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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 Oct 2025 has been entered.
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: “acquisition system” in claims 1 and 5.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-18, and 20-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a movement block for positioning each tool of said plurality of tools in series, configured to reciprocally move between said object and each said tool enabling each said tool to perform said processing” and “mutually moves between said object and said tool by defining said offset between said tool and said object.” It is unclear how moving a movement block between the object and tools achieves positioning of each tool or enables the tool to perform processing. No specific structure of the block is disclosed in the specification, making it difficult to determine the intended movement. From applicant’s arguments and specification, it appears that the intent is for the movement block to provide relative movement of each of the tools relative to the object, rather than movement of the block to a position between the object and tools. For the purposes of this examination, the movement block will be read as being capable of moving the tools relative to the object, as this appears to be applicant’s intent. See arguments below for further discussion.
Claim 5, similarly to claim 1 above, recites the movement block “for positioning each tool of said plurality of tools in series, configured to reciprocally move between said object and each said tool of said plurality of tools performing said processing.” This is unclear for substantially the same reasons as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Claim 5 further recites “said movement block reciprocally moves said object and said tool.” It is unclear how a single block can move both the object and tool and it is unclear what the desired movement is. No specific structure of the block is disclosed in the specification, making it difficult to determine the intended movement. It is further unclear how movement of the object would achieve the intent of the invention, as this would change the offset between the object and all the tools simultaneously, rather than correcting for the individually measured profiles of each tool. For the purposes of this examination, the movement block will be read as being capable of moving the tools relative to the object, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, and 22, each of these claims recite “said tool,” or “the tool.” However, the introduction of the antecedent basis for tools recites “a plurality of tools” in claims 1, 5, and 16. This makes it unclear if “said tool” or “the tool” refers to a single one of the tools or the entire plurality of tools. For the purposes of this examination, unless otherwise stated in the rejections below, each recitation of “the tool” or “said tool” will be read as referencing at least one of the plurality of tools, as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Claims 2, 4, 11, and 12 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 13-14 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 5.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, each of these claims is dependent upon claim 7, which has been cancelled. For the purposes of this examination, these claims will each be read as being dependent from claim 5.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the removal thickness" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is being referred to in this recitation and how it is intended to limit the claimed “incremental order.” For the purposes of this examination, this will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites “acquiring a current cutting profile of each tool of a plurality of tools configured to process in series according to incremental order with respect to the removal thickness of each of said tool the object” in lines 4-6. This is confusingly worded and unclear. In particular, the phrase “the removal thickness of each of said tool the object” is completely unclear. As discussed above, there is no antecedent basis for “the removal thickness,” and it is unclear how “the object” further defines the removal step or the acquiring step. For the purposes of this examination, this will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a thickness that each said tool can remove" in line 6. It is unclear how this thickness is defined. Is this a thickness intended to be removed from the object during machining? It seems the thickness that “can be” removed by the tools would be much greater than the thickness actually removed during a machining process. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites “positioning in series each tool of the plurality of tools relative to the object for reciprocally moving the object and each said tool of said plurality of tools.” This is confusingly worded and unclear. How can positioning each tool in series be done “for reciprocally moving the object and each said tool of said plurality of tools?” What does it mean for the positioning to be done “for” this purpose? The claim further recites “processing in series the object comprising reciprocally moving the object and each said tool of said plurality of tools by defining the offset between each said tool and the object.” This is unclear for similar reasons. While it appears the claim intends to define that the object is processed by tools that are positioned in series, it is unclear exactly what movements are intended to be defined by the claim. Applicant’s arguments appears to indicate that only the tool or the object must be moved in order to define the offset. However, the claim appears to indicate the movement of both the object and the tools. How can the offset for each of the tools be set individually if the entire object is moved relative to the tools? For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claims 17-18 and 20-22 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 16.
Claim 22, similarly to claims 1 and 5 above, recites the movement block “positions each tool of the plurality of tools in series… to reciprocally move between the object and each said tool of said plurality of tools performing said processing” and further recites “the reciprocally moving comprises moving each tool towards and away from the object” and “reciprocally moving by the movement block of the object and the tool by defining the offset between the tool and the object.” This is unclear for similar reasons as described in the rejections of claims 1 and 5 above. Specifically, it is unclear what the desired movement is. No specific structure of the block is disclosed in the specification, making it difficult to determine the intended movement. For the purposes of this examination, the movement block will be read as being capable of moving the tools relative to the object, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites the control unit “determines said offset of said tools in incremental order in relation to said removal thickness.” This is merely a slight rewording of “said control unit defines, for each tool of said plurality of tools and in incremental order with respect to the removal thickness, an offset between said object and said tool according to said final profile,” which is already recited in independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fava (WO 2011/107872, previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Fava teaches a processing procedure of an object made of stone material (p 1, lines 5-7) comprising the steps of placing and constraining the object (p 8, line 34- p 9, line 1; constrained to move along arrow A as shown in fig 1), acquiring a current cutting profile of each tool (elements 20, 21) of a plurality of tools (p 8, lines 2-11) configured to process the object in series according to incremental order (they are moved one by one relative to the workpiece p7, lines 2-5) with respect to a removal thickness of each said tool, each of said tools defining a removal thickness representing a thickness that said tool can remove (p 1, lines 20-24; each tool in succession grinds additional thickness from the object), evaluating, for each tool of said plurality of tools and in incremental order with respect to the removal thickness (p 8, lines 23-28; the tools are moved one by one to determine their profile, which is subsequently used to determine their position and offset), an offset (defines movement along direction D) between said object and said tool that is determined according to the removal thickness and the current cutting profile (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3; corrects errors in machining by taking into account detection of cutting profile and making adjustments to offset movement to remove material thickness to arrive at a final profile of workpiece), positioning in series each tool of the plurality of tools relative to the object (positioned in series as shown in fig 1) for reciprocally moving the object and each said tool of said plurality of tools (p 7, lines 17-21; as best understood, the movement block moves each of the tools relative to the object in order to perform processing), and processing in series the object comprising reciprocally moving each of said plurality of tools relative to the object (paragraph starting p 8, line 34) by defining said offset between said tool and said object (p8, lines 26-28), and having each of the tools remove from the object the respective removal thickness of each tool (the offset defines the location of the tool relative to the workpiece and therefore the thickness removed by each tool).
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(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fava (WO 2011/107872, previously cited) in view of Shibata (US 5738563, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Fava teaches a device for processing an object made of stone material (p 1, lines 5-7) comprising a workstation (1) for said object to be placed and constrained (fig 1; object 4); a plurality of tools (20, 21), each of said tools defining a removal thickness (p 1, lines 20-24; each tool in succession grinds additional thickness from the object), configured to process said object in series according to incremental order with respect to a removal thickness of each of said tool in said workstation (p 7, lines 2-5; each tool is moved one by one to grind additional thickness of the workpiece), a movement block (elements 27) for positioning each tool of said plurality of tools in series, configured to reciprocally move each said tool relative to the object enabling each said tool to perform said processing (p 7, lines 17-21; as best understood, the movement block moves each of the tools relative to the object in order to perform processing), a control unit (16) for said movement block (p 7, lines 19-21), the device capable of achieving a final profile of said object (the grinding and chamfering performed by the tools 20, 21 form a final profile on the object), and an acquisition system (elements 23-26) for acquiring a current cutting profile of each of said plurality of tools (p 8, lines 2-11), wherein said control unit defines, for each tool of said plurality of tools, and in incremental order with respect to the removal thickness (p 8, lines 23-28; the tools are moved one by one to determine their profile, which is subsequently used to determine their position and offset), an offset (defines movement along direction D) between said object and said tool according to said final profile, said removal thickness and the current cutting profile (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3; corrects errors in machining by taking into account detection of tool profile and making adjustments to offset movement to remove material arrive at final profile of workpiece), wherein said movement block (27) is configured to move at least one of said tools relative to said object by defining said offset between said tool and said object (p8, lines 26-28; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation).
Fava does not explicitly teach the movement block comprising a memory, or the final profile of said object stored in said memory. Shibata teaches a device for processing an object including a control unit (elements 13, 14) comprising a memory with a final profile of said object stored in said memory (col 6, lines 31-37 and 59-67; the final profile of the object is defined by “reference” length and angle of the edge profile which are predefined (and therefore stored) for comparison with measured lengths). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the final profile of the object of Fava in a memory, in order to allow a measurement of the object to be compared to the profile to allow corrections in response to a deviation from this stored profile as taught by Shibata (col 7, lines 5-29).
Regarding claim 2, Fava, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fava further teaches said control unit (16) defines for each of said plurality of tools the offset (defines movement along direction D) between said object and said tool based on an initial profile of the object to be processed (p 8, lines 15-16; initial size of object), said final profile, said removal thickness, and said current cutting profile (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3; corrects errors in machining by taking into account detection of tool profile and making adjustments to offset movement to remove material arrive at final profile of workpiece). Fava does not explicitly teach the initial profile being stored in said memory. Shibata further teaches an initial profile (including thickness of object) of said object to be processed is stored in said memory (col 6, lines 31-36). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the initial profile stored in memory in the device of Fava, as this allows the initial profile to be used as a part of the calculation of the object edge as taught by Shibata (col 6, lines 31-58).
Regarding claim 5, Fava teaches a processing procedure of an object made of stone material (p 1, lines 5-7) that uses a device comprising a workstation (1) for said object to be placed and constrained (fig 1; object 4); a plurality of tools (20, 21), each of said tools defining a removal thickness (p 1, lines 20-24; each tool in succession grinds additional thickness from the object), said tools configured to process said object in series according to incremental order with respect to the removal thickness of each of said tool in said workstation (p 7, lines 2-5; each tool is moved one by one to grind additional thickness of the workpiece), a movement block (elements 27) for positioning each tool of said plurality of tools in series, configured to reciprocally move each said tool relative to the object to perform said processing (p 7, lines 17-21; as best understood, the movement block moves each of the tools relative to the object in order to perform processing), a control unit (16) for said movement block (p 7, lines 19-21), the device capable of achieving a final profile of said object (the grinding and chamfering performed by the tools 20, 21 form a final profile on the object); the procedure comprising the steps of: an acquisition step wherein an acquisition system (elements 23-26) acquires a current cutting profile of each of said plurality of tools (p 8, lines 2-11), an evaluation step, wherein, for each tool of said plurality of tools and in incremental order with respect to the removal thickness (p 8, lines 23-28; the tools are moved one by one to determine their profile, which is subsequently used to determine their position and offset), an offset (defines movement along direction D) between said object and said tool is determined according to said final profile, said removal thickness and the current cutting profile (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3; corrects errors in machining by taking into account detection of tool profile and making adjustments to offset movement to remove material arrive at final profile of workpiece), and at least one processing step wherein said movement block (27) reciprocally moves at least one of said tools relative to said object by defining said offset between said tool and said object (p8, lines 26-28; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation).
Fava does not explicitly teach the movement block comprising a memory, or storing the final profile of said object in said memory. Shibata teaches a method for processing an object with a device including a control unit (elements 13, 14) comprising a memory, and storing a final profile of said object in said memory (col 6, lines 31-37 and 59-67; the final profile of the object is defined by “reference” length and angle of the edge profile which are predefined (and therefore stored) for comparison with measured lengths). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the final profile of the object of Fava in a memory, in order to allow a measurement of the object to be compared to the profile to allow corrections in response to a deviation from this stored profile as taught by Shibata (col 7, lines 5-29).
Regarding claim 6, Fava, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Fava further teaches in said evaluation step, the control unit (16) defines for each of said plurality of tools the offset (defines movement along direction D) between said object and said tool based on an initial profile of the object to be processed (p 8, lines 15-16; initial size of object), said final profile, said removal thickness, and said current cutting profile (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3; corrects errors in machining by taking into account detection of tool profile and making adjustments to offset movement to remove material arrive at final profile of workpiece). Fava does not explicitly teach the initial profile being stored in said memory. Shibata further teaches an initial profile (including thickness of object) of said object to be processed is stored in said memory (col 6, lines 31-36). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the initial profile in memory in the device of Fava, as this allows the initial profile to be used as a part of the calculation of the object edge as taught by Shibata (col 6, lines 31-58).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Fava, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claims 6 and 5 as described above. Fava further teaches wherein in said evaluation step, said offset is determined for all said tools (p 8, lines 26-33; each tool is individually moved to be evaluated prior to contacting the workpiece), and wherein said processing step is carried out only at the end of said evaluation step (p 8, line 34- p9, line 3; workpiece is only loaded after evaluation step).
Regarding claim 11, Fava, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 2 as described above. Fava further teaches said control unit (16) determines said offset of each of said tools in incremental order in relation to said removal thickness (p 8, lines 23-28; the tools are moved one by one to determine their profile, which is subsequently used to determine their position and offset).
Claim(s) 17-18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fava as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shibata (US 5738563, previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Fava, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Fava further teaches the evaluating step defines for each tool of said plurality of tools (p 8, lines 23-28), the offset (defines movement along direction D) according to a final profile of the object, the removal thickness, and the current cutting profile (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3; corrects errors in machining by taking into account detection of tool profile and making adjustments to offset movement to remove material arrive at final profile of workpiece). Fava does not explicitly teach storing the final profile of said object in said memory. Shibata teaches a method for processing an object with a device including a control unit (elements 13, 14) comprising a memory, and storing a final profile of said object in said memory (col 6, lines 31-37 and 59-67; the final profile of the object is defined by “reference” length and angle of the edge profile which are predefined (and therefore stored) for comparison with measured lengths). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the final profile of the object of Fava in a memory, in order to allow a measurement of the object to be compared to the profile to allow corrections in response to a deviation from this stored profile as taught by Shibata (col 7, lines 5-29).
Regarding claim 18, Fava, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Fava further teaches in said evaluation step, defining for each of said plurality of tools the offset (defines movement along direction D) between said object and said tool based on an initial profile of the object to be processed (p 8, lines 15-16; initial size of object), said final profile, said removal thickness, and said current cutting profile (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3; corrects errors in machining by taking into account detection of tool profile and making adjustments to offset movement to remove material arrive at final profile of workpiece). Fava does not explicitly teach the initial profile being stored in said memory. Shibata further teaches an initial profile (including thickness of object) of said object to be processed is stored in said memory (col 6, lines 31-36). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the initial profile in memory in the device of Fava, as this allows the initial profile to be used as a part of the calculation of the object edge as taught by Shibata (col 6, lines 31-58).
Regarding claim 21, Fava, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as described above. Fava further teaches wherein in said evaluating step, said offset is determined for all said tools (p 8, lines 26-33; each tool is individually moved to be evaluated prior to contacting the workpiece), and wherein said processing step is carried out only at the end of said evaluation step (p 8, line 34- p9, line 3; workpiece is only loaded after evaluation step).
Regarding claim 22, Fava, as modified by Shibata, teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as described above. Fava further teaches the placing and constraining of the object is at a workstation (1; fig 1), wherein a movement block (elements 27) positions each tool of said plurality of tools in series according to incremental order with respect to a removal thickness of each of said tool (p 1, lines 20-24; each tool in succession grinds additional thickness from the object), to reciprocally move each said tool of said plurality of tools relative to the object for performing said processing, wherein the reciprocally moving comprises moving each tool towards and away from the object (p 7, lines 17-21; as best understood, the movement block moves each of the tools relative to the object in order to perform processing), wherein the processing step comprises the reciprocally movement by the movement block of the object and the tool by defining the offset between the tool and the object (paragraph starting p 8, line 34), a control unit (16) for said movement block (p 7, lines 19-21), wherein an acquisition system (elements 23-26) acquires a current cutting profile of each of said plurality of tools (p 8, lines 2-11). Shibata further teaches the initial profile and the final profile are stored in the memory of the control unit (included as described in the rejection of claims 17 and 18 above).
Fava does not explicitly teach the acquisition system comprising a camera. Shibata further teaches an acquisition system for acquiring a surface profile including a camera (36; paragraph starting col 5, line 59). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a camera as the acquisition system in the procedure of Fava, as a camera achieves the predictable result of allowing image processing to determine precise measurements of surface profiles as taught by Shibata (paragraph starting col 5, line 59).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 12, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fava and Shibata as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, 5, and 18 respectively above, and further in view of Nomaru (US 2021/0229186, previously cited).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Fava teaches all the elements of claims 1 and 11 as described above. Fava further teaches the acquisition system comprises a spindle (spindle of motor 22) configured to rotate one of the plurality of tools about a rotation axis for at least 360 degrees (p 7, lines 28-31), and an optical sensing device (elements 23-23; p 7, lines 9-13) defining a range in which said cutting profile of said tool falls (p 7, lines 9-13; interrupted by tools). Fava does not teach the acquisition system including an optical reference fixed in relation to said rotation of said tool, or the optical sensing device comprising a shooting member defining a shooting field. Nomaru teaches a processing device including an acquisition system comprising an optical reference (C) fixed in relation to a rotation of a tool (fig 6; fixed on rotating edge of tool 22), and a shooting member ([0028]; camera 60) defining a shooting field within which said optical reference and said cutting profile of said tool fall (fig 6; falls into range due to rotation). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a provide a shooting device with a shooting field including the cutting profile and an optical reference in the device of Fava, as this allows the device to detect and locate flaws around the entire surface of the tool as taught by Nomaru ([0043]).
Regarding claim 8, Fava, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 6 as described above. Fava further teaches in said acquisition step, the acquisition system rotates each of the plurality of tools about a rotation axis for at least 360 degrees (p 7, lines 28-31), and an optical sensing device (elements 23-23; p 7, lines 9-13) acquires said cutting profile of said tool (p 7, lines 9-13; interrupted by tools). Fava does not explicitly teach the acquisition system simultaneously acquiring the cutting profile and an optical reference. Nomaru teaches a processing method including an acquisition system comprising an optical reference (C) fixed on a tool (fig 6; fixed on rotating edge of tool 22), and a camera ([0028]; 60) simultaneously acquiring said cutting profile and optical reference (fig 6; profile and reference falls into range of camera due to rotation). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously acquire the current cutting profile and an optical reference in the method of Fava, as this allows the method to detect and locate flaws around the entire surface of the tool as taught by Nomaru ([0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Fava, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 5 as described above. Fava further teaches in said acquisition step, the acquisition system rotates each of the plurality of tools about a rotation axis for at least 360 degrees (p 7, lines 28-31), and an optical sensing device (elements 23-23; p 7, lines 9-13) acquires said cutting profile of said tool (p 7, lines 9-13; interrupted by tools). Fava does not explicitly teach the acquisition system simultaneously acquiring the cutting profile and an optical reference. Nomaru teaches a processing method including an acquisition system comprising an optical reference (C) fixed on a tool (fig 6; fixed on rotating edge of tool 22), and a camera ([0028]; 60) simultaneously acquiring said cutting profile and optical reference (fig 6; profile and reference falls into range of camera due to rotation). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously acquire the current cutting profile and an optical reference in the method of Fava, as this allows the method to detect and locate flaws around the entire surface of the tool as taught by Nomaru ([0043]).
Regarding claim 20, Fava, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 18 as described above. Fava further teaches in said acquiring step, each of said plurality of tools rotates about a rotation axis for at least 360 degrees (p 7, lines 28-31), and an optical sensing device (elements 23-23; p 7, lines 9-13) acquires said cutting profile of said tool (p 7, lines 9-13; interrupted by tools). Fava does not explicitly teach the simultaneously acquiring the cutting profile and an optical reference. Nomaru teaches a processing method including an acquisition step of acquiring an optical reference (C) fixed on a tool (fig 6; fixed on rotating edge of tool 22), and a camera ([0028]; 60) simultaneously acquiring said cutting profile and optical reference (fig 6; profile and reference falls into range of camera due to rotation). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously acquire the current cutting profile and an optical reference in the method of Fava, as this allows the method to detect and locate flaws around the entire surface of the tool as taught by Nomaru ([0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the addition of the word “between” to define the movement of the movement block is sufficient to clarify the claims and alleviate the previous 112b rejections. However, this only serves to further confuse the intended movement. It appears that applicant intends for the movement block to move each tool relative to the object. However, as currently phrased, the claims state the movement block is configured to move between said object and each of the tools. This is confusing and appears inconsistent with applicant’s intent. See 112b rejections above for further discussion. Applicant argues that the additional amendments alleviate the other previous 112b rejections. However, there are still several issues of clarity as discussed in the rejections above.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 16, applicant argues that Fava “does not assure that the tool processes a thickness that complies with the removal thickness of the tool.” However, as broadly claimed, Fava teaches the elements of the claims as best understood. The movement of the tool into contact with the workpiece defines a “removal thickness” of each of the tools. As Fava successively moves each tool into contact with the workpiece for each tool to remove material therefrom, this is considered to be processing “in series according to incremental order with respect to the removal thickness of each of said tool” as claimed. There is no definition in the claims of a specific removal thickness of each tool. Fava acquires the profile of each individual tool (p8, lines 2-11) and uses this to calculate an offset for ensuring arrival at the desired profile of the workpiece (p 8, line 8- p 9, line 3). There is nothing in the claims which defines over this structure or procedure of Fava.
Applicant further argues that “when a tool is manufactured its characteristics (link rotational speed, advancing speed and removal thickness) are defined and cannot vary. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The tool itself is an individual component of the larger machine which defines rotational speed, advancing speed and removal thickness. While it is understood that different tools can be used to remove different thicknesses from a workpiece, the amount of material removed is not defined solely by the tool itself. As broadly claimed, there is no requirement that specific tools remove different amounts of material from the workpiece. As each tool in Fava successively removes incremental thicknesses from the workpiece, this satisfies the claimed “incremental order with respect to the removal thickness” as broadly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723