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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Species A -Blade disc machining center tool magazine Species B – Tool changing methods
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: none
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Species A-B lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of (see full rejection below).
During a telephone conversation with Floyd Canfield on 8/4/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A, claims 1-7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:-In Fig. 1, it is not clear what “A” is pointing to.
- A axis is not labeled in Fig. 2 -the following claimed elements are described in the specification and claims but are not labeled with reference numerals in the drawings: a T1 linear axis assembly; a T2 axis rotation assembly; A axis rotation assembly. -“a tool” from claim 6 does not appear to be labeled in any of the drawings.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 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 1-7 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 the limitation “a T1 linear axis assembly; a T2 axis rotation assembly; and an A axis rotation assembly, wherein the T1 linear axis assembly is used to drive the T2 axis rotation assembly to perform linear motion, the T2 axis rotation assembly is used to drive a tool disc to perform rotary motion, the A axis rotation assembly is used to drive a swing head mounted with a tool to perform rotary motion, and when an axis of the swing head is parallel to a plane where the tool disc is located, or is in the plane where the tool disc is located, the axis of the swing head is parallel to or coincides with a linear axis of the tool disc” and claim 2 recites “a tool magazine base, the tool magazine base is arranged on one side of a bed, another side of the bed is provided with a column capable of moving along a Z axis, a saddle capable of moving along a Y axis is provided on the column, the A axis rotation assembly is provided on the saddle, a workbench is provided on the bed, the workbench is arranged on the same side of the tool magazine base, the tool magazine base has a mounting bevel, and the T2 axis rotation assembly is arranged on the mounting bevel, and is capable of moving along the mounting bevel”. The claim refers to elements as axis assemblies and then in claim 2 introduces additional elements which appear to coincide with some of the assemblies and it is difficult to understand the scope of the claim. Additionally, note the drawing objections above, the claims are written describing elements that are not clear what the elements are. This language appears to be a direct translation from another language and is not clear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the T1 linear axis assembly is used to drive the T2 axis rotation assembly to perform linear motion, the T2 axis rotation assembly is used to drive a tool disc to perform rotary motion, the A axis rotation assembly is used to drive a swing head mounted with a tool to perform rotary motion”. It is unclear how these steps are performed. What does it mean to use an assembly to perform linear or rotary motion? It’s not clear which elements are moving on which axes. Even the different axes are not clearly introduced. This language appears to be a direct translation from another language and is not clear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the T2 axis rotation assembly includes the tool disc, the tool disc is circumferentially provided with a tool clamp for clamping a tool, an axis of the tool intersects perpendicularly with an axis of the tool disc, and the tool clamp clamps the tool on both sides of an axial direction of the tool disc”. It is unclear if the axes introduced here conflict with axes previously introduced.
Due to the 112 issues addressed above, and since claims 3-7 are dependent on claims 1 and/or 2, and the scope is unclear from these claims, prior art will not be applied to claims 3-7. Prior art will be applied to claims 1-2 as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chen (CN112454074A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Chen discloses a blade disc machining center tool magazine comprising: a T1 linear axis assembly 80; a T2 axis rotation assembly 82; and an A axis rotation assembly 30, wherein the T1 linear axis assembly is used to drive the T2 axis rotation assembly to perform linear motion, the T2 axis rotation assembly is used to drive a tool disc 84 to perform rotary motion, the A axis rotation assembly is used to drive a swing head 4 mounted with a tool to perform rotary motion, and when an axis of the swing head is parallel to a plane where the tool disc (2) is located, or is in the plane where the tool disc (2) is located, the axis of the swing head (1) is parallel to or coincides with a linear axis of the tool disc (pg. 5-7; Fig. 1-9).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chen (WO2021155664 A1, machine translation relied on).
Re Claims 1-2, as best understood, Chen discloses a machine tool with a tool magazine, wherein a swing head 5 is provided on a bed 1 so as to be rotatable around a B-axis (corresponding to having an A-axis rotating assembly of the invention of the present application) via a slide Table 2 movable along a Z-axis, a column 3 movable along a Y-axis on the slide Table 2, and a ram 4 movable along an X-axis on the column 3, a tool magazine 6 has a cutter head rotatable around a Z-axis (corresponding to a T2-axis rotating assembly) on the other side of the bed 1, the cutter head has a plurality of tool holders 8 each having a mounting port for mounting a tool 7 so as to face outward on an outer edge, when a tool held by the swing head is replaced, the tool magazine is rotated to index an empty tool holder, and the axis of the swing head 5 forms an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the Y-axis by rotating the B-axis Setting so as to be flush with the X-axis, positioning the axis of the empty tool holder and the axis of the swing head parallel to each other, inserting the tool into the mounting opening of the empty holder by moving the swing head in the Z-axis direction, separating the tool from the swing head by moving the swing head in a direction away from the tool along the X-axis and the Y-axis, rotating the tool magazine, indexing the tool to be used next, making the axis of the swing head and the axis of the tool coaxial by rotating the B-axis and moving along the X-axis and the Y-axis, moving the swing head in the direction of the tool by moving along the X-axis and the Y-axis, holding the tool by the swing head, and separating the tool from the tool magazine by moving the swing head along the Z-axis (Fig. 1-9; pg. 4-6).
Conclusion
Note the following relevant prior art references:Sipek (US 4,238,034) teaches moving a tool magazine in an inclined direction along a mounting inclined surface toward a tool changing position when tools are changed in a machine tool, an angle a between a T1 axis and a horizontal direction is 45 degrees (col. 3, lines 7-40; Figs.1,4,12).Chang (JP2020104252A, machine translation relied on) teaches a detection switch (page 3-4)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (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 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 J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights