DETAILED ACTION
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 subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
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 “tool changing device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “preferably …” in line 1. (also in claims 3, 6, 11) It is unclear if the limitation after preferably is part of the claim or not.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a defined machining tool and/or machining profile”. It is unclear if the machining tool and/or profile is the same tool or profile of claim 5 or not.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “in particular …” in line 3. (also in claim 11) It is unclear if the limitation after preferably is part of the claim or not.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a machining operation”, “a tool device”. It is unclear if the limitations are referring to the machining operation and/or the tool device of claim 1 or different operation or device.
All dependent claims of above-mentioned claims inherit all of the limitations of the above-mentioned claims. Thus, the claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kessel (DE 3205899).
Regarding claim 1, Kessel discloses a machining device (Fig. 1-6: focusing on embodiment shown in Fig. 5-6) for machining a workpiece (70) that preferably consists at least in parts of wood, wood materials, plastic or the like, comprising: at least one machining unit with a tool device (49 – rotating cutting tool) for machining the workpiece, a sensor device (51- “without to come into mechanical contact with the workpiece, e.g. electromagnetic Paths (radar), on ultrasound paths or if the workpiece is made of electrically conductive Material consists or has a metal layer following the profile, on electrical (capacitive) ways, and which switches the distance between the axis of rotation of the Try to keep the tool and the surface of the workpiece constant.”) for contactless detection of a surface (surface of 70) of the workpiece to be machined, wherein the tool device can be controlled to carry out a machining operation based on a detection result of the sensor device (“There is at least one member for scanning the profile of the workpiece. Furthermore, there are means, controlled by this scanning member, for moving the tool through the workpiece at a certain depth from the profiled surface.” … “It is noted that for all movements of the tool also either Sensors or switches can be used. Sometimes just one is enough Sensor.”).
Regarding claim 3, Kessel discloses the machining device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor device (51) is configured to detect a distance to the surface (“But as soon as the sensor 51 has reached the prescribed distance from the horizontal workpiece part 70, the shut-off valve 62 is closed again, so that the downward movement of the carrier 48 comes to a stop, and the carriage or carriage 47 then continues to the right moves, which has the consequence that the horizontal workpiece part 70 sawed through or - is sanded.”) and/or a contour of the surface of the workpiece, and preferably comprises at least one distance sensor and/or at least one camera.
Regarding claim 4, Kessel discloses the machining device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor device (51) is arranged upstream of the tool device in a machining direction (see Fig. 5 arrow to the right direction is the moving direction).
Regarding claim 10, Kessel discloses the machining device according to claim 1, wherein the tool device comprises a pressing device, an adhesive application device, a scraper and/or a milling tool (“a rotating cutting tool, e.g. a circular saw, a grinding disc or a milling cutter.”), in particular for contour milling or form milling.
Regarding claim 11, Kessel discloses a method (Fig. 1-6) for machining a workpiece that preferably consists at least in parts of wood, wood materials, plastic or the like, in particular using a machining device according to claim 1, comprising the steps of: contactlessly detecting a surface of the workpiece by means of a sensor device (51), determining an actual position of the surface of the workpiece based on a detection result of the sensor device (“In operation, the carrier 48 with the tool 49 is initially through the Carriage or carriage 47 is moved to the right at the height shown until a resilient Button 68 actuates the micro limit switch 52a. The carriage or sled will then stopped and the shut-off valve 62, which has been closed until then, is opened, so that the carrier with the axis of rotation of the tool in the adjusted distance of the first vertical part 69 of the workpiece 50 itself with the speed determined by the throttle member 63 along this part, so that this part is sawn through or sanded. But as soon as the sensor 51 has reached the prescribed distance from the horizontal workpiece part 70, the shut-off valve 62 is closed again, so that the downward movement of the carrier 48 comes to a stop, and the carriage or carriage 47 then continues to the right moves, which has the consequence that the horizontal workpiece part 70 sawed through or - is sanded.
The movement to the right continues until the button 68 hits the micro limit switch 52b actuated. This results in the carriage or carriage 47 coming to a standstill again arrives and the shut-off valve 62 is opened again, so that the carrier with the Tool 49 is lowered along the workpiece part 71 at the set distance. This downward movement is continued until the sensor 51 is in the prescribed Distance above a set control surface (not visible) has reached and thereby the machine is shut down. The workpiece part 71 is then also sawn through or -grinded”), and controlling the workpiece and/or the machining unit (49) into a target position in order to carry out a machining operation on the workpiece, wherein a tool device (49) is controlled based on the detection result such that the machining operation is carried out by a first machining profile (profile of 49) or by at least one further machining profile of the tool device.
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.
Claim 2, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessel in view of Rose (EP 1387743).
Regarding claim 2. Kessel discloses the machining device according to claim 1.
Although Kessel discloses that the rotating cutter is a circular saw, a grinding disc or a milling cutter and a tool changing device (48 which changes the tool location). Kessel fails to disclose wherein the tool device comprises a multi-profile tool.
Rose teaches an edge milling unit that is multi-profiled tool (4. 4 has multiple profiles 8 as shown in Fig. 3) and a tool changing device (9 shaft 9 is interpreted as a tool changing device under broadest reasonable interpretation since the shaft 9 accepts the tool 4 that changes the rotation of 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool device or Kessel with the multi-profile tool as taught by Rose to “provide a plurality of stages which are different in diameter in order to adapt to different milling conditions” (Rose).
Regarding claim 5, Kessel discloses the machining device according to claim 1.
Although Kessel discloses the tool device comprises a machining tool (49 is a machining tool) and that the tool device is a circular saw, a grinding disc or a milling cutter. Kessel fails to disclose wherein the tool device comprises the machining tool (22) with a first machining profile (23) and at least one further machining profile (23).
Rose teaches an edge milling unit that is multi-profiled tool (4. 4 has multiple profiles 8 as shown in Fig. 3) with a first machining profile (first profile of 8) and at least one further machining profile (2nd profile of 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool device or Kessel with the multi-profile tool with first and second machining profile as taught by Rose to “provide a plurality of stages which are different in diameter in order to adapt to different milling conditions” (Rose).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kessel teaches the machining device according to claim 2, wherein the tool changing unit (48 which changes the tool location, Kessel) is configured to simultaneously or alternately receive at least two machining tools (each profile of 8 is a tool that makes different radius in a workpiece, Rose – see Fig. 3) with different machining profiles and to carry out the machining operation using in each case one of the machining tools.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Kessel teaches the machining device according to claim 5, wherein a control device (“ control device of the tool carrier”, Kessel) is furthermore provided, which is configured to, based on the detection result of the sensor device (51, Kessel), transfer the tool device (4 as modified by Rose) into a target position and control the machining operation by the first machining profile (“There is at least one member for scanning the profile of the workpiece. Furthermore, there are means, controlled by this scanning member, for moving the tool through the workpiece at a certain depth from the profiled surface.” … “It is noted that for all movements of the tool also either Sensors or switches can be used. Sometimes just one is enough Sensor.”, “This prevents that in the event of a fault with the sensors 51 and possibly Limit switches provided control device of the tool carrier in incorrect Way comes into contact with the workpiece” – this indicates that based on the sensor 51 the tool is moved. So as modified, at least the control of the first machining profile is performed.) or the at least one further machining profile.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessel in view of Kalmbach (EP 1044772).
Regarding claim 6, Kessel discloses machining device according to claim 1.
Although Kessel discloses the tool device comprises a machining tool (49 is a machining tool), Kessel fails to disclose wherein the tool device comprises a first machining tool with a first machining profile and at least one further machining tool with a further machining profile, and preferably at least one of the machining tools is moveable between an operating position and a rest position.
Kalmbach teaches a machining device (Fig. 1-6) comprising a tool device comprises a first machining tool (3) with a first machining profile (4) and at least one further machining tool (1) with a further machining profile (2), and preferably at least one of the machining tools is moveable between an operating position and a rest position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the machining tool of Kessel to have first and second machining tool each having a machining profile as taught by Kalmbach in order to provide variations in machining to make different radius in the workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts are silent to the machining device according to claim 8, wherein the control device (19) is configured to control the tool device (21) such that, based on the detection result, a defined machining tool (22, 25, 26) and/or machining profile (23, 27, 28) is selected and transferred into the target position and/or the defined machining tool (22, 25, 26) and/or machining profile (23, 27, 28) is kept at a target distance to the surface (16) of the workpiece (11) during the machining operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. 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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights