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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim1 be found allowable, claim7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Rejections withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6398254 to Brother, supplied by applicant, in view of JP 2004-268176 to Naito, with translation.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” and any condition limitation based thereon, is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the claim does not require the limitation to occur.
Brother teaches
1,7,8. A control device, system, and method for an industrial machine that rotates a tool to cut a workpiece, the control device comprising: one or more processors that execute computer executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein when the computer executable instructions are executed by the one or more processors (paragraphs 1-5, Fig. 3-7, paragraphs 21-78), the one or more processors of the control device are configured to:
monitor a position of the tool (paragraphs 32-38,43-45,52-53; Figs. 3-7, S14, S41);
generate a reverse rotation instruction to start reverse rotation at a predetermined position of the monitored position for the tool (paragraphs 32-38,43-45,52-53; Figs. 3-7, S14, S41);
change a rotation direction of the tool in accordance with the reverse rotation instruction at an end of the tool cutting the workpiece (paragraphs 32-38,43-45,52-53; Figs. 3-7, S14, S41);
rotate the tool in the reverse direction after the tool cuts the workpiece (paragraphs 32-38,43-45,52-53; Figs. 3-7, S14, S41); and
stop the reverse rotation of the tool (paragraphs 32-38,43-45,52-53; Figs. 3-7, S14, S41; e.g., paragraph 72, “return the rotation direction of the main shaft 9 to perform the next drilling process”).
4. The control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined position is an initial level of the tool (paragraphs 32-38,43-45,52-53; Figs. 3-7, S14, S41).
5. The control device according to claim 1 wherein the one or more processors of the control device are configured to: control the industrial machine in accordance with a machining program and cause the industrial machine to perform an operation in accordance with the machining program; and perform standby for the operation in accordance with the machining program (paragraph 45,64,76; Figs. 3-7, S22, S27) when the reverse rotation of the tool does not end at a predetermined position on a path of the operation in accordance with the machining program (paragraphs 32-38,43-45,52-53; Figs. 3-7, S14, S41).
6. The control device according to claim 1 wherein the one or more processors of the control device are configured to control the industrial machine in accordance with a machining program and cause the industrial machine to perform an operation in accordance with the machining program, wherein the reverse rotation of the tool and the operation in accordance with the machining program are performed in parallel (Fig. 3-7, paragraphs 21-78).
1,7,8. Brother fails to teach selecting a time of the reverse rotation of the tool in accordance with a material of the tool and a material of the workpiece; and stop the reverse rotation of the tool at the selected time.
1,7,8. Naito teaches selecting a time of the reverse rotation of the tool in accordance with a material of the tool and a material of the workpiece and stop the reverse rotation of the tool at the selected time (Abstract, claims 1-5, paragraph 2, 27, “The initial setting time set in the reverse rotation start command output means 47 is empirically determined by the type of the band saw blade 13, the material and the shape and size of the work W, and the like. The reverse rotation start command means 47 thereafter outputs a reverse rotation start command at predetermined intervals determined empirically.”; the reverse rotation empirically determined based on the material of the work and the type of blade, and examiner submits examples of blade types are bi-metal, carbon steel, carbide, etc; and examiner submits type of band saw (vertical or horizontal) (paragraph 13) differentiates from material type of blade (paragraph 27)).
Brother and Naito are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, machine tools.
Since Naito teaches machining that enables cutting a work, in which when the tool is cut by a tool, the tool is relatively slightly reversely rotated momentarily to remove a component edge welded to a cutting edge of the tool, thereby providing a cutting method, and a cutting device for cutting a workpiece by forcibly removing a constituting edge welded to an edge in a cutting tool (Abstract, paragraph 7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the technique of the machining as taught by Naito to improve the machine tools of Brother for the predictable results of enabling cutting a work, in which when the tool is cut by a tool, the tool is relatively slightly reversely rotated momentarily to remove a component edge welded to a cutting edge of the tool, thereby providing a cutting method, and a cutting device for cutting a workpiece by forcibly removing a constituting edge welded to an edge in a cutting tool (Abstract, paragraph 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
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, William Kraig can be reached on 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896