Detailed Action1
Election/Restriction
Claims 1-12 and 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II, claims 13-21, in the reply filed on September 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 13-21 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 13-15 each recite such as …. The phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the limitations following “such as” will not be interpreted as part of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 also recites the respective tool in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The examiner recommends changing this to “a respective one of the at least two tools”.
Claim 14 recites a rotary tool and a laser tool in lines 3-4. It is unclear if these are referring to the previously introduced laser tool and rotary tool.
Claim 15 recites a rotary tool, another rotary tool, and a laser tool in lines 6-8. It is unclear if these are referring to the previously introduced rotary tool, a plurality of rotary tools, and laser tool.
Claim 16 recites a rotary tool and a laser tool. It is unclear if these are referring to the previously introduced laser tool and rotary tool.
Claim 17 recites a rotary tool and a laser tool. It is unclear if these are referring to the previously introduced laser tool and rotary tool.
Claim 18 recites in the proximity of the first end. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “proximity” are. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: starting from the first end … .
Claims 13 and 17-18 recite “the workpiece”, wherein claim 13 previously introduced “at least one workpiece”. Thus, it is unclear if “the workpiece” is stating that the “at least one workpiece” is only a single workpiece, or if “the workpiece” can refer to one or more workpieces.
Claim 19 recites at least one tool carrier, a laser tool, a first workpieces, a second workpiece, and a workpiece support. It is unclear if the at least one tool carrier is referring to the tool carriers of claim 13, if the laser tool is referring to the laser tool of claim 13, if the first and second workpieces are referring to the at least one workpiece of claim 13, and if the workpiece support is referring to the workpiece support of claim 13.
Claim 20 recites a tool carrier in each of lines 4 and 6. It is unclear if these are referring to the two tool carriers introduced in claim 13.
Claim 21 recites a first workpieces and a second workpiece. It is unclear if these are referring to the at least one workpiece of claim 13.
Claims 13-21 are provisionally 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected for being incomplete because the claim references a withdrawn claim. If the withdrawn claim (claim 1) is later cancelled, claim 13 will be incomplete.
Claims 14-21 are provisionally rejected for depending from claim 13.
Rejections under 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2009/0064832 (“Caretta”).
Claim 13 recites a method of operating a machine tool (fig. 5, ¶ [0033]-[0034]), comprising the steps of: loading at least one workpiece onto a workpiece support (12/17) of the machine tool (¶ [0001] & [0019]-[0020], wherein workpieces are provided/loaded on plane 12 to be cut); carrying out a plurality of machining operations on the workpiece using at least two tools carried by at least two different tool carriers forming part of the machine tool (fig. 1-2 & 5, ¶ [0021]-[0022] & [0033]-[0036], i.e. double processing is carried out on the same or different workpieces with multiple tools carried by at least two different tool carriers 15 and/or 11).
Claim 13 recites the tool carriers optionally being displaceable in relation to the workpiece support according to an X axis, a Y axis and a Z axis of the machine tool, the X, Y and Z axes being orthogonal axes; optionally, pivoting the at least one workpiece between two of the machining operations so as to set a predetermined angle of attack between the respective tool and the workpiece. Since these limitations are “optional” the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require these limitations.
Claim 13 also recites unloading the at least one workpiece from the workpiece support. While not explicitly taught by Caretta, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer that the workpieces are removed from the machine tool, i.e. unloaded, after cutting/processing because the cut workpieces have to be provided to the client (see ¶ [0008]-[0009], [0032] & [0036]), and additional workpieces have to be loaded and cut on the machine tool.
Claim 13 further recites at least one of the tools is a laser tool, and wherein the plurality of machining operations include at least some operations involving removal of material from the workpiece using a laser beam emitted from the at least one laser tool. Caretta teaches the machine tool can comprise a variety of cutting tools including laser cutting tools (¶ [0001], [0022], [0029], [0031] & [0034]).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta.
