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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22” has been used to designate both an axis of rotation of workpiece table 24, and an axis of rotation of the second pivot carrier 20 (see Figure 1). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 25 (disclosed as a “first workpiece axis” about which first workpiece table 24 pivots). 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. 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.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the configuration set forth in claim 5 in the limitation(s) “the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a vertical y axis, whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis are at a distance to one another with regard to a horizontal x axis, in particular that they are arranged next to one another with regard to the horizontal x axis”;
the first and second work spindles being “arranged horizontally next to one another” as set forth in claim 8;
the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis running “parallel to a vertical y axis”, as set forth in claim 8;
a machine tool having the first and second pivot axes being both parallel to a horizontal x axis and parallel to a vertical y axis, as set forth in claim 8;
in the event that such is what is meant in claim 9, it is noted that the drawings do not show any first workpiece table axis or axes that run(s) “transversely” to any of the first pivot carrier axis or second pivot carrier axis;
in the event that such is what is meant in claim 9, it is noted that the drawings do not show any second workpiece table axis or axes that run(s) “transversely” to any of the first pivot carrier axis or second pivot carrier axis;
the configuration(s) in which “the first pivot carrier axis, the second pivot carrier axis as well as the first workpiece table axes and the second workpiece table axes run parallel to one another and parallel to the vertically extending y axis, wherein the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis, wherein the first workpiece table axes are aligned with one another and/or wherein the second workpiece table axes are arranged offset from one another with respect to the horizontal X-axis extending transversely to them” as set forth claim 10;
the configuration(s) in claim 11 re the claim language “if the respective pivot carrier axis runs vertically, the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are arranged offset relative to one another with respect to a horizontal axis and, in particular, the pivoting ranges of the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table of the associated pivot carrier overlap with a horizontal plane running through the pivot carrier axis”;
the configuration(s) in claim 14 “wherein the first partition wall of the first pivot carrier can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the first pivot carrier axis and/or that the second partition wall of the second pivot carrier can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the second pivot carrier axis”, particularly noting that no such flexing/bending appears to be shown, nor does any such axis or axes that are parallel to the various pivot carrier axes (and about which such axis or axes any partition wall can flex or bend) appear to be shown; and
wherein the machine frame includes at least one separating section, which is arranged between the first pivot carrier and the second pivot carrier, wherein the first partition wall of the first pivot carrier, the separating section of the machine frame and the second partition wall of the second pivot carrier spatially separate the working area from the loading area in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position in full or at least in sections without gaps and/or joints, as set forth in claim 15.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 13, line 2, it appears that “first pivot carrier 20” should be changed to –second pivot carrier 20—to be consistent with Figure 1 and with the rest of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“separating section” in claim 15 (plural occurrences).
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.
Comment on Claim Line Numbering in This Office Action
It is noted that any reference herein to line numbers of a claim are relative to the line numbers of the claim, rather than to line numbers of the page on which the claim appears. For example, in claim 1, line 3, the claim sets forth “at least one first work spindle”. This text appears on page 1, line 5, of the claims, but is on line 3 of claim 1.
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 1-15 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.
In each of claims 1 and 6-8, the claim uses the term “work spindle” (plural occurrences), which is ambiguous, as it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such is intended to reference a spindle that is used to support a work/workpiece, or whether such is instead intended to reference a spindle that performs some form of “work”. In particular, it is noted that as disclosed, it appears that it appears that this term is being used to reference a working spindle or tool spindle or processing spindle, as opposed to a work/workpiece spindle (noting that the tables 14, 16, 24, and 26 are referred to as “workpiece tables”, and noting that the specification teaches, on at least page 13, lines 15-17, that “[A]t the first workpiece tables 14, 24 and second workpiece tables 16, 26, workpieces can be fixed for processing by the first work spindle 6 and/or the second work spindle 8”). That said, Applicant may wish to consider changing the term “work spindle” in the claims to something less ambiguous, e.g., --working spindle--, --processing spindle--, to enhance clarity.
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the first work spindle” in at least claim 1, line 5; claim 6, line 1; claim 7, lines 1 and 4; and claim 8, lines 1 and 4 (noting that claim 1, line 3, previously set forth “at least one first work spindle”, and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim which specific first work spindle, of the previously-claimed range from one to an infinite number of first work spindles, is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the first work spindle”);
“the first pivot carrier” in at least claim 1, lines 8-9 and 16; claim 2, plural occurrences; claim 3; claim 4, plural occurrences; claim 9, plural occurrences; claim 12; claim 13; claim 14; and claim 15, plural occurrences; (noting that claim 1, line 5, previously set forth “at least one first pivot carrier”, and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim which specific first pivot carrier, of the previously-claimed range from one to an infinite number of first pivot carriers, is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the first pivot carrier”);
“the second pivot carrier” in at least claim 1, lines 14 and 16; claim 2, plural occurrences; claim 3; claim 4, plural occurrences; claim 9, plural occurrences; claim 12, claim 13; claim 14; and claim 15, plural occurrences (noting that claim 1, line 9, previously set forth “at least one second pivot carrier”, and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim which specific second pivot carrier, of the previously-claimed range from one to an infinite number of second pivot carriers, is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the second pivot carrier”);
“the second work spindle” in at least claim 1, lines 9-10, line 18, and line 20; claim 6; claim 7, plural occurrences; and claim 8, plural occurrences (noting that claim 1, line 4, previously set forth “at least one second work spindle”, and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim which specific second work spindle, of the previously-claimed range from one to an infinite number of second work spindles, is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the second work spindle”);
“the at least one first workpiece table” in claim 3, lines 1-2 (noting that plural “at least one first workpiece tables” were previously set forth in claim 1);
“the at least one first workpiece table” in claim 3, line 3 (noting that plural “at least one first workpiece tables” were previously set forth in claim 1);
“the first pivot position” in claim 4, plural occurrences; claim 11; claim 13, plural occurrences; and claim 15 (in the event that claim 1 intends to set forth plural first pivot positions);
“the second pivot position” in claim 4, plural occurrences; claim 11; claim 13, plural occurrences; and claim 15 (in the event that claim 1 intends to set forth plural second pivot positions);
“the horizontal x axis” in claim 5, last line (noting that plural different horizontal x axes were previously set forth in the claim);
“the vertical y axis” in claim 6;
“the horizontal x axis” in claim 6;
“the allocated first pivot carrier axis” in claim 9, line 3 and in claim 9, penultimate line;
“the first workpiece table axes” in claim 10, plural occurrences (plural not clearly previously recited);
“the second workpiece table axes” in claim 10, plural occurrences (plural not clearly previously recited);
“the horizontal x axis” in claim 10, line 3;
“the vertical y axis extending transversely to them” in claim 10;
“the horizontal X-axis extending transversely to them” in claim 11;
“the first workpiece table” in claim 11 (plural occurrences); claim 12 (plural occurrences); and claim 13 (plural occurrences);
“the second workpiece table” in claim 11 (plural occurrences); claim 12 (plural occurrences); and claim 13 (plural occurrences);
“the associated pivot carrier axis” in claim 11, line 4 (unclear which specific pivot carrier axis or axes are being referenced);
“the respective pivot carrier” in claim 11, line 4 (particularly noting the additional recitation of “a pivot carrier” in line 3 of claim 11, and the previous recitations re the first and second pivot carrier in claim 1, it is unclear as claimed which specific pivot carrier(s) is/are being referenced);
“the respective pivot carrier axis” in claim 11 (plural occurrences);
“the pivot carrier axis” in claim 11, lines 9 and 14;
“the pivoting ranges” in claim 11 (plural occurrences);
“the associated pivot carrier” in claim 12 (plural occurrences);
“the first workpiece table axis” in claim 12 (plural occurrences);
“the second workpiece table axis” in claim 12 (plural occurrences);
“the circumferential radius of the first workpiece table” in claim 12 (plural occurrences);
“the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table” in claim 12 (plural occurrences);
“the first pivot carrier axis” in claims 9-12 (plural occurrences);
“the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis” in claim 12 (particularly given the number of such axes previously claimed);
“the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axis” in claim 12 (particularly given the number of such axes previously claimed);
“the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis” in claim 12 (particularly given the number of such axes/tables previously claimed); and
“the loading area” in claim 13 (plural occurrences) and claim 15.
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of such occurrences. Applicant is required to review the claims and correct any other such occurrences of limitations lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 5-6, in the limitation “which is mounted in the machine frame to swivel…”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim as to what “which” is intended to refer, e.g., the at least one first pivot carrier, or “the” first work spindle. Similarly, in claim 1, lines 6-7, in the limitation “and that includes at least one first workpiece table…”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “that” is intended to refer. Similarly, in claim 1, line 10, in the limitation “which is positioned with regard to the first pivot carrier axis…”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “which” is intended to refer.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, the claim sets forth “which is positioned with regard to the first pivot carrier axis on opposite sides on the first pivot carrier”. In addition to the lack of clarity noted above as to what “which” is intended to refer in this limitation, it is additionally unclear as set forth in the claim as to what the opposite sides belong, i.e., on opposite sides of what?
In claim 1, lines 9-12, the claim sets forth “and at least one second pivot carrier allocated to the second work spindle, swivel mounted in the machine frame around a second pivot carrier axis extending parallel to the first pivot carrier axis and at a distance from the first pivot carrier axis”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what this limitation is intended to go, e.g., “machine tool comprising…”, etc.
In claim 1, lines 9-12, the claim sets forth “and at least one second pivot carrier allocated to the second work spindle, swivel mounted in the machine frame around a second pivot carrier axis extending parallel to the first pivot carrier axis and at a distance from the first pivot carrier axis”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “swivel mounted in the machine frame around a second pivot carrier axis…”, e.g., the second work spindle, the at least one second pivot carrier, etc. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “at a distance from the first pivot carrier axis”, e.g., the at least one second pivot carrier, the second work spindle, or the second pivot carrier axis.
In claim 1, last six lines, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot carrier and/or the second pivot carrier can each be moved from a first pivot position, in which the respective first workpiece table is arranged in a working area and the first or rather the second work spindle is accessible, into a second pivot position, in which the respective second workpiece table is arranged in the working area and the first or rather the second work spindle is accessible”. Firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how many first and second pivot positions are being set forth, e.g., one “first pivot position”, total, or one “first pivot position” per pivot carrier (and thus, plural first pivot positions); one “second pivot position”, total, or one “second pivot position” per pivot carrier (and thus, plural second pivot positions). Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim by/to what/whom the “work” spindles are to be considered to be “accessible”. Note that the claim does not indicate that a workpiece mounted on any of the workpiece tables is able to be accessed or processed by any of the “work” spindles, but rather, the claim references accessibility of the “work” spindle(s). Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “into a second pivot position”. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “and the first or rather the second work spindle is accessible” is or is not intended to be part of the claimed “first pivot position”, and a similar issue arises via the limitation “and the first or rather the second work spindle is accessible”.
Additionally, in claim 1, the last six lines, the language “and/or” in line 16 appears to be at odds with “can each be” in line 16. That said, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the last six lines of the claim are met if only one of the first or second pivot carriers are able to be moved as claimed (which appears to be an option, given the “or” portion of the “and/or” limitation in line 16).
In claim 2, lines 1-2, it appears that the claim is missing some verbiage in the limitation “wherein the first pivot position of the first pivot carrier and/or in the first pivot position of the second pivot carrier…”. Applicant may wish to consider whether the word –in—should be inserted between “wherein” and “the first pivot position” in line 1.
In claim 2, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot position of the first pivot carrier and/or in the first pivot position of the second pivot carrier, the respective second workpiece table is arranged in a loading area, and/or if, in the second pivot position of the first pivot carrier and/or in the second pivot position of the second pivot carrier, the respective first workpiece table is arranged in the loading area”. Due to the series of “and/or” limitations and the manner in which such are set forth, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what limitations are being set forth as alternative limitations to what other limitations.
In claim 2, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot position of the first pivot carrier and/or in the first pivot position of the second pivot carrier, the respective second workpiece table is arranged in a loading area, and/or if, in the second pivot position of the first pivot carrier and/or in the second pivot position of the second pivot carrier, the respective first workpiece table is arranged in the loading area”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what the “if” limitation is intending to impart, e.g., it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as occurring or happening in the event that the “if” limitation is met, and it is also unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth or happening in the event that the “if” limitation is not met.
Additionally, in claim 2, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how many “loading areas” are intended to be recited, e.g., one loading area per second workpiece table, or one loading area, total. That being said, the limitation “the loading area” in the last two lines of claim 2 lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the at least one first workpiece table and/or the at least one second workpiece table on the first pivot carrier and/or the at least one first workpiece table and/or the at least one second workpiece table on the second pivot carrier respectively is/are designed to pick up and hold at least one workpiece”. However, in lines 1-2, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “on the first pivot carrier” is intended to go only with “the at least one second workpiece table”, or whether “on the first pivot carrier” is instead intended to also go with “the at least one first workpiece table”. Similarly, in lines 3-4, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “on the second pivot carrier” is intended to go only with “the at least one second workpiece table”, or whether “on the second pivot carrier” is also intended to go with “the at least one first workpiece table”.
