DETAILED ACTION1
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 13-15 are objected to because of an informality. Claim 13 recites wherein the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table or that the first workpiece table…are decoupled in an independent operating mode. The word that after the or is grammatically improper and should be removed. Claims 14-15 also contains the same issue with an extra that. Appropriate correction is required.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the workpiece table, at least in a loading and unloading mode of the machine tool during production, can be transferred into a separating position in which the separating wall is arranged to extend transversely to the allocated spindle axis and spatially separates a working area, in which the first or the second workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position and is accessible to the assigned work spindle, from a loading area, in which the second or the first workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position and/or the first workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position. This feature is unclear. The claim is reciting that the wall is arranged to separate a working area… from a loading area. This is clear. The claim then recites that the working area is defined such that the first or the second workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position. Again, this seems clear. But claim 1 then defines the loading area, in which the second or the first workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position and/or the first workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position. As a first issue, this is the same definition as the working area. Second, the claim repeats itself saying that the second or the first workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position and/or the first workpiece holder is arranged in the separating position. The second clause is duplicating a portion of the first. It is therefore unclear how this can be either in addition or alternative to the first clause. This final claim feature is therefore not being examined pending clarification.
Claim 2 is both grammatically unclear and has features that could potentially be modifying multiple earlier features. Claim 2 recites that the workpiece table can be moved in a working mode from a first processing swivelling area, within which… manner, can be transferred into a second processing swivelling area. The comma implies that claim 2 is reciting that the workpiece table can (i.e. possesses) two features. It can be moved in a working mode and it can be transferred into a second processing swivelling area. Grammatically, the use of the comma without the word ‘and’ requires that there be a third feature of the workpiece table. Claim 2 does conclude with the phrase and can be fixed in place by fixing the workpiece table in a rotationally fixed manner. But the word and here is not preceded by a comma. It is unclear if this last phrase is modifying the workpiece table from the beginning of the claim or is only modifying the end of the within sub-clause that it follows. Claim 2 must be amended for improved clarity, preferably by using semi-colons to identify which elements are modifying the original workpiece table and commas to denote sub-clauses within those features.
Additionally, the phrase the workpiece table can be moved in a working mode from a first processing swivelling area is also unclear because the claim fails to denote where the table can be moved to. By stating the table is moved from the first swiveling area, it implies it will then recite where it is moved to. But no such language is present in claim 2. For all of these reasons, substantive examination of claim 2 was not possible.
Claim 3 recites that the first workpiece holder and the second workpiece holder are arranged and aligned symmetrically, in particular point symmetrically to one another with regard to the axis of rotation and are attached in a non rotatable manner on the workpiece table. The phrase in particular renders claim 3 indefinite because it is unclear if the features that follow are required or optional features. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the partition wall of the workpiece table comprises at least one continuous opening which extends transversely to the axis of rotation and through which the partition wall can be engaged by the work spindle, and a workpiece holder of the work spindle arranged in the loading area is accessible, and in that the partition wall comprises at least one planar closure means, which is arranged in or on the at least one opening and which can be transferred from a release position, in which the closure means releases the opening at least in the direction transverse to the axis of rotation in its entirety or in sections, into a closure position, in which the closing means closes the opening completely at least in the direction transverse to the axis of rotation, wherein the closing element is arranged in the closing position in the loading and unloading mode of the machine tool during production. The two consecutive features beginning with the word and do not make sense grammatically or in conjunction with each other. Nor is it clear what earlier features they are modifying. The claim also contains commas that grammatically do not make sense (particular those around the words into a closure position. Applicant is advised to redraft the claim for improved clarity and to repeat nouns to make clear what elements are being modified by each subsequent feature. The claim in its entirety is indefinite as the metes and bounds of what is being claimed is not clear.
Claim 7 recites the at least one opening comprises at least one guide, such as a groove or projection. The use of phrases like such as renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the features after are required elements. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 13 recites in particular with respect to their kinematics twice. The phrase in particular is indefinite for the same reason as the phrase such as in claim 7. It makes it unclear if the kinematics must be the decoupled element. All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 199 13 715 to Schwaebische.
Claim 1 recites a machine tool. Schwaebische relates to a machine tool. See Schwaebische pg. 1, ll. 10-19.2 Schwaebische teaches a machine frame (10) and a work spindle (11) which is mounted to rotate about a spindle axis. See Schwaebische Fig. 1. Schwaebische further teaches a workpiece table (8)…mounted in the machine frame to rotate or swivel (7) about an axis of rotation (3). See Schwaebische pg. 2, ll. 55-59 and pg. 3, ll. 11-22. Claim 1 also recites the table is allocated to the at least one work spindle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of allocated includes being associated with structures that interact with the work spindle. The table here rotates in order to present workpieces to be machined by the spindle (11). See Schwaebische pg. 3, ll. 4-9 and Fig. 1. As such, it is allocated to the spindle. Figure 1 of Schwaebische also shows that the table (8) has a closed, planar partition wall (13), which extends over an entire width of the workpiece table transversely to the axis of rotation and over an entire length of the workpiece table parallel to the axis of rotation and through which the axis of rotation extends.
Claim 1 recites that the workpiece table, at least in a loading,,,mode…can be transferred into a separating position in which the separating wall is arranged to extend transversely to the allocated spindle axis and spatially separates a working area…from a loading area. Figure 1 of Schwaebische shows the splash guard wall (13) separates the two halves of the table (8) and allows loading from side (10) into a non-working region, while the other holder is adjacent to the spindle. See Schwaebische Fig. 1.
Claim 1 further recites at least one first workpiece holder and at least one second workpiece holder. These holders are anticipated using two different interpretations. Interpretation 1 is that the axle bearing (9) on either side of the wall as the holders. Interpretation 2 is that the swivel tables (4a, b) are the holders. In either case, these two workpiece holders are on opposite sides of the partition wall. See Schwaebische Fig. 1. Claim 1 also recites that both holder[s] are arranged on the workpiece table in a rotationally fixed manner with respect to the partition wall. Under interpretation 1, the swivel table axles (9) are rotationally fixed with respect to the wall. As the wall rotates the axles do not change relative position to the wall. Examiner also considers that interpretation 2 also meets this limitation in view of claim 2. Claim 2 defines that the movement of the table causes the holders to rotate relative to the frame. The tables maintain their relative relationship to the partition wall even as their rotate with the table. This is deemed to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase in a rotationally fixed manner with respect to the partition wall. Namely that the holders move relative to the frame, but not relative to the wall. Since the center of mass of holders (4a) and (4b) maintains relative position to the wall the claim feature remains anticipated.
Claim 4 recites the first workpiece holder and the second workpiece holder are arranged in a plane parallel to the separating surface of the partition wall. Figure 2 shows the holders (4a, b) extend longitudinally from right to left in the same plane as, and parallel to, the separating wall (13). This viewpoint is the direction transverse to the axis of rotation. Claim 4 also recites that the two holders are offset from one another without overlapping. In figure 1 the two holders are vertically offset when the partition wall is straight vertical. This is deemed to anticipate the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4. Claim 5 recites that the axis of rotation of the workpiece table runs parallel to a horizontally extending X-axis. Figures 1 and 2 show this to be the case. The remainder of claim 5 is an optional feature because the claim recites or before the remaining features and need not be taught.
Claim 10 recites there are two work spindles, which is shown in figure 2 of S. Figure 2 further shows the two spindles are assigned to the same workpiece table and further shows that both spindle axes…run parallel to one another and are arranged horizontally next to one another. Figure 2 also shows the axis of rotation (3) of the workpiece table runs parallel to a horizontally extending X-axis.
Claims 1 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 117325005 to Xingfei.
Claim 1 recites a machine tool. Xingfei relates to a machine tool. See Xingfei pg. 1, ll. 15-16.3 Schwaebische teaches a machine frame (1) and a work spindle (3) which is mounted to rotate about a spindle axis. See Xingfei Fig. 1 and pg. 6, ll. 18-23. Schwaebische further teaches a workpiece table (2)…mounted in the machine frame to rotate or swivel about an axis of rotation (3). See Xingfei pg. 6, ll. 5-16. Claim 1 also recites the table is allocated to the at least one work spindle. The broadest reasonable interpretation of allocated includes being associated with structures that interact with the work spindle. The table here rotates in order to present workpieces to be machined by the spindle (11). As such, it is allocated to the spindle. Figure 1 of Xingfei also shows that the table (2) has a closed, planar partition wall (25), which extends over an entire width of the workpiece table transversely to the axis of rotation and over an entire length of the workpiece table parallel to the axis of rotation and through which the axis of rotation extends. See Xingfei Figs. 1 & 4.
Xingfei also teaches that the workpiece table, at least in a loading,,,mode…can be transferred into a separating position in which the separating wall is arranged to extend transversely to the allocated spindle axis and spatially separates a working area…from a loading area. See Xingfei pg. 6, ln. 5 to pg. 7, ln. 30. Xingfei further shows at least one first workpiece holder (24) and at least one second workpiece holder which is on the unseen second table in figure 1. These two workpiece holders are on opposite sides of the partition wall (25) and are arranged on the workpiece table in a rotationally fixed manner with respect to the partition wall. See Xingfei Fig. 1.
Claim 3 recites the first [and second] workpiece holder…are arranged and aligned symmetrically…with regard to the axis of rotation and are attached in a non rotatable manner on the workpiece table. Figure 1 of Xingfei shows this to be the case.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious4 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwaebische.
Claim 11 recites there are two work spindles assigned respectively to two workpiece tables. Schwaebische does not explicitly teach this feature. Yet one could take two embodiments of the structure of figure 1 of Schwaebische, place them side by side (vertically or horizontally) on a table or frame element, and teach claim 11. Such a modification would have been obvious because mere duplication of objects is obvious. See MPEP 2144. This side-by-side arrangement would then teach the recited second axis of rotation, which runs parallel to the first axis of rotation and is spaced apart from the first axis of rotation. Regarding claim 12, a third duplicate of Schwaebische’s tool again placed adjacent to the first two would teach the one further work spindle and at least one further workpiece table with yet another parallel…axis of rotation. Claim 13 recites that the first workpiece table and the second workpiece table are decoupled in their operation. Having two adjacent machine tools would render both tables independent of each other in operation. The remainder of the claim are or clauses and may be ignored. Likewise the spindles would also be decoupled as recited in claim 14. Claim 15 recites vertically stacked spindles. Two tools of Schwaebische could be vertically stacked and fulfill this limitation. This would again be mere duplication.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 6-9 (as best understood) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil 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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 All citations are to the attached English translation obtained from espacenet.com
3 All citations are to the attached English translation obtained from espacenet.com
4 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights