirely disposed within a floor” in Lines 8-9. The recitation contains new matter. The claim lacks support within the specification at the time of filing for the lateral surface being “entirely disposed within a floor.” While that scope of that requirement are not ultimately clear, the limitation lacks support in the specification for being entirely within a floor. The drawings show the lateral surface being recessed relative to the floor, but there isn’t disclosure within the specification for the entire lateral surface being disposed within the floor. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “said horizontal surface is coplanar with said floor.” This recitation contains new matter. The specification provides support for the horizontal surface and the worktable being coplanar, but not the horizontal surface and the floor. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-11 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 1 recites “a lateral surface entirely disposed within a floor” in Lines 9-10. The metes and bounds of a lateral surface entirely disposed within a floor are not clearly delineated. The phrase “entirely disposed within” suggests something more than merely being recessed relative to a floor. The suggestions is that the surface is somehow in the floor as to be a part of it in the same manner as a nail driven into the floor. Because the lateral surface of the support structure is surrounded by the carriage, it is unclear how the lateral surface is considered entirely disposed within the floor. It is also worth noting that the carriage is also not entirely disposed within the floor as it remains movable along the support. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti (WO 2019/220286 A1) in view of Sartorio (US Patent No. 7,886,629 B2).
(Claim 1) Marchetti discloses a pair of vertical uprights (14, 16) joined atop by a transverse beam (20), on which at least one a tool holder head (¶¶ 0022, 0024) is slidingly mounted; and a worktable (Figs. 1, 2 showing human standing thereon) for anchoring a workpiece above which said tool holder head (¶ 0022) is movable. Each upright (14, 16) includes a carriage (12) capable of sliding along a longitudinal support structure (4; ¶ 0016). The support structure (4) includes a horizontal surface (Fig. 2) and, as best understood, a lateral surface entirely disposed within in a floor (¶ 0014) and provided with a guide system (rails and corresponding guides illustrated in Figures 1, 2) for said carriage. It is worth noting that the floor is intended use. The claimed invention is directed to a gantry machine tool, which does not include the floor. As such, the lateral surface need only be capable of being entirely disposed within the floor. In another interpretation, the floor is not claimed with any particularity. It may be any floor. The floor may be that of the machine tool platform, which the lateral surface of the support structure is recessed relative to as shown in annotated Figure 1 below. Merchetti does not explicitly disclose the worktable and the horizontal surface of the support structure being coplanar.
Sartorio discloses a gantry machine (10) of a generally known type with a pair of uprights slidable on a carriage mounted upon corresponding supports (14), which are coplanar (Fig. 1) with a worktable (20). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gantry machine tool disclosed in Merchetti with a coplanar supports and worktable as suggested in Sartorio as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions (worktable coplanar, above, or below the supports) leading to the predictable result of the machine tool having slidable components in accordance with expected operation of the gantry machine tool. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 2) The horizontal surface is capable of being coplanar with the floor in the intended use interpretation (Merchetti Figs. 1, 2).
(Claim 3) The guide system includes guides (rails Merchetti Fugs. 1, 2) anchored to said lateral surface (indirectly), skids (guides Merchetti Figs. 1, 2) installed on said carriage are slidable along said guides.
(Claim 7) The support structure (Merchetti 4) is not explicitly disclosed as being monolithic with a polygonal cross-section. Yet, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the support structure in Merchetti with a monolithic construction as a matter of engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”).
The Sartorio reference suggests monolithic construction of the supports, which have a polygonal cross-sectional shape (14; Figs. 1, 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gantry machine tool disclosed in Merchetti with supports of monolithic construction having a polygonal cross-sectional shape as suggested by Sartorio as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions - leading to the predictable result of a support for rails or as a matter of engineering choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966) (holding that choice of shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant).
(Claim 8) The carriage (12) has an inverted-U cross section (Merchetti Figs. 1, 2 - including guides), with at least one side portion facing said lateral surface.
(Claim 9) The support structure (Merchetti 4) is spaced from said worktable (Merchetti Figs. 1, 2).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti (WO 2019/220286 A1) in view of Sartorio (US Patent No. 7,886,629 B2) further in view of Tinsley (US Pub. No. 2018/0281121 A1).
Merchetti does not explicitly disclose movement means between movement the carriage and the support structure; wherein the movement means being a rack integral with said lateral surface and a pinion integral with said carriage.
Tinsley discloses a gantry having between the carriage (20) and the support structure (26) there are interposed movement means (22, 24) for moving said carriage on said support structure (¶ 0022). The movement means (22, 24) includes a rack (24) integral with said lateral surface (Fig. 3) and a pinion (22) integral with said carriage (20). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gantry machine tool disclosed in Merchetti with movement means as suggested by Tinsley in order to move the gantry along the support for positioning the tool (¶ 0022).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti (WO 2019/220286 A1) in view of Sartorio (US Patent No. 7,886,629 B2) further in view of Cai (CN 113649821 A).
Merchetti does not explicitly disclose movement means between movement the carriage and the support structure; wherein the movement is at least one linear motor.
Tinsley discloses a gantry having between the carriage (11) and the support structure (2) there are interposed movement means (7) for moving said carriage on said support structure (Fig. 1). The movement means includes a linear motor (7). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gantry machine tool disclosed in Merchetti with movement means as suggested by Cai in order to move the gantry along the support for positioning the tool.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchetti (WO 2019/220286 A1) in view of Sartorio (US Patent No. 7,886,629 B2) further in view of Peng et al. (CN 113649819 A).
Merchetti does not explicitly disclose a gutter within a pit having scrapers for capable of pushing processing chips away from the horizontal surface.
Peng et al. (“Peng”) between the support structure (1) and said worktable (11; Fig. 1) there is a gutter (15) for collecting the processing chips, said gutter (15) being configured to be housed in a pit (Fig. 2) and being covered by a walkable grid (13, 14). A bottom of said gutter (15) includes scrapers (31, 32) for transporting the processing chips away from the machine supports. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gantry machine tool disclosed in Merchetti with a gutter and chip removal scrapers as taught by Peng in order to remove chips from the machining area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose a support structure have a lateral surface that is entirely disposed within the floor and provided with a guide system for the carriage. Instead, Applicant alleges the guide system is arranged above the slideways. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the “obvious to try” rationale “lacks foundation” and the modification is founded upon impermissible hindsight (Applicant Remarks at Pages 5-6). Examiner disagrees.
The prior art of record reads upon the claimed invention. As discussed in the rejection above, the floor (as disclosed) is neither part of the claimed invention, nor claimed with particularity. Similarly, the guide system is not clearly claimed as being provided directly on the lateral surface. The “and provided” may run back to the support structure as a whole. Nevertheless, even the indirect provision of the guide system to the lateral surface is enough to read on the claim. It would appear Applicant desires an interpretation that includes limitations not present in the current claim set. Yet, the claims must be broadly construed during examination. Thus, the prior art of record reads upon the claimed invention.
The motivation for modifying the Marchetti reference with a well-known structure disclosed in Sartorio is valid. The Supreme Court set forth the rationale in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The mere fact that Applicant has recognized benefits to its arrangement does not make the modification non-obvious. 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 (CCPA 1971). Because the knowledge taken into account was provided by the prior art of record, the modification is proper.
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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