In claim 3, the series of “and/or” limitations, and the manner in which such are set forth in the claim, renders it unclear what is alternative to what, and thus, what will actually meet the claim.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the at least one first workpiece table and/or the at least one second workpiece table on the first pivot carrier and/or the at least one first workpiece table and/or the at least one second workpiece table on the second pivot carrier respectively is/are designed to pick up and hold at least one workpiece”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what/which limitation(s) the limitation “is/are designed to pick up and hold at least one workpiece” is intended to go, and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim exactly what/which claim element(s) is/are being set forth as being “designed to pick up and hold at least one workpiece”.
In claim 4, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot carrier and the second pivot carrier can be decoupled with respect to their kinematics in an independent operating mode and can be moved separately and independently of one another into the first pivot position and into the second pivot position and/or in which the first pivot carrier and the second pivot carrier are coupled in a dependent operating mode with respect to their kinematics and can be moved together and simultaneously to the first pivot position and the second pivot position”. However, firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what the alternative(s) are (re the “and/or” limitation), and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim which limitations must be met in order to meet the claim as a whole. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “which” is intended to refer in the limitation “in which the first pivot carrier and the second pivot carrier are coupled…”. Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the limitation “and can be moved separately and independently of one another into the first pivot position and into the second pivot position” must occur as part of the independent operating mode in which “the” first pivot carrier and “the” second pivot carrier “can” be decoupled with respect to their kinematics, or whether the independent operating mode limitation is separate and distinct from the “can be moved separately and independently…” limitation (and a similar situation arises in the same claim re the limitation the first pivot carrier and the second pivot carrier are coupled in a dependent operating mode with respect to their kinematics and can be moved together and simultaneously to the first pivot position and the second pivot position”, re a lack of clarity as to whether “and can be moved together and simultaneously to the first pivot position and the second pivot position” is part of the “dependent operating mode with respect to kinematics” limitation or is instead an additional/independent and distinct limitation therefrom/thereto).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis are at a distance to one another with regard to a vertical y axis”, and the claim also recites “in particular arranged above one another with regard to the vertical y axis” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis are at a distance to one another with regard to a horizontal x axis”, and the claim also recites “in particular that they are arranged next to one another with regard to the horizontal x axis” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 5, in the limitation “at a distance to one another with regard to the vertical y axis”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what configuration(s) is/are encompassed by this limitation vs. what configuration(s) is/are excluded by this limitation. For example, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such merely intends to indicate that the first and second pivot carrier axes are at a distance from one another and at a distance from/relative to a vertical (y) axis, whether such instead intends to indicate that the first pivot carrier axis is vertically spaced from/relative to the second pivot carrier axis, vs. some other configuration(s), etc. A similar lack of clarity (with similar reasoning, mutatis mutandis) also applies re the claim 5 limitation “whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis are at a distance to one another with regard to a horizontal x axis”.
In claim 5, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what the limitation “or that the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a vertical y axis, whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis are at a distance to one another with regard to a horizontal x axis, in particular that they are arranged next to one another with regard to the horizontal x axis” is alternative, and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what limitation(s) are necessary in order to meet the claim as a whole. For example, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the aforementioned “or” limitation is merely alternative to “in particular arranged above one another with regard to the vertical y axis”, whether the aforementioned “or” is instead alternative to “whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis are at a distance to one another with regard to a vertical y axis”, or is instead alternative to lines 1-5 or claim 5, or is instead alternative to some other subset of the limitations in lines 1-5 of claim 5, etc.
In claim 5, line 5, in the limitation “or that”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “that” should be –wherein--. Similarly, the placement of “that” in claim 5, penultimate line is unclear, and furthermore, in the limitation “that they” in the penultimate line of claim 5, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “they” is intended to refer.
In claim 6, line 2, in the limitation “and/or that the at least one second…”, noting the use of the term “that” in this limitation, it appears that the claim is missing some verbiage, as in “and/or that the at least one second workpiece is mounted around a second spindle axis…” and does what?
In claim 6, noting the use of the language “in particular”, it is unclear as set forth in lines 3-6 whether the limitation “in particular whereby the first spindle axis and/or the second spindle axis runs/run parallel to a horizontal z axis that runs transverse to the vertical y axis and transverse to the horizontal x axis” is a required limitation (at least for that alternative), or is merely optional. Similarly, in claim 6, noting the use of the language “in particular”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim in lines 6-7 whether the limitation “in particular whereby the first spindle axis and the second spindle axis run parallel to one another” is a required limitation (at least for that alternative), or is merely optional. It is additionally unclear as claimed whether these “in particular” limitations are intended to further limit a more broadly-recited earlier limitation in the claim (i.e., to be a narrower statement of a previously-recited broader limitation), or whether these “in particular” limitations are merely further distinct, i.e., standalone, limitations.
Throughout claim 6, given the many recitations of “and/or” in a list, and further given the two “in particular” limitations, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what limitations are being set forth as alternative to the other limitations, and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is actually required in order to meet the claim as a whole.
In claim 6, in the limitations (plural occurrences) “in particular whereby” to what or where the term “whereby” is intended to refer, i.e., by where?
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein the first work spindle and the second work spindle can be decoupled with respect to their kinematics and can be operated and/or moved separately and independently of one another”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “separately and independently of one another” is intended to only go with “moved”, or whether “separately and independently of one another” is also intended to go with “operated”.
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein the first work spindle and the second work spindle can be decoupled with respect to their kinematics and can be operated and/or moved separately and independently of one another and/or in which the first work spindle and the second work spindle are coupled with respect to their kinematics and can be operated and/or moved together and simultaneously”. Noting the list of plural “and/or” limitations and the manner in which such are set forth (and additionally, noting the additional “and” limitations), it is unclear as set forth in the claim what limitations are alternative to what. For example, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “in which the first work spindle and the second work spindle are coupled with respect to their kinematics” is an alternative to “…can be operated and/or moved separately and independently of one another”, is instead an alternative to “wherein the first work spindle and the second work spindle can be decoupled with respect to their kinematics…”, etc., with other similar lack of clarity as to the boundaries of the alternatives occurring throughout the entirety of claim 7.
In claim 7, lines 3-4, in the limitation “in which…”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “which” is intended to refer.
In claim 8, the claim sets forth “wherein the first work spindle and the second work spindle are arranged vertically above one another, if the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a horizontal x axis, and if the first work spindle and the second work spindle are arranged horizontally next to one another, if the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a vertical y axis”. Firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the claim is missing some verbiage re all of the conditional “if” limitations to state what happens if a given condition is met and what happens if a given condition is not met, vs. whether the claim instead intends to require the first work spindle and the second work spindle to be arranged vertically above one another, if all three of the remaining “if” limitations in the claim are met (which is what the literal language of the claim currently appears to say). Note that for the latter, it is unclear as set forth in the claim if the three “if” limitations are not met. Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how the first pivot carrier axis (disclosed as 12) and the second pivot carrier axis (disclosed as 22) can run both “parallel to a horizontal x axis” and “parallel to a vertical y axis”, as set forth in claim 8.
In claim 9, the claim sets forth “wherein the respective first workpiece table is swivel mounted around a first workpiece table axis, which runs parallel or transversely to the allocated first pivot carrier axis of the first pivot carrier or second pivot carrier axis of the second pivot carrier and/or if the respective second workpiece table runs around a second workpiece table axis that runs parallel or transversely to the allocated first pivot carrier axis of the first pivot carrier or rather the second pivot carrier axis of the second pivot carrier”. Firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “the respective first workpiece table” is intended to reference each of the previously recited “at least one first workpiece table” (of both the “at least one first pivot carrier” and the “at least one second pivot carrier”, or not. Furthermore, re the limitation “a first workpiece table axis”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such intends to refer to one such axis, or whether such instead intends to refer to a respective such axis per first workpiece table, i.e., it is unclear as set forth in the claim how many first workpiece table axes are intended to be referenced. The same situation arises re the limitation “a second workpiece table axis” in claim 9.
In claim 9, the claim sets forth “wherein the respective first workpiece table is swivel mounted around a first workpiece table axis, which runs parallel or transversely to the allocated first pivot carrier axis of the first pivot carrier or second pivot carrier axis of the second pivot carrier and/or if the respective second workpiece table runs around a second workpiece table axis that runs parallel or transversely to the allocated first pivot carrier axis of the first pivot carrier or rather the second pivot carrier axis of the second pivot carrier”. Noting the series of “or” and “and/or” language in the claim and the manner in which the limitations are set forth, it is unclear as set forth in the claim exactly what is being set forth as alternative to what, such that it is unclear what is (at minimum) necessary to meet the claim. Furthermore, it appears that there is some missing verbiage in the claim, particularly regarding the “if” limitation. In particular, it is unclear as set forth in the claim both what happens/occurs if the “if” limitation is met and what happens/occurs if the “if” limitation is not met.
In claim 10, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot carrier axis, the second pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axes and the second workpiece table axes run parallel to one another and parallel to the horizontal x axis, whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis, whereby the first workpiece table axes with one another and/or wherein the second workpiece table axes are aligned with one another with respect to the vertical y axis extending transversely to them or are offset with respect to one another or that the first pivot carrier axis, the second pivot carrier axis as well as the first workpiece table axes and the second workpiece table axes run parallel to one another and parallel to the vertically extending y axis, wherein the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis, wherein the first workpiece table axes are aligned with one another and/or wherein the second workpiece table axes are arranged offset from one another with respect to the horizontal X-axis extending transversely to them”. Noting all of the various “and”, “or”, “and/or”, and “as well as” language in claim 10, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what the various alternatives are (i.e., where the demarcations between the alternatives are), and thus, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as alternative to what, and what elements are required to meet the claim, what elements are required parts of which alternatives, etc. Furthermore, this claim in its entirety seems to be missing some verbiage. Additionally, re the “whereby” limitations in the claim, it is unclear as claimed to what such is intended to refer, i.e., by where? Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what each of the occurrences of “them” is/are intended to refer. Also note that the limitation “whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis” in line 4 and the similar limitation “wherein the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis” in lines 10-11, is missing verbiage. Also, in line 7, in the limitation “or are offset with respect to one another”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “one another” is intended to refer, e.g., which specific axes are “offset with respect to one another”.
In claim 10, the claim sets forth “and/or wherein the second workpiece table axes are arranged offset from one another with respect to the horizontal X-axis extending transversely to them”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what configuration(s) is/are intended to be encompassed by this limitation vs. what configuration(s) is/are intended to be excluded by this limitation. For example, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether such intends to indicate that the second workpiece table axes are offset from one another and from/with respect to some horizontal X axis that extends transversely to “them”, or whether such is instead intended to require that the second workpiece table axes are offset (in a direction of a horizontal X-axis) from one another, or something else entirely. Similar issues arise re the limitation “the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are arranged offset to one another with respect to a vertical axis” in claim 11, and the limitation “the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are arranged offset relative to one another with respect to a vertical axis” in claim 11.
In claim 11, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot position and in the second pivot position, the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table of a pivot carrier are each arranged point-symmetrically to one another with respect to the associated pivot carrier axis of the respective pivot carrier on which they are arranged”. However, firstly, it is noted that this limitation appears to be missing some verbiage. For example, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the claim intends to reference something that is “in” the first pivot position. Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position. The claim appears to imply that the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are in both the first and second pivot positions, which does not appear to make sense. It is additionally noted that the only first and second pivot positions that were previously recited are pivot positions re one or both of the first and second pivot carriers (though as noted above, the number of such pivot positions previously set forth in claim 1 is likewise unclear). Furthermore, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether or not “a pivot carrier” is intended to be additional to the first pivot carrier and second pivot carrier previously mentioned in claim 1.
In claim 11, lines 2-3, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “of a pivot carrier” is intended to only go with “the second workpiece table”, or whether “of a pivot carrier” is also intended go wo with “the first workpiece table.
In claim 11, line 4, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “they” is intended to refer.
In claim 11, lines 7-9, noting the use of the verbiage “in particular”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the limitation “the pivoting ranges of the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table of the associated pivot carrier overlap with a vertical plane running through the pivot carrier axis” is in any way required, or is merely optional. Similarly, in claim 11, lines 12-14, noting the use of the verbiage “in particular”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the limitation “the pivoting ranges of the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table of the associated pivot carrier overlap with a horizontal plane running through the pivot carrier axis” is in any way required, or is merely optional.
In claim 11, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot position and in the second pivot position, the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table of a pivot carrier are each arranged point-symmetrically to one another with respect to the associated pivot carrier axis of the respective pivot carrier on which they are arranged and, if the respective pivot carrier axis runs horizontally, the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are arranged offset to one another with respect to a vertical axis and, in particular, the pivoting ranges of the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table of the associated pivot carrier overlap with a vertical plane running through the pivot carrier axis, and if the respective pivot carrier axis runs vertically, the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are arranged offset relative to one another with respect to a horizontal axis and, in particular, the pivoting ranges of the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table of the associated pivot carrier overlap with a horizontal plane running through the pivot carrier axis”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is required if neither of the “if” limitations are met.
In claim 12, the claim references a “circumferential radius of the first workpiece table” and a “circumferential radius of the second workpiece table”. However, the intended meaning of these terms is unclear. The normal meaning of “circumferential” would refer to something along a circumference, and the normal meaning of “radius” would refer to a distance between the center of the circle to a point on the circle. However, when you put the two terms together, their intended meaning is unclear, given that a radius does not extend along a circumference.
In claim 12, the claim sets forth “on the first pivot carrier the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the first workpiece table and/or the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table, and/or if on the second pivot carrier the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the first workpiece table and/or the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table”. However, noting the use of plural “and/or” limitations in a list, separating various clauses, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as alternative to what, i.e., it is unclear as set forth in the claim where the demarcations between the alternatives are located. It is additionally unclear as claimed whether or not “on the first pivot carrier” of line 1 is intended to be required to go with “the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table” of lines 3-5. Similarly, is additionally unclear as claimed whether or not “on the second pivot carrier” of line 5-6 is intended to be required to go with “the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table” of lines 8-10. Furthermore, noting the use of “and/or if” in line 5, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what the conditional “if” is intended to go with, and it is unclear as claimed what occurs (or what does not occur) is the “if” statement is met, and if the “if” statement is not met.
In claim 13, lines 3-4 and lines 6-9, the claim references “the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are spatially separated from each other in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position”. However, it is noted that no first and second pivot positions of any first and second workpiece table were previously set forth.
In claim 13, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot carrier comprises a first partition wall by which the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are spatially separated from each other in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position and the loading area is shielded from the working area in full or at least in sections”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “and the loading area is shielded from the working area in full or at least in sections” is intended to go with any portion or portions of the preceding limitation regarding the first partition wall, or whether the limitation “and the loading area is shielded from the working area in full or at least in sections” is instead intended to merely be an additional limitation (such that, for example, the first partition wall is not required to actually perform any shielding of the loading area from the working area, as long as such shielding occurs in some manner). It is additionally unclear as set forth in the claim whether the shielding of the loading area from the working area is intended to be tied to the recited spatial separation re the recited “first pivot position and in the second pivot position”. These same issues likewise apply re the similar limitations in the last five lines of claim 13.
In claim 13, the claim sets forth “wherein the first pivot carrier comprises a first partition wall by which the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are spatially separated from each other in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position and the loading area is shielded from the working area in full or at least in sections and/or if the second pivot carrier includes a second partition wall by means of which the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are spatially separated from one another in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position and the loading area is shielded from the working area in full or at least in sections”. It is again noted that there are a number of “and”, “or”, and “and/or” limitations in a list presented in a manner such that it is unclear what elements are required, and what elements/limitations are alternative to what. Additionally, the conditional “if” limitation appears to be missing verbiage, and it is unclear as set forth in the claim what action or actions occur(s) (or does/do not occur) in the event that the conditional “if” limitation is met, and what action or actions occur (or do/does not occur) in the event that the conditional “if” limitation is not met.
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein the first partition wall of the first pivot carrier can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the first pivot carrier axis and/or that the second partition wall of the second pivot carrier can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the second pivot carrier axis”. Particularly noting the recitation of “that” in the limitation “and/or that the second partition wall…”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim where the boundaries on the alternatives are. Additionally, noting the configuration of the partition walls (32, 34) shown in the figure, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the language “can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to” (a pivot carrier axis) is intended to refer to a capability of the requisite partition wall to flex or elastically bend around such axis, vs. whether such is actually instead intended to reference a shape of the requisite partition wall. In the event that the latter is intended, appropriate correction is required. Additionally, regarding the term “flexibly…bent”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what constitutes a bending action that is “flexible”, and what sort of bending is excluded by the term “flexibly”, i.e., it is unclear as set forth in the claim what effect the term “flexibly” is intended to have on the scope of the claim. That said, in the event that the former is intended (i.e., that the term “can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to…” is intended to refer to a capability of the partition wall(s) 32, 34 to “flexibly” or elastically bend), it is unclear how or in what regard or at what timing such bending occurs. For example, it is not clear as to whether such bending occurs due to some sort of pivoting of a pivot carrier 10 or 20 about the corresponding pivot carrier axis, whether such is merely intended to refer to a (broad) capability of the material of the partition wall(s), whether such is intended to reference some sort of product-by-process limitation re how the machine tool is manufactured, etc. Claim limitation “separating section” 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states that the machine frame includes “at least one separating section, which is arranged between the first pivot carrier and the second pivot carrier, wherein the first partition wall of the first pivot carrier, the separating section of the machine frame and the second partition wall of the second pivot carrier spatially separate the working area from the loading area in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position in full or at least in sections without gaps and/or joint” (page 11, line 27 through page 12, line 2). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of separating in the manner claimed. The use of the term “spatially separating” is not adequate structure for performing the separating function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect spatial separation. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function.
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.
In claim 15, the claim sets forth “wherein the first partition wall of the first pivot carrier, the separating section of the machine frame and the second partition wall of the second pivot carrier spatially separate the working area from the loading area in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position in full or at least in sections without gaps and/or joints”. However, firstly, it is noted that no first pivot position and second pivot position of the first partition wall, second partition wall, or separating section were recited in the claim, such that it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position”. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being “in full or at least in sections”, e.g., the separation of the working area from the loading area, the gaps and/or joints, the first pivot position and the second pivot position, etc. Likewise, it is similarly unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as being/occurring “without gaps and/or joints”. Furthermore, it is noted that claim 15 depends from claim 13. That said, it is noted that claim 13 does not require both the first and the second partition walls in order to be met (given the use of the alternative language “or” in the “and/or” limitation set forth starting in line 5 of claim 13). That being said, it is unclear as claimed re claim 15 whether or not claim 15 now intends to require both the first and second partition walls, or merely sets forth optional limitations regarding alternatives in which one or the other of the partition walls is not present.
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 3, 8, 12, and 14-15 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.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the at least one first workpiece table and/or the at least one second workpiece table on the first pivot carrier and/or the at least one first workpiece table and/or the at least one second workpiece table on the second pivot carrier respectively is/are designed to pick up and hold at least one workpiece”. However, it is unclear as disclosed how or in what regard the various workpiece tables 14, 24, 16, 26 are to, themselves, be able to perform the action of “picking up” at least one workpiece, as opposed to (at a time when the various workpiece tables 14, 24, 16, and 16 are located in the loading “area” 30, being able to be loaded with at least one workpiece. For example, it is unclear from where/what the workpiece tables would “pick up” the workpiece(s), and it is unclear what movements or actions the workpiece tables would undergo in order to carry out the action of “picking up” the workpiece(s). See Figure 1. See also page 4, lines 1-11, and page 5, lines 1-8, for example. That said specification as filed does not appear to teach, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, that any of the various workpiece tables 14, 24, 16, and 26 are designed to “pick up” at least one workpiece from somewhere/something, as set forth in claim 3.
In claim 8, the claim sets forth “wherein the first work spindle and the second work spindle are arranged vertically above one another, if the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a horizontal x axis, and if the first work spindle and the second work spindle are arranged horizontally next to one another, if the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a vertical y axis”. It is noted that this claim has a number of clarity issues, as set forth in the above rejection(s) of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b). That being said, the specification as filed does not appear to teach, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, that the first work spindle (6) and second work spindle (8) are arranged vertically above one another, conditional on the first work spindle (6) and second work spindle (8) being “arranged horizontally next to one another” (as set forth in claim 8), and also conditional on “the first pivot carrier axis and the second carrier axis” running “parallel to a vertical y axis” (as also set forth in claim 8). Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim how or in what regard the first and second pivot carrier axes can be both parallel to a horizontal x axis and parallel to a vertical y axis, as apparently set forth in claim 8. That said, the specification does not appear teach, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, the subject matter of claim 8.
In claim 12, the claim references a “circumferential radius of the first workpiece table” and a “circumferential radius of the second workpiece table”. However, the intended meaning of these terms is unclear. The normal meaning of “circumferential” would refer to something along a circumference, and the normal meaning of “radius” would refer to a distance between the center of the circle to a point on the circle. However, when you put the two terms together, their intended meaning is unclear, given that a radius does not extend along a circumference. The specification as filed does not appear to teach, in any manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, what is meant by such, and does not appear to teach, in any manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, that “on the first pivot carrier the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the first workpiece table and/or the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table, and/or if on the second pivot carrier the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the first workpiece table and/or the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table”, as set forth in claim 12.
In claim 14, the claim sets forth “wherein the first partition wall of the first pivot carrier can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the first pivot carrier axis and/or that the second partition wall of the second pivot carrier can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the second pivot carrier axis”. Particularly noting the recitation of “that” in the limitation “and/or that the second partition wall…”, it is unclear as set forth in the claim where the boundaries on the alternatives are. Additionally, noting the configuration of the partition walls (32, 34) shown in the figure, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether the language “can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to” (a pivot carrier axis) is intended to refer to a capability of the requisite partition wall to flex or elastically bend around such axis, vs. whether such is actually instead intended to reference a shape of the requisite partition wall. In the event that the latter is intended, appropriate correction is required. That said, in the event that the former is intended (i.e., that the term “can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to…” is intended to refer to a capability of the partition wall(s) 32, 34 to “flexibly” or elastically bend), it is unclear how or in what regard or at what timing such bending occurs. For example, it is not clear as to whether such bending occurs due to some sort of pivoting of a pivot carrier 10 or 20 about the corresponding pivot carrier axis, whether such is merely intended to refer to a (broad) capability of the material of the partition wall(s), whether such is intended to reference some sort of product-by-process limitation re how the machine tool is manufactured, etc. In any case, the specification as filed does not appear to describe the subject matter of claim 14 in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
Regarding claim 15 and the recited “separating section”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claims 1-8, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0287174 to Hansch et al. (hereinafter, “Hansch”).
Hansch teaches a machine tool (10; see Figure 1, as well as at least paragraphs 0001-0002, 0015, and 0034, for example) comprising
a machine frame (the frame composed of at least the base portions of 12, 12’, 24, and 24’, for example; see Figure 4; see also Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0028, 0034, for example),
at least one first work spindle (such as, for example, 14; see Figure 4 and paragraph 0034, for example),
at least one second work spindle (such as, for example, 14’; see Figure 4 and paragraph 0034, for example),
at least one first pivot carrier (28) “allocated to” (as broadly claimed) the first work spindle (14), which is mounted in the (aforedescribed) machine frame (see Figure 4 and Figure 2) to swivel around a first pivot carrier axis (vertical axis at the center of 28) and that includes at least one first workplace table (such as, for example, the table labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below as WT1A) and at least one second workpiece table (such as, for example, the table labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below as WT2A), which is positioned with regard to the first pivot carrier axis on opposite sides on the first pivot carrier (28) (see Figure 4; see also paragraphs 0034, 0015, 0031, 0011-0013, and 0018, for example), and at least one second pivot carrier (28’) “allocated to” (as broadly claimed) the second work spindle (14’), swivel mounted in the (aforedescribed) machine frame around a second pivot carrier axis (vertical axis at the center of 28’) extending parallel to the (aforedescribed vertical) first pivot carrier axis and at a distance from the first pivot carrier axis (see Figure 4; see also paragraphs 0034, 0015, 0031, 0011-0013, and 0018, for example), and
at least a first workpiece table (such as the table labeled below in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 as WT1B) and at least one second workpiece table (such as the table labeled below in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 as WT2B), arranged on opposite sides of the second pivot carrier (28’) with respect to the (aforedescribed) second pivot carrier axis (see Figure 4),
wherein the first pivot carrier (28) and/or the second pivot carrier (28’) can each be moved (e.g., pivoted about the respective aforedescribed pivot carrier axis) from a first pivot position, in which the respective first workpiece table (WT1A or WT1B) is arranged in a working area (such as an “area” at which a workpiece mounted on WT1A is able to be machined via spindle 14, and such as an “area” at which a workpiece mounted on WT1B is able to be machined via spindle 14’; see Figure 4, as well as at least paragraphs 0034, 0031, 0011-0013, 0015, 0030, 0033, for example) and the first (14) or rather the second (14’) work spindle is “accessible” (it is noted that 14 can “access” a workpiece that has been pivoted via 28 into the aforedescribed working area, and that 14’ can “access” a workpiece that has been pivoted via 28’ into an/the aforedescribed working area; see above discussion), into a second pivot position, in which the respective second workpiece table is arranged in the working area and the first or rather the second work spindle is accessible (see Figure 4, as well as at least paragraphs 0034, 0031, 0011-0013, 0015, 0030, 0033, for example; note that in annotated Figure 4 below, tables WT1B and WT1A are in a “loading” area, and tables TW2B and TW2A are in a “working” area, and tables WT1B and WT2B can “swap” positions via the rotation of 28’ about the aforedescribed vertical axis, and tables WT1A and WT2A can likewise “swap” positions via the rotation of 28 about the aforedescribed vertical rotation axis re 28; see Figure 4, Figure 2, and paragraphs 0034, 0031, 0011-0013, 0015, 0030, 0033, for example).
[AltContent: textbox (WT2B)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (WT1B)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (WT2A)][AltContent: textbox (WT1A)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
498
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 the first pivot position of the first pivot carrier (28) and/or in the first pivot position of the second pivot carrier (28’), the respective second workpiece table (WT2A or WT2B) is arranged in a loading area (as described above re claim 1), and/or if, in the second pivot position of the first pivot carrier (28) and/or in the second pivot position of the second pivot carrier (28’), the respective first workpiece table (WT1A, WT1B) is arranged in the (aforedescribed) loading area (as described above re claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the at least one first workpiece table (WT1A) and/or the at least one second workpiece table (WT2A) on the first pivot carrier (28) and/or the at least one first workpiece table (WT1B) and/or the at least one second workpiece table (WT2B) on the second pivot carrier (28’) respectively is/are designed to “pick up” (insofar as such is the case re the present invention) and hold at least one workpiece. See Figure 4, and see also at least paragraphs 0034, 0031, 0011-0013, 0015, 0030, 0033, for example, as well as Figure 2, especially paragraphs 0011-0012, for example.
Regarding claim 4, the first pivot carrier (28) and the second pivot carrier (28’) can be decoupled with respect to their kinematics in an independent operating mode and can be moved separately and independently of one another into the first pivot position and into the second pivot position (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0034, for example). Alternatively, it is noted that claim 4 covers all possibilities, i.e., either the pivot carriers 28, 28’ are operated together, or are operated separately, and only one has to be true for the claim to be met, and thus, for at least this additional reasoning, claim 4 is met by Hansch, i.e., Hansch would inherently do at least one or the other.
Regarding claim 5, the (aforedescribed vertical axis at the center of 28) first pivot carrier axis and the (aforedescribed vertical axis at the center of 28’) second pivot carrier axis that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a vertical y axis, whereby the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis are at a distance to one another with regard to a horizontal x axis, in particular that they are arranged next to one another with regard to the horizontal x axis. See Figure 4 and paragraph 0034, as well as the above discussion re claim 1 re the pivot carrier axes.
Regarding claim 6, the at least one first work spindle (14) is mounted to rotate around a first spindle axis (it is noted that a spindle, by definition, rotates around an axis, or else it is not a spindle, i.e., spindles are rotary) and/or that the at least one second work spindle (14’) is “mounted around” a second spindle axis (while it is noted that this is not a required limitation in order for the claim to be met, it is noted that any spindle is a three-dimensional object and thus, inherently has an infinite number of axes that extend therethrough, and thus, is “mounted around” a second spindle axis, i.e., any axis that passes through such spindle), in particular whereby the first spindle axis and/or the second spindle axis runs/run parallel to a horizontal z axis that runs transverse to the vertical y axis and transverse to the horizontal x axis (it is noted that the horizontal “x” axis is not limited in the claim to being any particular axis, and it is noted that this appears to be an optional limitation; that said, there exist horizontal first and second spindle axes re the spindles 14, 14’ that are horizontal, for example rotation, axes of the respective spindle and that are “transverse” to any vertical axis, and that are transverse to any other horizontal axis non-parallel thereto, such as, for example, an axis in the plane of Figure 4 which extends in the vertical direction re Figure 4, noting that Figure 4 is a top view) and/or in particular whereby the first spindle axis and the second spindle axis run parallel to one another (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 0007 and 0034, for example, noting that the spindle rotation axes of spindles 14, 14’ in Figure 4 are parallel and horizontal).
Regarding claim 7, the first work spindle (14) and the second work spindle (14’) can be decoupled with respect to their kinematics and can be operated and/or moved separately and independently of one another (as per paragraph 0034, for example). Alternatively, it is noted that claim 7 covers all possibilities, i.e., either the spindles are operated together, or are operated separately, and thus, for at least this additional reasoning, claim 7 is met by Hansch, i.e., Hansch would inherently do at least one or the other.
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112), the first work spindle (14) and the second work spindle (14’) are arranged horizontally next to one another (see Figure 4), and the (aforedescribed vertical) first pivot carrier axis (at the center of 28) and the (aforedescribed vertical) second pivot carrier axis (at the center of 28’) that runs parallel to the first pivot carrier axis run parallel to a vertical y axis. See above discussion of the vertical pivot carrier axes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 9-12, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0287174 to Hansch et al. (hereinafter, “Hansch”), as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Hansch teaches all of the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claim 9, the respective first workpiece table (WT1A or WT1B) is swivel mounted around a first workpiece table axis (i.e., a respective vertical axis at the center of the turntables WT1A, WT1B), which runs parallel to the “allocated” (aforedescribed vertical) first pivot carrier axis of the first pivot carrier (28) or (aforedescribed) second pivot carrier axis of the second pivot carrier (28’). See Figure 4. See also at least paragraphs 0034, as well as particularly paragraphs 0018, 0028, 0031, as well as Figure 2.
In the alternative, in the event that it is held that Hansch does not quite go far enough to expressly teach the workpiece tables being rotatable around respective vertical axes parallel to the respective vertical pivot carrier axis, Examiner takes Official Notice that rotatable pallet changers/pivot carriers that are rotatable about a vertical axis so as to swap the positions of two workpiece pallets/tables mounted thereon, which two workpiece pallets/tables are additionally rotatable about respective vertical axes (parallel to the pallet changer vertical pivot axis) are well-known and widely used, for the well-known purpose of providing an additional degree of freedom to the workpiece, thus facilitating the machining of more complex workpieces and/or facilitating easier pick up and removal of the workpieces via, for example, a handling robot.
Therefore, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made each of the workpiece tables WT1A, WT1B, WT2A, and WT2B each be rotatable about a respective vertical axis parallel to the aforedescribed vertical pivot carrier axes, as is well-known, for achieving the well-known purpose of providing an additional degree of freedom to the workpiece, thus facilitating the machining of more complex workpieces and/or facilitating easier pick up and removal of the workpieces via, for example, a handling robot.
Regarding claim 10, the (aforedescribed) first pivot carrier axis, the (aforedescribed) second pivot carrier axis as well as the (aforedescribed) first workpiece table axes and the (aforedescribed) second workpiece table axes run parallel to one another and parallel to “the” vertically extending “y” axis (as described above, all of the foregoing axes are vertical), wherein the first pivot carrier axis and the second pivot carrier axis, wherein the first workpiece table axes are aligned with one another (in that lines can be drawn between them) and/or wherein the second workpiece table axes are arranged offset from one another with respect to the horizontal X-axis extending transversely to them (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, the (aforedescribed) first pivot position and in the (aforedescribed) second pivot position, the (aforedescribed) first workpiece table and the (aforedescribed) second workpiece table of a pivot carrier (28 or 28’) are each arranged point-symmetrically to one another with respect to the associated pivot carrier axis of the respective pivot carrier on which they are arranged (see Figure 4; see also paragraph 0034) and if the respective pivot carrier axis runs vertically, the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are arranged offset relative to one another with respect to a horizontal axis (see Figure 4; see also Figure 2 and paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 12, on the first pivot carrier the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the first workpiece table and/or the distance between the first pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table, and/or if on the second pivot carrier the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the first workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the first workpiece table and/or the distance between the second pivot carrier axis and the second workpiece table axis is less than the circumferential radius of the second workpiece table. See Figure 4. For example, a distance between the aforedescribed vertical pivot carrier axis (at the centers of 28, 28’, respectively) and a portion of the claimed workpiece table axis is less than, for example, a “circumferential radius of” one of the workpiece tables, such as a radial distance from the respective pivot carrier axis to a portion of the corresponding workpiece table that is furthest from the respective pivot carrier axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13-15, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0287174 to Hansch et al. (hereinafter, “Hansch”) as applied to at least claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,863,319 to Winkler et al. (hereinafter, “Winkler”).
Hansch teaches all the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, regarding claims 13-15, while Hansch does teach that it is desirable to manage swarf/chips (see paragraphs 0007-0008), Hansch does not expressly teach any partition wall or walls re the aforedescribed workpiece tables (WT1A, WT1B, WT2A, WT2B, for example) to shield the aforedescribed loading area from the aforedescribed working area.
However, attention is directed to Winkler.
Winkler teaches a machine tool (110) having a pivot carrier (114) on which two workpieces 113, 113’ are provided (see Figures 5-6 and at least col. 10, lines 47-53, for example). The workpiece (113) is shown in Figure 5 as being in a working area (121) in which the workpiece (113) can be machined via a tool (112) of a tool spindle stock (111), and the workpiece (113’) is shown in Figure 5 as being in a loading/mounting area (122) at which a workpiece can be loaded mounted during machining of the workpiece that is in the working area (121). See Figure 5. See also col. 10, lines 47-53 and 61-68, for example. The working area (121) and the loading area (122) are physically/spatially separated from one another via a partition wall (120, 124, 125). See Figures 5-6 and col. 10, lines 61-68, and col. 11, lines 1-40, for example, as well as col. 11, line 41 through col. 12, line 22, for example and Figures 7-9. Additionally, Winkler teaches a “separating section”, such as, for example, beam 123 and/or further splash wall 130 and/or portal 131 and supports 132. See Figures 5-6 as well as at least col. 11, lines 1-40, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided each of the pivot carriers (28, 28’) that have two workpieces (and workpiece tables) supported thereof as taught by Hansch with a respective partition wall arrangement separating each pair of workpieces/workpiece tables as taught by Winkler, and to have also provided such partition wall arrangement with the necessary separating section (described above re the Winkler reference), for the purpose of providing a splash guard that is designed such that the (respective) worktable on the mounting/loading area is freely accessible, while simultaneously, an efficient splash guard is provided between the processing/working side/area to protect an end user from being soiled with splashing coolant or being injured by flying metal chips, as taught by Winkler (see col. 3, lines 53-58, as well as col. 1, lines 33-54, for example).
Relating the foregoing to the claim language, regarding claim 13, the first pivot carrier (28 of Hansch) comprises a first partition wall (a partition wall 120+124+125 of Winkler) by which the first workpiece table (of Hansch, described above) and the second workpiece table (of Hansch, described above) are spatially separated from each other in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position and the loading area is shielded from the working area in full or at least in sections (via the aforedescribed partition wall arrangement of Winkler) and/or if the second pivot carrier (28’ of Hansch) includes a second partition wall (another partition wall 120+124+125 of Winkler) by means of which the first workpiece table (of Hansch, described above) and the second workpiece table (of Hansch, described above) are spatially separated from one another in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position and the loading area is shielded from the working area in full or at least in sections (via the aforedescribed partition wall arrangement of Winkler).
Regarding claim 14, the first partition wall (of Winkler, described above) of the first pivot carrier (28 of Hansch, described above) can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the first pivot carrier axis and/or that the second partition wall of the second pivot carrier can be flexibly and/or elastically bent around an axis running parallel to the second pivot carrier axis. See col. 11, lines 1-25 and col. 11, line 44 through col. 12, line 31, of Winkler, for example, as well as Figures 5-9 of Winkler, noting that as 114 and 120 rotate/pivot about vertical axis 115, the flexible elements 124, 125 will at least inherently have some sort of pivoting motion component that is parallel to axis 115, due to the fact that they are elastic flaps, and given the motion depicted in at least Figures 7-9.
Regarding claim 15, the machine frame (of Hansch, so modified by Winkler as described above) includes at least one separating section (beam 123 and/or further splash wall 130 and/or portal 131 and supports 132 of Winkler; see Winkler, Figures 5-6 as well as at least col. 11, lines 1-40, for example), which is arranged between (as broadly claimed; see Figure 4 of Hansch noting that providing a respective such separating section and partition wall of Winkler to each of the pivot carriers of Hansch will result in at least some portion of the aforedescribed separating section of Winkler being “arranged between” 28, 28’ of Hansch, in some capacity) the first pivot carrier (28 of Hansch) and the second pivot carrier (28’ of Hansch), wherein the (aforedescribed) first partition wall (of Winkler) of the first pivot carrier (of Hansch), the separating section (of Winkler) of the machine frame (of Hansch) and the second partition wall (of Winkler) of the second pivot carrier (of Hansch) spatially separate the working area from the loading area in the first pivot position and in the second pivot position in full or at least in sections without gaps and/or joints (see Figures 5-9 of Winkler, as well as at least col. 12, lines 5-22 of Winkler, for example).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0170682 teaches a machine tool having a similar configuration to that of the present machine tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
October 14, 2026