Claim 14 recites at least another one of the tools is a rotary tool, such as a tool for milling or drilling. While Caretta fails to explicitly teach an embodiment having a laser cutting tool and a rotary tool, Caretta teaches that the various cutting heads 15 are suitable for carrying out laser cutting and milling (¶ [0034]), and is suitable for carrying out combined cutting and different types of cuts (¶ [0034] & [0036], wherein combined cutting can include using different cutting techniques). Thus, it would be obvious and predictable for the machine tool of Caretta to have both a laser cutting tool and a milling tool for double processing the same workpiece or for cutting different workpieces.
While Caretta states that “the opposite double bridge allows double processing to be carried out while the machine is running” (¶ [0036]), Caretta fails to explicitly teach the method comprises carrying out machining operations with a rotary tool and with a laser tool simultaneously. However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). In this case, Caretta teaches multiple bridges 11, wherein one comprises a laser cutting tool and another comprises a milling tool, and teaches that double processing can be carried out. While Caretta does not explicitly teach the two tools of the two bridges 11 being used simultaneously, performing these steps simultaneously will produce the expected result of processing a workpiece, or workpieces, faster. In addition, since each cutting tool is on a separate tool carrier and bridge 11, the cutting tools are capable of operating simultaneously. Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to operate the laser cutting tool and milling tool simultaneously since there is an absence of a new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 17, Caretta et al. fail to explicitly teach carrying out at least some and optionally all of the machining operations involving the use of a laser tool before initiating a first machining operation involving the use of a rotary tool, as a certain segment of the workpiece is concerned, the segment corresponding to a portion of 10, 25 or 50% of the extension of the workpiece in its longitudinal direction when the workpiece is an elongate workpiece.
However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). Thus, performing the laser cutting before the milling is prima facie obvious. Given this modification, laser cutting will be performed at least partially on a segment that forms 10% of the extension of the workpiece in its longitudinal direction—when the workpiece is an elongate workpiece—before the milling begins.
Claims 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caretta as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2015/0078852 (“the ‘852 reference”).
Claim 14 recites at least another one of the tools is a rotary tool, such as a tool for milling or drilling. While Caretta fails to explicitly teach an embodiment having a laser cutting tool and a rotary tool, Caretta teaches that the various cutting heads 15 are suitable for carrying out laser cutting and milling (¶ [0034]), and is suitable for carrying out combined cutting and different types of cuts (¶ [0034] & [0036], wherein combined cutting can include using different cutting techniques). Thus, it would be obvious and predictable for the machine tool of Caretta to have both a laser cutting tool and a milling tool for double processing the same workpiece or for cutting different workpieces.
While Caretta states that “the opposite double bridge allows double processing to be carried out while the machine is running” (¶ [0036]), Caretta fails to explicitly teach the method comprises carrying out machining operations with a rotary tool and with a laser tool simultaneously. However, the ‘852 reference teaches that two machining tools can be configured to simultaneous machine workpieces (¶ [0002] & [0043]). One of skill in the art appreciates that simultaneously using multiple tools can increase efficiency and productivity. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Caretta so that the rotary tool and laser tool simultaneously machine the same workpiece or separate workpieces of the claimed “at least one workpiece”.
Claim 15 recites at least another one of the tools is a rotary tool, such as a tool for milling or drilling, wherein the plurality of machining operations include at least some operations involving removal of material using rotary tools. This would be obvious for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 14, above. Caretta fails to explicitly teach the machine tool further comprises a tool magazine supporting a plurality of rotary tools, wherein the method further comprises carrying out at least one tool change operation at the tool magazine for replacing a rotary tool carried by one of the tool carriers by another rotary tool. However, this would have been obvious in view of the ‘852 reference.
The ‘852 reference, which is also directed to machining at least one workpiece with a plurality of tools (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0043]), teaches the machine tool comprising a tool storage/magazine 60 including tools that can replace a tool in the modules 1 & 2, wherein different tools can be used for different tasks (fig. 4, ¶ [0040]).
In this case, each of Caretta and the ‘852 reference are directed to a machine tool have a plurality of cutting tools for machining one or more workpieces, at least one of which being a rotary cutting tool. The ‘852 references teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to have a tool magazine comprising a variety of different tools for different tasks. Thus, in order to perform different tasks and create cuts/holes of different sizes, it would be obvious to modify Caretta to provide a tool magazine storing a plurality of different types or sizes of rotary tools, and to change/replace the rotary tool in the tool carrier with another rotary tool from the tool magazine.
Given the above modification, Caretta et al. still fail to teach the method further comprises carrying out at least some machining operations with a laser tool while the at least one tool change operation is taking place. However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). In this case, Caretta et al. teaches machining workpieces with a rotary tool and laser tool, and also performing a tool change operation. While Caretta et al. does not explicitly teach the tool change operation happening simultaneously with at least some of the laser cutting steps, performing these steps simultaneously can produce the expected result of processing a workpiece, or workpieces, faster than if the laser cutting tool does not machine the workpiece during the tool change operation. In addition, since each cutting tool is on a separate tool carrier and bridge 11, the laser cutting tool is capable of operating when the rotary tool is being changed. Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to operate the laser cutting tool simultaneously with a tool change operation since there is an absence of a new or unexpected result.
Claim 16 recites the method comprises carrying out machining operations with a rotary tool and with a laser tool simultaneously. This would be obvious in view of the ’852 reference for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 14 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as the previous rejection of claim 17, above.
Claim 19 recites shifting at least one tool carrier carrying a laser tool between a position for machining a first workpieces and a position for machining a second workpiece, the workpieces being arranged in parallel in a workpiece support. The ‘852 reference teaches that it is known to provide two workpieces arranged in parallel on a support, and for a machining tool to machine at least a part of one of the workpieces and then shift to a position to machine at least a portion of the second workpiece (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0043]).
In this case, each of Caretta and the ‘852 reference teach machining at least one workpiece with a machine tool. The ‘852 reference teaches that it is known to arrange multiple elongated workpieces in parallel and to machine both of them with a machine tool by shifting the machine tool from one workpiece to the other. One of skill in the art appreciates that arranging a plurality of workpieces in parallel to be machined one after the other will increase productivity and efficiency. In addition, given the size of the workpiece support 12 of Caretta, it would be predictable to position at least two elongated workpieces thereon in the same orientation, i.e. so they extend parallel. Thus, to increase productivity, it would be obvious to arrange two elongated workpieces on the workpiece support and near the laser cutting tool so that the laser cutting tool can machine one workpiece and then shift to machine the second workpiece.
Claims 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2025/0345891 (“Ibarra”) in view of USPGPub No. 2015/0151384 (“Honegger”).
Regarding claim 13, Ibarra teaches a method of operating a machine tool, such as a machine tool according to claim 1 (fig. 9, ¶ [0002] & [0054]), comprising the steps of: loading at least one workpiece onto a workpiece support of the machine tool (fig. 9, ¶ [0012] & [0055]); carrying out a plurality of machining operations on the workpiece using at least two tools carried by at least two different tool carriers forming part of the machine tool (fig. 9-10, ¶ [0061]-[0069]); unloading the at least one workpiece from the workpiece support (see ¶ [0012] & [0055]).
Claim 13 recites the tool carriers optionally being displaceable in relation to the workpiece support according to an X axis, a Y axis and a Z axis of the machine tool, the X, Y and Z axes being orthogonal axes; optionally, pivoting the at least one workpiece between two of the machining operations so as to set a predetermined angle of attack between the respective tool and the workpiece. Since these limitations are “optional” the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require these limitations.
Ibarra fails to explicitly teach at least one of the tools is a laser tool, and wherein the plurality of machining operations include at least some operations involving removal of material from the workpiece using a laser beam emitted from the at least one laser tool. However, this would have been obvious in view of Honegger.
Honegger is directed to a machine tool comprising a plurality of different machine tools (fig. 1, ¶ [0006]-[0007]). One station comprises a rotary tool for physical drilling (¶ [0022]), and another station comprises a laser cutting/drilling tool (¶ [0023]). Honegger teaches that using both a rotary tool and a laser cutting tool can have advantages (¶ [0004]).
In this case, Ibarra teaches a machine tool comprising a first tool assembly 1 having three tool carriers holding respective tools configured to machine a respective workpiece, and a second tool assembly 1A having three tool carriers holding respective tools configured to machine the same respective workpieces. Honegger teaches that it is known to perform different cutting operations on the same workpiece and that this can achieve superior results with respect to using a single type of machine cutting tool. Thus, it would be obvious to modify one of assemblies 1 or 1A so that the tool carriers carried laser cutting tools. The machine tool of Ibarra having both a rotary cutting tool and laser cutting tool can allow flexibly and the ability to optimally cut different types/sizes of holes, etc.
Claim 14 recites at least another one of the tools is a rotary tool, such as a tool for milling or drilling. This is taught as detailed in the rejection to claim 13, above.
Ibarra fails to explicitly teach the method comprises carrying out machining operations with a rotary tool and with a laser tool simultaneously. However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). In this case, Ibarra et al. teaches machining workpieces with a rotary tool and laser tool. While Ibarra does not explicitly teach the two tools being used simultaneously, performing these steps simultaneously will produce the expected result of processing a workpiece, or workpieces, faster. In addition, since each cutting tool is on a separate tool carrier and support 11, the cutting tools are capable of operating simultaneously. Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to operate the laser cutting tool and rotary tool simultaneously since there is an absence of a new or unexpected result.
Claim 15 recites at least another one of the tools is a rotary tool, such as a tool for milling or drilling, wherein the plurality of machining operations include at least some operations involving removal of material using rotary tools. This is taught as detailed in the rejection to claim 13 above. Ibarra further teaches the machine tool further comprises a tool magazine (12) supporting a plurality of rotary tools (wherein given the disclosure of Ibarra one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the magazine 12 holds a plurality of rotary tools; see specifically ¶ [0002], [0014] & [0057]), wherein the method further comprises carrying out at least one tool change operation at the tool magazine for replacing a rotary tool carried by one of the tool carriers by another rotary tool (¶ [0060] & [0062]-[0066]).
Ibarra et al. fail to teach the method further comprises carrying out at least some machining operations with a laser tool while the at least one tool change operation is taking place. However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). In this case, Ibarra et al. teaches machining workpieces with a rotary tool and laser tool, and also performing a tool change operation. While Ibarra does not explicitly teach the tool change operation happening simultaneously with at least some of the laser cutting steps, performing these steps simultaneously can produce the expected result of processing a workpiece, or workpieces, faster than if the laser cutting tool does not machine the workpiece during the tool change operation. In addition, since each cutting tool is on a separate tool carrier and support 11, the laser cutting tools are capable of operating when the rotary tools are being changed. Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to operate the laser cutting tool simultaneously with a tool change operation since there is an absence of a new or unexpected result.
Claim 16 recites the method comprises carrying out machining operations with a rotary tool and with a laser tool simultaneously. This is prima facie obvious for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 14, above.
Regarding claim 20, Ibarra further teaches the machine tool comprises a first tool carrier support (11 of assembly 1) that is controllably displaceable in parallel with a first axis of the machine tool (fig. 1, ¶ [0056]-[0057]), wherein the first tool carrier support supports a tool carrier carrying the rotary tool (¶ [0057]), the machine tool further comprising a second tool carrier support (11A) that is controllably displaceable in parallel with the first axis of the machine tool (figs. 9-10, ¶ [0069]), wherein the second tool carrier support supports a tool carrier (fig. 9, ¶ [0069]) carrying the laser tool (see modification in view of Honegger as detailed in the rejection to claim 13 above), wherein each tool carrier is controllably displaceable in relation to the respective tool carrier support according to at least a second axis of the machine tool (¶ [0057]-[0058]); wherein the workpiece support is arranged for supporting a plurality of elongate workpieces extending in parallel with each other and in parallel with the first axis of the machine tool (figs. 9-10, ¶ [0054]), and for pivoting the plurality of workpieces around respective axes parallel with the first axis of the machine tool (¶ [0055]); and wherein the method comprises displacing the tool carrier supports in parallel with the first axis of the machine tool (¶ [[0056]-[0057] & [0063]).
Claims 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2024/0375228 (“Dallinger”) in view of Caretta.
Regarding claim 13, Dallinger teaches a method of operating a machine tool (¶ [0001]), comprising the steps of: loading at least one workpiece onto a workpiece support (18) of the machine tool (fig. 1, ¶ [0081]-[0082]); carrying out a plurality of machining operations on the workpiece using at least two tools carried by at least two different tool carriers (5/6/34/58/59/60) forming part of the machine tool (fig. 1-2 & 7-8, ¶ [0002], [0072]-[0077] & [0123]-[0127]); unloading the at least one workpiece from the workpiece support (¶ [0021]).
Claim 13 recites the tool carriers optionally being displaceable in relation to the workpiece support according to an X axis, a Y axis and a Z axis of the machine tool, the X, Y and Z axes being orthogonal axes; optionally, pivoting the at least one workpiece between two of the machining operations so as to set a predetermined angle of attack between the respective tool and the workpiece. Since these limitations are “optional” the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require these limitations.
Dallinger fails to explicitly teach at least one of the tools is a laser tool, and wherein the plurality of machining operations include at least some operations involving removal of material from the workpiece using a laser beam emitted from the at least one laser tool. However, this would have been obvious in view of Caretta.
Caretta teaches the machine tool can comprise a variety of cutting tools including laser cutting tools and rotary cutting tools/milling tools (¶ [0001], [0022], [0029], [0031] & [0034]). Having a machine that can perform multiple types of cutting adds flexibility (¶ [0002] & [0031]).
In this case, each of Dallinger and Caretta are directed to a machine tool comprising a plurality of tools, wherein Dallinger teaches two columns of tools (see figs. 7-8). In order to create a machine that is more flexible by being able to perform different types of cutting, it would be obvious to modify Dallinger so that one of the columns (i.e. tool carriers 5/6/34) comprise rotary tools such as milling tools, and the other column (i.e. tool carriers 58/59/60) comprise laser cutting tools.
Claim 14 recites at least another one of the tools is a rotary tool, such as a tool for milling or drilling. This is taught as detailed in the rejection to claim 13, above.
Dallinger et al. fails to explicitly teach the method comprises carrying out machining operations with a rotary tool and with a laser tool simultaneously. However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). In this case, Dallinger et al. teaches machining separate workpieces with a rotary tool and laser tool. While Dallinger does not explicitly teach the two tools being used simultaneously, performing these steps simultaneously will produce the expected result of machining workpieces faster. Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to operate the laser cutting tool and rotary tool simultaneously since there is an absence of a new or unexpected result.
Claim 15 recites at least another one of the tools is a rotary tool, such as a tool for milling or drilling, wherein the plurality of machining operations include at least some operations involving removal of material using rotary tools. This is taught as detailed in the rejection to claim 13 above. Dallinger further teaches the machine tool further comprises a tool magazine (47) supporting a plurality of rotary tools (¶ [0115], wherein given that the tool carriers 5/6 are spindles one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the magazine holds a plurality of rotary tools (in the alternative it would be obvious to provide the magazine with a plurality of rotary tools given that the tool carries 5/6 are spindles)), wherein the method further comprises carrying out at least one tool change operation at the tool magazine for replacing a rotary tool carried by one of the tool carriers by another rotary tool (¶ [0026] & [0034]).
Dallnger et al. fail to teach the method further comprises carrying out at least some machining operations with a laser tool while the at least one tool change operation is taking place. However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). In this case, Dallinger et al. teaches machining separate workpieces with a rotary tool and laser tool, and also performing a tool change operation. While Dallinger does not explicitly teach the tool change operation happening simultaneously with at least some of the laser cutting steps, performing these steps simultaneously can produce the expected result of processing a workpiece, or workpieces, faster than if the laser cutting tool does not machine the workpiece during the tool change operation. Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to operate the laser cutting tool simultaneously with a tool change operation since there is an absence of a new or unexpected result.
Claim 16 recites the method comprises carrying out machining operations with a rotary tool and with a laser tool simultaneously. This is prima facie obvious for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 14, above.
Regarding claim 17, Dallinger et al. fail to explicitly teach carrying out at least some and optionally all of the machining operations involving the use of a laser tool before initiating a first machining operation involving the use of a rotary tool, as a certain segment of the workpiece is concerned, the segment corresponding to a portion of 10, 25 or 50% of the extension of the workpiece in its longitudinal direction when the workpiece is an elongate workpiece.
However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)). Thus, performing the laser cutting before the rotary cutting/milling is prima facie obvious. Given this modification, laser cutting will be performed at least partially on a segment that forms 10 % of the extension of the workpiece in its longitudinal direction—when the workpiece is an elongate workpiece—before the milling begins.
Claim 20 recites the machine tool comprises a first tool carrier support (3) that is controllably displaceable in parallel with a first axis of the machine tool (fig. 1, ¶ [0072] & [0074]-[0075]), wherein the first tool carrier support supports a tool carrier (5/6/34) carrying the rotary tool (see rejection to claim 13 above).
While Dallinger teaches a second column of machine tools and tool carriers (58/59/60) (see figs. 7-8), Dallinger fails to explicitly teach the machine tool further comprising a second tool carrier support that is controllably displaceable in parallel with the first axis of the machine tool, wherein the second tool carrier support supports a tool carrier carrying the laser tool. However, this would also be obvious in view of Caretta.
Caretta teaches that the different tools and tool carriers are provided on separate tool carrier supports (figs. 5-6, ¶ [0033]-[0036]).
In this case, Dallinger teaches two columns of tools (one column comprising rotary tools and the other column comprising laser cutting tools), that are configured to machine different workpieces. Since Caretta teaches that different tools and tool carriers, that can machine different workpieces, are provided on separate tool carrier supports, it would be obvious to modify Dallinger to provide the two columns of tools and tool carriers on respective tool carrier supports 3. This will predictably allow greater flexibility in machining a plurality of workpieces since each column of tools can be moved independently by respective tool carrier supports.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) states that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, Dallinger teaches two columns of tools, wherein the columns are configured to machine different workpieces and can have their own magazine (see figs. 7-8, ¶ [0123]-[0127]). Thus, while Dallinger fails to explicitly teach what tool carrier support column 58/59/60 are on, providing a second tool carrier support 3 for the second column of tools 58/59/60 will provide the expected result of being able to move the two columns independently so that they can machine different workpieces simultaneously and change tools in their respective tool magazine simultaneously.
Dallinger further teaches each tool carrier is controllably displaceable in relation to the respective tool carrier support according to at least a second axis of the machine tool (¶ [0077] & [0080]); wherein the workpiece support is arranged for supporting a plurality of elongate workpieces extending in parallel with each other and in parallel with the first axis of the machine tool (fig. 1, wherein tables 19 & 20 can support elongated workpieces extending parallel to the first axis, i.e. X-axis), and for pivoting the plurality of workpieces around respective axes parallel with the first axis of the machine tool (¶ [0082] & [0085]); and wherein the method comprises displacing the tool carrier supports in parallel with the first axis of the machine tool (fig. 1, ¶ [0073]-[0075], wherein one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that a machining operation will have a step of displacing the tool carrier supports in the X/first axis in order to move the machining tools into proper position along a workpiece).
Claim 21 recites shifting the tool carrier carrying the laser tool between a position for machining a first workpieces and a position for machining a second workpiece, the workpieces being arranged in parallel in the workpiece support. This would be obvious in view of another embodiment of Dallinger.
Dallinger teaches that the workpiece support can rotate so that a first tool machines a first workpiece, afterward the workpiece support moves a second workpiece into position to be machined by the first tool and the machined workpiece can be removed and replaced (fig. 3, ¶ [0021] & [0107]-[0110]).
The examiner is also taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art of machining for a machining tool to start at a first position of a workpiece and move to a different position during machining. This allows the machine tool to create elongated/shaped holes or other machined elements, and to machine different portions of a workpiece.
Thus, it would be obvious to machine a first workpiece on a first surface/table with a first laser tool (wherein the machining starts a first/initial position and ends at an end position different from the initial position), then the workpiece support moving a second workpiece on a second table into the machining area, and then shifting the first laser tool back to the first/initial position to machine the second workpiece.
Claim 19 requires the same limitations as claim 21. Thus, when modifying Dallinger as detailed in the rejection to claim 20, above, this limitation is obvious for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 21, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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. Since this claim depends from claim 14, this claim is interpreted as the laser tool continuing to machine the workpiece after the rotary tool begins machining the workpiece starting from the first end of the workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights