Priority
Claims 1-8 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract as filed 18 January 2025 is presented as a single sentence in non-narrative form, mirroring a patent claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: “a tool exchanging apparatus” in claim 1; “a first moving mechanism” in claim 1; “a tool housing apparatus” in claim 1; “an additional magazine attachment unit” in claim 1; “a second moving mechanism” in claim 4; “a first gripping unit and a second gripping unit” in claims 5 and 6.
The “tool exchanging apparatus” appears to be described in paragraph [0033]; “the first moving mechanism” in paragraph [0033]; the “tool housing apparatus” in paragraph [0037]; the “additional magazine attachment unit” in paragraph [0017]; the “second moving mechanism” in paragraph [0035]; the “first gripping unit and second gripping unit” in paragraph [0016].
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a tool housing apparatus having a standard tool magazine” at line 3. While the Specification uses the phrase “standard tool magazine” and thus provides literal support for the term, it is unclear what the boundaries of a standard tool magazine are. The examiner is familiar with several different tool magazine configurations, such that it is unclear whether, for example, the “standard” refers to the tools which may be received in the magazine, or a magazine size, shape, or configuration, or some other meaning for the phrase. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitation.
Claim 1 recites “a first moving mechanism that uses a rack and a pinion meshed to the rack” at lines 5-6. It is unclear whether the rack and pinion are part of the first moving mechanism. If the rack and pinion are not part of the first moving mechanism, but instead are only “used” by the first moving mechanism, it is unclear what the structure of the first moving mechanism includes.
Claims 2-8 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the tool spindle executes a gripping movement operation for moving toward the tool exchange arm and causing the tool exchange arm to grip the tool mounted on the tool spindle” at lines 1-3. This limitation substantially mirrors a method step, however claim 2 and claim 1 are understood to be directed to an apparatus. Where such an apparatus is located in a storage facility or on a shipping container, and is not energized, it is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine that the claim limitation is met or taught.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 1-6
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0347461 to Yoshida (hereinafter “Yoshida”) in view of Korean Patent Application Document KR10-2016-0069288 to Lee Tech (hereinafter “Lee Tech”; English translation provided by Applicant on 11 July 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a machine tool (see Figs. 1 to 4) comprising: a tool spindle (101) on which a tool (102, 103, 104) for machining is mounted exchangeably (see paragraph [0031]); a tool housing apparatus (see Fig. 1) having a standard tool magazine (select a rack 4; see paragraph [0031]) in which a plurality of tools (102, 103, 104) to be mounted on the tool spindle are housed (paragraph [0031]); and a tool exchanging apparatus (6) having a tool exchange arm (arms 61, 81, 93) that grips the tool (via tool gripper 93; see paragraph [0040]), wherein the tool exchanging apparatus includes an extension member attachment unit (see Figs. 5B and 5C; air cylinder 94 extends position of gripping member 93) for attaching an extension member that extends a movement stroke of the tool exchange arm in the first movement direction (see Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C), and the tool housing apparatus (see Fig. 1) includes an additional magazine attachment unit (tool racks 4 are detachably attached to frame 3; see paragraph [0031]) for attaching an additional tool magazine (4) that increases the number of houses tools (102, 103, 104) to the first movement direction side of the standard tool magazine.
Yoshida does not explicitly disclose using a rack and pinion for moving a tool exchanging arm. Yoshida teaches that the arm movement may be driven along guide rails (33, 34; see paragraph [0041]) but does not explicitly disclose a rack and pinion. However, it is known in the art of tool manipulators to move gripping arms using a rack and pinion.
Lee Tech teaches automatic tool changers (see paragraph [0002]) which are suitable for automatically changing tools between magazines and tooling devices. Lee teaches a tool housing device (330) with a magazine (332) capable of housing a plurality of tools (390). The device has a tool exchange device (320) with a tool exchanging arm (380; see Fig. 2) which holds a tool (see paragraph [0034]). The arm may be driven using a rack (344) and a pinion (346) which extend in a first direction and allow for travel of the gripping arm (see x-axis travel; see paragraph [0044]-[0045]). Lee Tech teaches that the movement of the rack and pinion may be driven by a controller (see paragraph [0068]) allowing for the arm to move the tool in a desired manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Yoshida to use another and conventional arm movement device, such as a rack and pinion as taught by Lee Tech. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would predictably allow for the movement of a robotic gripper arm in a predictable manner in a desired direction, similar to the movement of the gripper arms of Yoshida along its guide rails. One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the tool apparatus of the combination would allow for the desired movement of the arm to select or move tools in a predictable manner.
Thus, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Yoshida teaches that the tool spindle (101) executes a gripping movement operation for moving toward the tool exchange arm (toward device 6) and causing the tool exchange arm to grip the tool mounted to the tool spindle (see paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Yoshida teaches that the tool exchanging apparatus includes a second moving mechanism (cylinder 94) for moving the tool exchange arm (gripper arm 93) in a second movement direction (orthogonal to Z-axis direction) that intersects the first movement direction (see paragraph [0040]; movement of gripper can move both in Z-axis direction and orthogonal thereto), and the second moving mechanism moves the tool exchange arm (gripper arm 93) in the second movement direction using a fluid pressure cylinder (94).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Yoshida teaches that the tool exchanging apparatus includes a second moving mechanism (cylinder 94) for moving the tool exchange arm (gripper arm 93) in a second movement direction (orthogonal to Z-axis direction) that intersects the first movement direction (see paragraph [0040]; movement of gripper can move both in Z-axis direction and orthogonal thereto), and the second moving mechanism moves the tool exchange arm (gripper arm 93) in the second movement direction using a fluid pressure cylinder (94).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Yoshida teaches that the tool exchange arm (gripper arm 93) includes an arm rotation shaft (swivel center; see paragraph [0051]) that is driven to rotate (see Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C) and a first gripping unit (left gripping portion in circle A in Fig. 5A) and a second gripping unit (right gripping portion in circle A) that are fixed to the arm rotation shaft so as to each grip a tool (tool illustrated in Fig. 5B supported within respective gripping units), the first gripping unit projects in a radial direction of the arm rotation shaft (see Fig. 5A), and the second gripping unit (right gripping unit in Fig. 5A) projects in the radial direction at an angular interval of less than 180 degrees from the first gripping unit in a rotation direction of the arm rotation shaft (both gripping units shown on same/upper half of the circle, such that both are understood to project radially from one another within 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Yoshida teaches that the tool exchange arm (gripper arm 93) includes an arm rotation shaft (swivel center; see paragraph [0051]) that is driven to rotate (see Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C) and a first gripping unit (left gripping portion in circle A in Fig. 5A) and a second gripping unit (right gripping portion in circle A) that are fixed to the arm rotation shaft so as to each grip a tool (tool illustrated in Fig. 5B supported within respective gripping units), the first gripping unit projects in a radial direction of the arm rotation shaft (see Fig. 5A), and the second gripping unit (right gripping unit in Fig. 5A) projects in the radial direction at an angular interval of less than 180 degrees from the first gripping unit in a rotation direction of the arm rotation shaft (both gripping units shown on same/upper half of the circle, such that both are understood to project radially from one another within 180 degrees).
Claims 7-8
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0296047 to Jung (hereinafter ”Jung”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly disclose that the standard tool magazine is driven to rotate about a magazine rotation shaft.
However, such tool magazines which are rotate are conventional.
For example, Jung teaches a conventional tool magazine. Jung teaches a tool changing apparatus (1) which includes a wheel magazine (110) which carries a plurality of tools (101). The wheel magazine (110) may be driven to rotate about a rotational axis (D1; see paragraph [0058]), and Jung teaches that the magazine may rotate about a central magazine shaft (see paragraph [0056]; centre axle may replace triangular frame support 115). Jung teaches that additional magazines (also 110; four wheels shown in Fig. 3) may be added in the axial direction of the magazine, expanding the number of tools (see paragraph [0063] and Fig. 3) which can be supported with only a slight increase in space required (see paragraph [0029]). Jung teaches that its tool magazines may be indexed to allow a gripper to select and retrieve tools from a retrieval position (see paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Yoshida and Lee Tech to include a conventional tool magazine shape, such as a wheeled tool magazine as taught by Jung. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would allow for the retrieval of tools supported by the gripper devices of Yoshida along a retrieval direction while reducing the overall increased amount of space necessary for storing tools.
Thus, the combination of Yoshida, Lee Tech, and Jung teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yoshida and Lee Tech teaches the limitations of claim 2, however the combination does not explicitly disclose that the standard tool magazine is driven to rotate about a magazine rotation shaft.
Tool magazines which rotate are conventional. For example, Jung teaches a conventional tool magazine. Jung teaches a tool changing apparatus (1) which includes a wheel magazine (110) which carries a plurality of tools (101). The wheel magazine (110) may be driven to rotate about a rotational axis (D1; see paragraph [0058]), and Jung teaches that the magazine may rotate about a central magazine shaft (see paragraph [0056]; centre axle may replace triangular frame support 115). Jung teaches that additional magazines (also 110; four wheels shown in Fig. 3) may be added in the axial direction of the magazine, expanding the number of tools (see paragraph [0063] and Fig. 3) which can be supported with only a slight increase in space required (see paragraph [0029]). Jung teaches that its tool magazines may be indexed to allow a gripper to select and retrieve tools from a retrieval position (see paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Yoshida and Lee Tech to include a conventional tool magazine shape, such as a wheeled tool magazine as taught by Jung. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would allow for the retrieval of tools supported by the gripper devices of Yoshida along a retrieval direction while reducing the overall increased amount of space necessary for storing tools.
Thus, the combination of Yoshida, Lee Tech, and Jung teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0347461 to Yoshida teaches a machine tool (see Figs. 1 to 4) comprising: a tool spindle (101) on which a tool (102, 103, 104) for machining is mounted exchangeably (see paragraph [0031]); a tool housing apparatus (see Fig. 1) having a standard tool magazine (select a rack 4; see paragraph [0031]) in which a plurality of tools (102, 103, 104) to be mounted on the tool spindle are housed (paragraph [0031]); and a tool exchanging apparatus (6) having a tool exchange arm (arms 61, 81) that grips the tool (tool gripper 93; see paragraph [0040]), but does not explicitly disclose using a rack and pinion for moving a tool exchanging arm.
United States Patent 3,412,459 to Hollis teaches a tool changing device having a tool magazine (20) and a tool carrier (see Fig. 12) which grips a tool for movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights