DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 5, 8 and 12 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.
Claims 5 and 12 both recite the limitation “the elastomeric spacers” in Line 2. Claims 1 and 6, from which claims 5 and 12 respectively depend, recites “at least one elastomeric spacer” and “one or more elastomeric spacers” respectively. As one elastomeric spacer is possible in the configuration, claiming spacers (plural) without further limiting the ‘at least one/one or more’ is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation(s) “an upper mass” and “a lower mass” in Line 2, and claim 6 (from which claim 8 depends) also recites “an upper mass” and “a lower mass” in Line 6. It is unclear whether the masses claimed in claim 8 are ‘the’ masses disclosed in claim 6 or additional masses. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the masses claimed in claim 8 refer to the masses set forth in claim 6. Appropriate correction/clarification is 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (US 20230201931) in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2007276015, hereinafter ‘Hashimoto’).
Regarding claim 1, Daniels discloses a vertical turning center 2 for cutting workpieces 6 comprising a rotating table assembly 4 that is configured to releasably couple to a workpiece and spin the workpiece at a speed sufficient to cut the workpiece. A ram 8 having a cutting tool 10 at a distal end is configured to engage an outer surface of the workpiece. A mass damper assembly 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17/19 is coupled to the rotating table assembly. Daniels discusses adding passive dampers such as rubber cushions (i.e. elastomeric spacer(s)) to the mass damper assembly, but does not explicitly disclose the details of their construction.
Hashimoto discloses a similar damping assembly, wherein the mass damper assembly is cushioned/supported on either end by at least one elastomeric spacer 27.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to support the mass damper assembly of Daniels with at least one elastomeric spacer as suggested by Daniels and illustrated by Hashimoto in order to provide additional means to insulate the moving workpiece support from vibrations.
Regarding claim 2, Daniels inherently discloses a fixture on the rotating assembly configured to releasably hold the workpiece.
Regarding claim 3, Daniels discloses the mass damper assembly comprising an upper mass 32 coupled to a lower mass 28 via at least one fastener 26.
Regarding claim 4, Daniels discloses the mass damper assembly being wider (i.e. being positioned radially outward with respect to) than the fixture holding the workpiece (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2A of Daniels, wherein the mass damper assembly 1 is as wide as the entire structure 21, which is wider than the entire rotating table assembly itself) so that the workpiece is concentrically received about axis WS within the mass damper assembly.
Regarding claim 5, the modified assembly of Daniels in view of Hashimoto would have the upper mass 32 resting on the elastomeric spacer(s) via a first radial surface (see e.g. Fig. 1, the radially-extending surface being the interface surface between 32 and 16/21).
Regarding claim 6, Daniels discloses a vertical turning center 2 for cutting workpieces 6 comprising a rotating table assembly 4 that is configured to releasably couple to a workpiece and spin the workpiece at a speed sufficient to cut the workpiece. A ram 8 having a cutting tool 10 at a distal end is configured to engage an outer surface of the workpiece. A mass damper assembly 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17/19 having an upper mass 32 coupled to a lower mass 28 is coupled to the rotating table assembly. Daniels discusses adding passive dampers such as rubber cushions (i.e. elastomeric spacer(s)) to the mass damper assembly, but does not explicitly disclose the details of their construction.
Hashimoto discloses a similar damping assembly, wherein the mass damper assembly is cushioned/supported on either end by at least one elastomeric spacer 27.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to support the mass damper assembly of Daniels with at least one elastomeric spacer via a first radial surface (see e.g. Fig. 1 of Daniels, the radially-extending surface being the interface surface between 32 and 16/21) as suggested by Daniels and illustrated by Hashimoto in order to provide additional means to insulate the moving workpiece support from vibrations.
Regarding claim 7, Daniels inherently discloses a fixture on the rotating assembly configured to releasably hold the workpiece.
Regarding claim 8, Daniels discloses the upper mass 32 being coupled to the lower mass 28 via at least one fastener 26.
Regarding claim 9, Daniels discloses the mass damper assembly being wider (i.e. being positioned radially outward with respect to) than the fixture holding the workpiece (e.g. see Figs. 1 and 2A of Daniels, wherein the mass damper assembly 1 is as wide as the entire structure 21, which is wider than the entire rotating table assembly itself) so that the workpiece is concentrically received about axis WS within the mass damper assembly.
Regarding claims 10-12, the modified assembly of Daniels in view of Hashimoto would have the upper mass 32 supporting the mass damper assembly resting on and compressing an elastomeric spacer assembly comprising at least one elastomeric spacer via a first radial surface (see e.g. Fig. 1, the radially-extending surface being the interface surface between 32 and 16/21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (CN 104416369) discloses a similar vertical turning center with a damped workpiece table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights