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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 9, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the additions of the reference character 114 to plural occurrences in the specification to refer to “electric actuator” or “electric actuator(s)” (or alternatively, noting Applicant’s remarks in the last paragraph of the first page of remarks filed with the 7/9/2026 response, to refer to “one ore more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator(s)”), such as at least each of paragraphs 0025 (plural occurrences in paragraph 0025), 0027, 0029, 0032, and 0034.
In particular, it is noted that in the specification as originally filed, reference character 114 was only described as “pneumatic cylinders” (which pneumatic cylinders were shown in Figures 4-5 as originally filed). See, for example, paragraphs 0032 and 0034 and Figures 4-5. That said, the specification as filed did not expressly teach that the disclosed electric actuator(s) and/or the disclosed hydraulic actuator(s) have the same configuration as the elements depicted in Figures 4-5 as 114 that were originally disclosed as pneumatic cylinders. Furthermore, such is not inherent, noting that it is not inherent that a given hydraulic actuator or electric actuator have the same configuration as the pneumatic cylinders 114 shown in Figures 4-5 and disclosed in paragraphs 0032, 0034, as opposed to the hydraulic and/or electric actuator(s) having a different size (length and/or diameter, for example), or as opposed to the hydraulic actuator(s) not being a hydraulic cylinder, or as opposed to the electric actuator(s) not having the same configuration as a pneumatic cylinder but instead including a rotary motor and feed screw, for example. All that being said, the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the changes to the specification that were filed on July 9, 2026 (to add the reference character 114 in locations that indicate that element 114 is something other than a pneumatic cylinder, e.g., one or more electric actuator(s), or one or more hydraulic actuator(s)).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the specification as filed does not appear to provide (literal) antecedent basis for the following terms/limitations:
“pallet storage system” in claim 1;
“an openable enclosure” in claim 11 {while it is noted that chip guard 117 is disclosed as being able to be moved along tracks 116 by means of motor 118 and can be extended and retracted in order to provide protection for the pallets 110 from swarf and coolant generated by the CNC machine processes, the specification does not use the term “openable enclosure”, such that Applicant may wish to consider amending paragraph 0036 to refer to “chip guard 117 (i.e., openable enclosure)…” in order to provide antecedent basis for this claim term}.
Drawings
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):
arrangements in which the pallet loader includes any other combination other than two pneumatic actuators (configured to move the pallet gripper as claimed), as set forth in claim 1 in the limitation “one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator” (and as set forth in claim 8), noting that the drawings do not show any hydraulic actuator, nor do they show any electric actuator, nor do the drawings show combinations of such encompassed by the limitation “one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator”;
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “105” has been used to designate different structures. In particular, note that the element indicated in Figure 2 as “105” is not the same element that is indicated in Figures 1 and 3 as “105”. 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In each of claims 1-11 (some of these claims have plural occurrences), the term “CNC machine” is used, which term includes the acronym “CNC”. That said, it is unclear as claimed precisely what the acronym “CNC” is intended to stand for (e.g., computerized numerically controlled; centralized network controlled; etc.). In the event that such is intended to stand for “Computer Numerical Control” (mentioned in paragraph 0001 of the specification), Applicant may wish to consider spelling that out in at least the first occurrence of CNC for the term “CNC machine”. For example, in the event that such is in keeping with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider using language such as --Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine--, for the first occurrence of the term in the claims, and then using the terms CNC machine for any subsequent occurrences.
The term “securely” in claim 1 (in the limitation “a pallet gripper…configured to securely connect to a pallet”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “securely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how “securely” a given connection of a pallet gripper to a pallet must be capable of being in order to be included by the term, vs. how insecure a given connection of a pallet gripper to a pallet must be in order to be excluded by the claim language. It is further unclear what specific qualities a given connection must have (or lack) in order to meet the term “securely connect” vs. what specific qualities a given connection must have (or lack) in order to be excluded by the term.
In claim 1, the claim sets forth “wherein the pallet loader system is configured to move at least between a machine worktable of the CNC machine and a pallet storage system”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a pallet storage system” is intended to go, i.e., “a machine worktable of”, or “move at least between”, as in “wherein the pallet loader system is configured to move at least between a machine worktable of the CNC machine and” (a machine worktable of) “a pallet storage system”, vs. wherein the pallet loader system is configured to move at least between: (i) a machine worktable of the CNC machine, and (ii) a pallet storage system.
In each of claims 2-11, the claim sets forth “[T]he pallet loader system for a CNC machine”. However, noting that claim 1 already previously mentioned a CNC machine in lines 1 and 12 thereof, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a CNC machine” in each of claims 2-11 is intended to refer to the same CNC machine previously mentioned in claim 1, vs. whether the mention of “a CNC machine” in each of claims 2-11 is instead intended to refer to an additional/different CNC machine.
There are several positively recited limitations that lack sufficient antecedent bases in the claims. Examples of this are:
“the CNC machine” in claim 2 (noting that it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to refer to the CNC machine that was mentioned in claim 1, or whether such is instead intended to refer to the CNC machine that was mentioned in claim 2, line 1);
“the pallets” in claim 4 (in the limitation “at least one of the pallets”) (noting that claim 4 previously mentioned “a plurality of pallets”, and also noting that claim 1 previously mentioned a pallet, such that it is unclear as set forth in the limitation “at least one of the pallets” in claim 4 whether such does or does not include the pallet previously referenced in claim 1, i.e., in addition to the pallets of the plurality of pallets set forth in claim 4);
“the CNC machine” in claim 10 (noting that it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to refer to the CNC machine that was mentioned in claim 1, or whether such is instead intended to refer to the CNC machine that was mentioned in claim 10, line 1); and
“the system” in claim 10 (noting that plural systems were previously recited, such that it is unclear as claimed whether “the system” in claim 10 is intended to refer to the previously-recited “pallet loader system”, or whether “the system” in claim 10 is instead intended to refer to the previously-mentioned “pallet storage system” mentioned in line 12 of claim 1).
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 5, (multiple occurrences in the last three lines of the claim), and in claim 8, line 3, it is unclear as claimed what effect the term “zero-point” is intended to have on the scope of the claim. In particular, it is unclear as claimed what specific structure(s) or configuration(s) are intended to be required vs. excluded via this the use of this term.
In claim 6, the claim sets forth that “the pallet storage system comprises multiple levels each having at least one pallet tray disposed thereon”. However, claim 6 depends from claim 4, which recites “wherein the pallet storage system comprises at least one pallet tray configured to hold a plurality of pallets, and wherein the pallet gripper is configured to engage and remove at least one of the pallets from the at least one pallet tray”. That said, it is unclear as set forth in claim 6 whether the recited “at least one pallet tray” is intended to be required to be additional to the “at least one pallet tray” previously set forth in claim 4, or whether “at least one pallet tray” in claim 6 is intended to be required to include the “at least one pallet tray” that was previously set forth in claim 4.
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein each at least one pallet tray comprises a plurality of pallets”. However, claim 7 depends from claim 4, which recites “wherein the pallet storage system comprises at least one pallet tray configured to hold a plurality of pallets, and wherein the pallet gripper is configured to engage and remove at least one of the pallets from the at least one pallet tray”. However, it is unclear as set forth in claim 7 whether “a plurality of pallets” is intended to be the same as any of the previously claimed pallets (and if so, which subset of the previously-recited pallets is intended to be referenced is unclear), or whether “a plurality of pallets” in claim 7 is instead intended to be additional to all of the pallets that were previously mentioned in the claim(s).
In claim 8, the claim sets forth the functional or intended use limitation “wherein the pallet gripper is configured to avoid crashing into the zero-point chuck by a movement of the one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “by a movement of the… actuator” is intended to reference, as the claim literally says, movement that is of the actuator (i.e., the actuator(s) such as 114 itself moves via, for example, movement of the CNC machine spindle housing 101), or whether the limitation instead intends to reference movement (of something else) that is caused by the actuator(s). Furthermore, it is unclear as claimed with what “by a movement of the one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator” is intended to go, i.e., configured to avoid (by), vs. crashing (by).
In claim 10, the claim sets forth “wherein the system does not alter an overall footprint of the CNC machine”. As noted above, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “the system” is intended to refer to the “pallet loader system”, or is instead intended to refer to the “pallet storage system”, both previously set forth in the claim(s). That said, furthermore, there is no frame of reference provided for determining relative to what point in time or how or in what regard the overall footprint of the CNC machine is not “altered” by either of the pallet loader system or the pallet storage system, i.e., “altered” as compared to what or altered as compared to when, or “altered” how or in what regard, etc.?
Claims 7 and 11 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 7, the claim sets forth “wherein each at least one pallet tray comprises a plurality of pallets”. However, claim 7 depends from claim 4, which recites “wherein the pallet storage system comprises at least one pallet tray configured to hold a plurality of pallets, and wherein the pallet gripper is configured to engage and remove at least one of the pallets from the at least one pallet tray”. Note that in claim 4, the claim requires “at least one pallet tray configured to hold a plurality of pallets”, whereas claim 7 indicates that “each at least one pallet tray comprises a plurality of pallets”. As best understood from the specification and drawings, it appears that the pallets 110 are merely held on (as set forth in claim 4) the pallet trays 107, 108, 109, rather than being part of the trays 107, 108, 109 (as set forth in claim 7), such that it does not appear that the specification as filed provides support for the pallet trays 107, 108, 109 each “comprising” a plurality of pallets 110 (as set forth in claim 7). See Figures 3 and 6, as well as at least paragraphs 0029-0030 and 0036, for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-11, 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. 2022/0288736 to Cai et al. (hereinafter, “Cai”) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter, “AAPA”), or alternatively, over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0288736 to Cai et al. (hereinafter, “Cai”) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter, “AAPA”) and in view of the article “The History of CNC Machining” by Team Xometry (hereinafter “Team Xometry”).
Cai teaches a pallet loader system (see, for example, Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0020 and 0022, noting that the “tooling sub-boards” 4 that are described as being for fixing the workpiece 9 are pallets) for a machine (such as a machine tool, and considered to be at least inherently capable of being used “for” a CNC machine as broadly claimed, simply by providing a machine tool of the same configuration as that taught by Cai, and that happens to utilize computer numerical control to control the various movements of the machine, for example), comprising:
a spindle (the machining main spindle, provided within the spindle ram, and described in at least the abstract, paragraph 0004, 0020, 0022, 0027-0028, and 0032-0033, for example) disposed at least partially within a spindle housing (the housing of the main spindle ram, described in at least paragraph 0022 and 0028, and on which the main spindle jaw loading and unloading system 6 is mounted; see Figures 1, 5-9, and at least paragraphs 0020, 0022, 0027-0028, for example);
a pallet loader (604+605, both being part of the main spindle jaw loading and unloading mechanism 6, for example; see Figures 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, and 1, as well as at least paragraphs 0020 and 0027-0028) configured to be mounted to the (aforedescribed) spindle housing of the spindle, such that the pallet loader (604+605) moves with the spindle (such as when the spindle moves vertically; see Figures 1, 5-9, and at least the abstract, and paragraphs 0004, 0020, 0022, 0027-0028, and 0032-0033, for example; also, particularly, compare Figures 6 and 7, noting the difference in vertical position of the spindle ram to which 6, as well as 604+605 thereof, is mounted, and noting that 6 moves vertically with that spindle ram);
a pallet gripper (603) disposed on a portion of the pallet loader (604+605) (see Figures 5-9 as well as at least paragraphs 0020 and 0027-0028) and configured to “securely” (as broadly claimed) connect to a pallet (4) (see at least paragraphs 0020, 0027-0028, 0029, 0032-0033, noting that the clamping structure/gripper 603 is used to grip the engaging grooves 405 of the pallet/tooling sub-board 4 so as to be able to pick up 4; see also Figures 1-3, and particularly Figure 2 in which the engaging grooves 405 are labeled); and
one or more of actuator (of the piston/cylinder variety, with piston rod 602 thereof being shown in at least Figure 9; see Figure 9 and paragraphs 0027-0028, claim 4 of the Cai reference, and paragraph 0020, as well as paragraph 0006) configured to move the pallet gripper (603) in a vertical z direction relative to the (aforedescribed) spindle (see Figures 6-7 and 8-9, as well as at least paragraphs 0027-0028, claim 4 of the Cai reference, as well as paragraphs 0020 and 0006, for example);
wherein the pallet loader system (claimed as the aforedescribed spindle, in combination with the pallet loader 604+605, the pallet gripper 603, and the aforedescribed actuator) is configured to moving (i.e., capable of moving) at least “between” (such as in an area or location that is in some capacity located “between”) a machine worktable (such as, for example, the worktable labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “WT”) of the “CNC” machine and a pallet storage system (such as, for example, the pallet storage system labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “PSS”; see, for example, paragraphs 0020, 0022) (see, for example, Figures 1-9, and paragraphs 0020, 00222-0025, 0027-0033, for example).
[AltContent: textbox (Q2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Q1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
542
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (PSS)]
[AltContent: textbox (WT)]
However, while Cai does teach the piston/cylinder type actuator described above that is used to move the pallet gripper 603 in a vertical direction relative to the spindle, Cai does not expressly teach what medium is used to actuate the movement of the piston/piston rod, and thus, does not expressly teach that the actuator is one or more of “pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric”, as set forth in claim 1.
However, in the Office Action mailed March 11, 2026, Examiner took Official Notice that the use of pneumatic, hydraulic, and/or electric actuation of actuators is extremely well-known and widely-used, and that actuators that are powered by of or more of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric sources are well-known and widely available. Also note that this assertion (that the use of pneumatic, hydraulic, and/or electric actuation of actuators is extremely well-known and widely-used, and that actuators that are powered by of or more of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric sources are well-known and widely available) is taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant did not previously traverse the Examiner’s assertion. See MPEP section 2144.03, section C, 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 made the above-described piston/cylinder type actuator taught by Cai be one or more of pneumatic, hydraulic, and/or electric, as is well-known (per AAPA), for the purpose of providing a readily available power source and actuation arrangement for the piston/cylinder actuator of Cai, and also noting that such amounts to the simple substitution of one known element (an actuator that is powered by one or more of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric sources) for another (the piston/cylinder actuator with unknown power source taught by Cai) to obtain the predictable result of the actuator being powered so as to be able to function to cause the vertical movements of the pallet gripper 603 as taught by Cai and as described above, i.e., the resultant and salient vertical linear movements of 603 are unchanged in the modification.
Regarding whether or not the machine/machining center taught by Cai is a CNC machine, it is noted that the present claims are directed to a pallet loader system having an intended use “for” a CNC machine, and that the present claims do not actually appear to require the claimed CNC machine. In other words, as long as the pallet loader system is capable of use with a CNC machine, and as long as the pallet loader system is merely capable of moving at least between a CNC machine worktable and a pallet storage system, the claim language of claim 1 re the CNC machine is met (and similarly, it is noted that the pallet storage system mentioned in claim 1 is only mentioned in a functional/intended use type limitation, and does not appear to be required in order to meet the claim, though Cai does teach such).
That being said, the pallet loader system (described above) of Cai is considered to be at least inherently capable of being used with a machine that is operated via CNC, simply by using such with a machine that has CNC capabilities, such as, for example, a machine that looks exactly like the machine taught by Cai and that happens to also be described as CNC (as discussed above).
In the alternative, in the event that it is held that the CNC machine is actually required in order to meet claim 1, then it is noted that Cai is silent as to whether the machine/machine tool is or is not a CNC machine tool.
However, regarding the use of CNC, attention is directed to the Team Xometry article which teaches that the use of CNC in machining centers is known (see pages 2-3), teaches that first CNC machine was developed in 1952 (see page 3 of Team Xometry), and also teaches that the objective of CNC machining “is to produce parts in a repeatable manner with as little human intervention as possible” which “ultimately results in lower cost per part while maintaining high levels of quality (see page 4 of Team Xometry).
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 made the machining center taught by Cai be, specifically, a CNC machining center, as is known (as taught by Team Xometry), for the purpose of enabling the production of parts “in a repeatable manner with as little human intervention as possible” which “ultimately results in lower cost per part while maintaining high levels of quality” (as per page 4 of Team Xometry).
Regarding claim 2, it is noted that it appears that claim 2 merely sets forth a more specific intended use, noting that claim 2 likewise does not appear to require that the pallet loader system includes the CNC machine, but rather, merely indicates that the pallet loader system is “for” a CNC machine that is, specifically, a “five axis CNC machine” (as broadly claimed). However, regardless of whether the CNC machine is actually required, it is noted that both possibilities (i.e., the pallet loader system merely has to be capable of performing the claimed function(s)/intended use(s) re the CNC machine, vs. whether the claim actually requires the machine, and specifically, a CNC machine) were addressed in the above rejection of claim 1. Regarding whether or not the machine/machining center taught by Cai is a “five axis” machine, it is noted that, as broadly claimed, the machine/machining center taught by Cai is a three-dimensional object, and as such, has an infinite number of axes that pass therethrough, including at least five axes, such as the X, Y, and Z translational axes described by Cai, as well as the axes Q1 and Q2 labeled above (regardless of exactly where those axes pass through the machining center), as well as, for example, a vertical axis that passes through the center of 8, a vertical axis that passes through the center of the spindle ram, and a horizontal axis perpendicular to Q1 that passes through the machining center, for example. See Figure 7 and at least paragraphs 0032, 0033, the abstract, 0004, 0006, 0022, 0027, 0031, and claims 1 and 4 of Cai, for example.
Regarding claim 3, the pallet gripper (603) is configured to detach from and dispose the pallet (4) on the machine worktable (WT) (so that the zero-point positioning device 8 that is provided on the worktable WT can fix the pallet/tooling sub-board 4 to the workpiece table WT by gasping the pull stud bolt 403; see Figures 1-9, particularly noting that 603 of 6 is labeled in Figure 8, the zero point positioning device 8 is labeled in Figure 3 and shown in at least Figures 4-5, the pull stud bolt 403 of the pallet/tooling sub-board is labeled in Figure 3; see also paragraphs 0020, 0022-0024, 0027-0033, for example).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that it does not appear that the claim actually requires the pallet storage system in order to be met, as long as the prior art is capable of performing the more specific claimed function or intended use of the pallet loader system being able to move at least “between” a machine worktable and a pallet storage system that has the configuration set forth in claim 4. That being said, it is noted that Cai teaches that the pallet storage system (PSS, labeled above) comprises at least one pallet “tray” (such as, for example, “tray” 1; see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0020 and 0022, for example) configured to hold a plurality of pallets (4) (see Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0020, 0022-0024, for example), and wherein the pallet gripper (603) is configured to engage and retrieve at least one of the pallets (4) (that is/are) “from” (at some point, i.e., the pallet was in the tray 1 at some point in time) the at least one pallet tray (1). See, for example, Figures 1-3, noting that the pallets 4 each have engaging grooves 405 configured to be gripped by the pallet gripper 603 (which 603 is part of 6; see Figures 1, 5-9). See, for example, paragraphs 0020-0033, noting that auxiliary jaw loading and unloading system 5 has jaws 502 that grabs one of the pallets 4 while the pallet 4 is on the tray 1. See Figure 5 and paragraph 0031. The worktable WT is then moved (from the position shown in Figure 5, to, for example, the position shown in Figure 6). See Figures 5-6 and paragraph 0032. The clamping structure/pallet gripper 603 of the main spindle jaw loading and unloading system 6 is then engaged with the engaging groove 405 of the pallet 4 and takes out the pallet 4 from the auxiliary jaw loading and unloading system 5. See Figure 6 and paragraph 0032, for example. Then the worktable WT moves (from the position shown in Figure 6 to the position shown in Figure 7) to below the main spindle jaw loading and unloading system 6, to a position such that the zero-point positioning/clamping device 8 is below the pallet 4, and then the aforedescribed piston/cylinder type actuator (that has the piston rod 602) is actuated to lower the pallet 4 onto the worktable such that the pull stud 403 is received in and clamped by the zero point positioning/clamping device 8. See Figure 7, as well as at least paragraphs 0033, 0022, 0020, 0023-0025, and 0027, for example. That being said, the pallet gripper 603 is configured to engage and retrieve at least one of the pallets 4 (that is at least ultimately) from the at least one pallet tray, as broadly claimed.
Additionally, regarding claim 7, (which depends from claim 4) each at least one pallet tray (1) comprises a plurality of pallets (4). See Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0020, 0022, and claim 1 of Cai.
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, the machine worktable (WT, labeled above) comprises a zero-point chuck (of 8; see Figures 1, 3, 4, and 5, for example, as well as at least paragraphs 0012-0013, 0020, 0023-0024, and claim 2 of Cai), and the pallet gripper (603) is configured to “position” and “detach from” the pallet (4), and is configured to dispose the pallet (4) on the zero-point chuck (8). See, for example, paragraphs 0020, 0022-0024, 0027-0028, and 0030-0033, for example.
Regarding claim 6 (which depends from claim 4), the pallet storage system (PSS, labeled above) comprises multiple “levels” each having “at least one pallet tray” (as broadly claimed) (such as, for example, pallet “trays” 2) disposed thereon. For example, attention is directed to Figure 1, noting that the pallet tray (1) described above has a plurality of fixing bases or (smaller) “pallet trays” (as broadly claimed) (2) provided thereon. See also, for example, paragraphs 0020, 0022. Each fixing base or “pallet tray” (2) includes a respective “chute” (201) and a respective pair of “engaging members” (202). See Figure 2 and paragraphs 0029-0031, as well as claim 5 of Cai. Note that the pallet storage system (PSS, labeled above) comprises multiple “levels”, as broadly claimed, noting that an infinite number of horizontal levels/planes pass therethrough, such as, for example, the horizontal levels labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2 below as L1, L2, L3, for example. Note that each of the levels L1, L2, L3 labeled below passes through each of the pallet trays (2) (see Figure 2 below, and see also Figure 1, noting the configuration of element 1 and all of the elements 2). Thus, the pallet storage system (PSS) comprises multiple “levels” (such as, for example, L1, L2, L3) each having at least one pallet tray (2) disposed thereon (noting that each level L1, L2, L3 has all eight of the pallet trays 2 shown in Figure 1 disposed thereon; see Figure 1 as well as the annotated reproduction of Figure 2 below).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, (which depends from claim 6), it is noted that the pallet storage system (PSS) comprises at least three “levels” (such as, for example, the aforedescribed levels L1, L2, L3), as broadly claimed.
[AltContent: textbox (L3)][AltContent: textbox (L2)][AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
376
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the pallet gripper (603) is configured to (i.e., capable of) avoid(ing) crashing into the zero-point chuck (8) “by” a movement of the one or more of (the aforedescribed) pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator (i.e., the piston/cylinder actuator having piston rod 602, described by Cai), as broadly claimed, simply by avoiding such crashing simply by only actuating movements of the aforedescribed piston/cylinder actuator in a manner that would cause 603 to “crash” into the zero-point chuck of 8, and/or simply by actuating movements of the aforedescribed piston/cylinder actuator in a manner that causes 603 to drop off a pallet 4 to the zero-point system 8, as described in, for example paragraphs 0033, 0012-0013, 0020, and 0023-0024, for example, and as shown in Figure 7.
Regarding claim 10, “the” system does not “alter” an overall footprint of the CNC machine, such as the footprint of the machine as viewed from above, such as “altered” from the footprint that exists re Figure 7 of Cai. See Figure 7, and see also paragraph 0033, for example.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that it does not appear that the claim actually requires the pallet storage system, but merely recites a more specific intended use/function, i.e., that the pallet loader system is (merely) capable of moving at least “between” a machine worktable and a pallet storage system, which pallet storage system comprises an openable enclosure to provide protection for the plurality of pallets. It is noted that the pallet loader system of Cai is considered to be at least inherently capable of use with such a pallet storage system, such as a pallet storage system that is like PSS labeled above, and that has an openable enclosure configured to provide protection for the plurality of pallets 4, simply by providing the pallet loader system to a machining center and pallet storage system that is identical to that shown by Cai, except for the pallet storage system additionally comprising such an openable enclosure having an openable window/door through which 5 can reach to transport pallets, for example.
Alternatively regarding claim 11, (which depends from claim 7) Cai, or (Cai in view of Team Xometry as described above), in the event that it is held that the pallet storage system is required in order to meet the claim, it is noted that Cai does not teach that the pallet storage system (PSS, labeled above) comprises an openable enclosure configured to provide protection for the plurality of pallets (4).
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of openable enclosures/barriers for pallet and workpiece storage systems that are configured to provide protection for the plurality of pallets and workpieces are well-known and widely used for achieving the well-known benefit of protecting the pallets, workpieces, and internal components of the pallet storage system from getting dirty (from swarf or coolant or the like from the machining being carried out by the tool spindle of the machining center) or getting damaged by flying debris, parts, or the like.
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 an openable enclosure to/for the pallet storage system (PSS, labeled above) taught by Cai, as is well-known, which openable enclosure is configured to provide protection for the plurality of pallets (4) taught by Cai, for the purpose of achieving the well-known benefit(s) of protecting the pallets, workpieces, and internal components of the pallet storage system from getting dirty (from swarf or coolant or the like from the machining being carried out by the tool spindle of the machining center) or getting damaged by flying debris, parts, or the like.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show arrangements in which the pallet loader includes any other combination other than two pneumatic actuators (configured to move the pallet gripper as claimed), as set forth in claim 1 in the limitation “one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator” (and as set forth in claim 8), noting that the drawings do not show any hydraulic actuator, nor do they show any electric actuator, nor do the drawings show combinations of such encompassed by the limitation “one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator”, Applicant has (on page 1 of the remarks filed 7/9/2026) indicated that the specification has been amended to add the label 114 to “one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator”, and that thus, 114 is the depiction of the claimed subject matter re the “one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator”, such is not persuasive, noting that 114 is merely pneumatic cylinders. Attention is also directed to the above objection to the specification under 35 USC 132(a) for the introduction of new matter into the specification re the amendments to the specification that were filed 7/9/2026.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a), Applicant indicates that the claims have been amended to address the concerns. However, attention is directed to the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) for any issues with respect thereto that either remain, or that were newly created via the amendment filed 7/9/2026.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims and the DE 19747995 A1 reference that was previously applied have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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. 2022/0274219 to Chen et al. teaches a machining center in which a workpiece handling/clamping device 2-8 is mounted to a side of the tool spindle ram.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights