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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, drawn to an “installing method”, in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 19, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. In particular, to the extent that the discussion of “International Publication No. 2019-177444” in paragraphs 0002-0003 of the specification is intended to reference WO 2019-177444, then it is noted that WO 2019/177444 is not of record. (It is, however, noted that Japanese Patent Document JP 2019-177444 A was cited on the Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/31/2022. In the event that this is the document that the specification intended to reference in paragraphs 0002-0003 of the specification, Applicant may wish to consider changing “International” in paragraph 0003 to –Japanese—for clarity.)
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in paragraph 0090, it appears that “sub-housing 44b” should be –sub-housing 44c—in order to be consistent with the rest of the specification and with, for example, Figure 9 (noting that elsewhere in the specification, including in paragraphs 0090-0091, element 44b is the “main housing”, and 44c is the sub-housing).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“processing mechanism” in at least claim 17;
“replacing apparatus” in at least claims 17-19;
“holding mechanism” in claim 20;
“first rotating mechanism” in claim 20; and
“manipulating mechanism” in claim 20.
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.
However, it is noted that the limitation “processing mechanism” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 20, because claim 20 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
Similarly, it is noted that the limitation “replacing apparatus” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) in claim 20, because claim 20 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
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 18-20 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 claim 18, lines 5-6, the claim references “a replacement instruction of the processing tool”. However, it is unclear as claimed how or in what regard a processing instruction is to be considered to be “of” (i.e., part of) a tangible object, i.e., the processing tool. In the event that such is in keeping with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider changing “a replacement instruction of the processing tool” to language such as –a replacement instruction for replacing the processing tool--.
In claim 19, the claim sets forth “performing an auto setup when the processing tool is completely replaced and the replacing apparatus is retreated from the entrance opening of the exterior cover”. However, it is unclear whether “when the processing tool is completely replaced and the replacing apparatus is retreated from the entrance opening of the exterior cover” is intended to refer to a time period while these actions are actively occurring (i.e., during the complete replacing of the processing tool and during the retreating of the replacing apparatus from the entrance opening), or whether “when the processing tool is completely replaced and the replacing apparatus is retreated from the entrance opening of the exterior cover” is instead intended to refer to a time period after these actions have been completed (i.e., “when the processing tool” has been “completely replaced” and “the replacing apparatus” has been “retreated from the entrance opening of the exterior cover”).
Claim limitation “holding mechanism” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed functions of the holding mechanism 71a (for example, “configured to hold the grinding tool D”, set forth in paragraph 0111; “holds the grinding tool D from below”, paragraph 0111, Figure 14; “comes into contact with the grinding tool D and holds it”, paragraph 0111). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the holding. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect holding of a tool from below. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim (20) is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “first rotating mechanism” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed functions of the first rotating mechanism 71d (for example, “configured to rotate the holding mechanism 71a”, set forth in paragraph 0112). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the holding. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect rotation of a holding mechanism. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim (20) is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20 and the recited “holding mechanism” (“configured to hold the processing tool from below”), as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of holding the tool (from below). That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20 and the recited “first rotating mechanism”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally regarding claim 20, it is noted that claim 20 is a new claim, first presented in the response filed November 19, 2025, which is subsequent to the original filing date (April 7, 2021, noting that the present application is a national stage application filed under 35 USC 371). It is also noted that new claim 20 sets forth “a first rotating mechanism configured to rotate the processing tool and the flange simultaneously by rotating the holding mechanism”. However, the specification as originally filed does not provide support for this new limitation. It is noted that the specification as originally filed does teach that “[A]s the first rotating mechanism 71d rotates the holding mechanism 71a, the grinding tool D and the flange 43a1 can be rotated simultaneously, and the fastener E can be directed toward the manipulating mechanism 71c” in paragraph 00112. However, note that this teaching from paragraph 00112 does not expressly teach, specifically, that the first rotating mechanism 71d itself performs the rotation of the processing tool and the flange simultaneously, and does not teach that the first rotating mechanism 71d is configured to rotate the processing tool D and the flange 43a1 simultaneously by rotating the holding mechanism 71d, as set forth in claim 20. Furthermore, it is noted that such is not inherent. For example, it is not inherent that rotating the holding mechanism 71d causes the rotation of the flange 43a1, as opposed to the spindle motor 43a3 (that is configured to rotate the spindle shaft 43a2) being actuated at the same time that the first rotation mechanism 71d is actuated, such that the spindle motor 43a3 rotates the flange 43a1.
Thus, given that the specification as originally filed does not expressly teach “a first rotating mechanism configured to rotate the processing tool and the flange simultaneously by rotating the holding mechanism”, nor is such inherent (as just discussed), the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation “a first rotating mechanism configured to rotate the processing tool and the flange simultaneously by rotating the holding mechanism”, as set forth in new claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 19, any of which that were rejected under 35 USC 112 above are as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0286734 to Oda (hereinafter, “Oda”).
Oda teaches an installing method “of” (installing) a processing tool (abstract, paragraphs 0006 and 0022; particularly note that paragraph 0022, for example, teaches that the robot 20 functions as an automatic tool changer for automatically changing the tool of the working machine 10) of a processing apparatus (10; Figure 1 and at least paragraph 0020) equipped with a holder (paragraph 0022 indicates that the “worked object, i.e., the workpiece, or the tool, etc., which is attached to the working machine 10 can be automatically changed”; note that for the workpiece to be “attached to the working machine” 10 in some fashion as disclosed in paragraph 0022, the working machine must inherently have a “holder”, as broadly claimed, of some sort, i.e., whatever portion of the working machine 10 to which the workpiece is “attached” during the working/processing as disclosed in paragraphs 0022-0023 constitutes a “holder” as broadly claimed) configured to hold a processing object (the worked object/workpiece described in at least paragraphs 0006, 0020, 0022, for example), a processing mechanism (see paragraph 0022, which teaches that the robot 20 functions as an automatic tool changer which changes the tool that is “attached to” the working machine 10, and additionally, paragraph 0020 teaches that the working machine 10 is, for example, a machine tool that works a workpiece; thus, the portion of the machine tool 10 to which the tool is attached, as disclosed in paragraph 0022, constitutes the claimed “processing mechanism”, noting also that the present application teaches that the “processing apparatus” can be a “grinding device”, a “machining device”, a “cutting device”, “or the like”, in at least paragraph 00121 of the present specification) to which the processing tool configured to process (paragraphs 0020, 0022-0023, for example) the processing target (workpiece/worked object described by Oda in at least paragraphs 0006, 0020, 0022) object held by the (aforedescribed) “holder” is installed in a replaceable manner (see at least paragraph 0022), and an exterior cover (11) accommodating therein the (aforedescribed) holder and the (aforedescribed) processing mechanism (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0020 and 0022), the installing method comprising:
instructing, by the processing apparatus (10, and particularly by/via the control apparatus 31 thereof), a replacing apparatus (robot 20) to install the (aforedescribed) processing tool (paragraphs 0020, 0022, 0024-0030, as well as Figures 1 and 3, for example);
detecting, by the processing apparatus (10, and particularly, by/via the control apparatus 31 thereof), an arrival of the replacing apparatus (20) at a set position outside the exterior cover (11) (see Figures 3, 1, and paragraphs 0024-0030, particularly paragraphs 0028-0029, noting that as depicted in Figure 3, robot control apparatus 32 is in communication with machine control apparatus 31, and paragraph 0028 teaches that 32 uses a signal from a rotation detector of the robot motor 20a to determine the position and posture of the robot 20; additionally/alternatively, see Figures 4-5 and at least paragraphs 0031-0034, and particularly paragraph 0033; additionally/alternatively, see Figures 6-7 and paragraphs 0035-0041 and particularly paragraph 0036); and
opening a shutter (13) (Figure 1; paragraphs 0020-0022, for example), which is configured to open or close an entrance opening (12) of the exterior cover (11) (Figure 1, paragraph 0020), to allow the replacing apparatus (20) to advance to an inside of the exterior cover (11) from an outside thereof through the entrance opening (12) of the exterior cover (11). See Figure 1, as well as Figure 5, Figure 7, and paragraphs 0020-0023 and 0027-0029, for example.
Regarding claim 19, Oda teaches performing “an auto setup” (as broadly claimed) when the processing tool is (e.g., has been) completely replaced and the replacing apparatus (20) is (e.g., has been) retreated from the entrance opening (12) of the exterior cover (11). For example, Oda teaches that the door/shutter (13) is automatically closed (which is an “auto-setup”, as broadly claimed) after the tool has been replaced and the replacing apparatus (20) has been retreated from the entrance opening (12) of the exterior cover (11). See paragraphs 0020-0023 and 0028, for example.
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 18, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0286734 to Oda (hereinafter, “Oda”), in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0286734 to Oda (hereinafter, “Oda”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,665,580 to Susnjara (hereinafter, “Susnjara”).
Oda teaches all of the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claim 18, Oda teaches that wherein the instructing, by the (machine control apparatus 31 of the) processing apparatus (10), of the replacing apparatus (20) to install the (aforedescribed) processing tool comprises:
determining, by the processing apparatus (10), whether a replacement of the processing tool is necessary and creating a replacement instruction of the processing tool; and
transmitting, by the (machine control apparatus 31 of the) processing apparatus (10), the replacement instruction to the replacing apparatus (20).
In particular, see, for example, Figures 1, 3-5, and paragraphs 0020-0030, noting that the machine control apparatus (31) of the processing apparatus (10) must inherently “determine” in some fashion, as broadly claimed, “whether” a replacement of the tool is “necessary” (required by an end user, for example) in order for the machine control apparatus (31) to cause the replacing apparatus (20) to carry out the tool change disclosed in at least paragraphs 0022 and 0030. Furthermore, given that the machine control apparatus (31) causes the replacing apparatus (20) to carry out the tool exchange (Figures 3-5, paragraphs 0020-0030), and given that the machine control apparatus (31) and the robot control apparatus (32) are both configured by respective processing systems that have a CPU, ROM, RAM, and other peripheral circuits, and a servo amplifier, as disclosed in at least paragraph 0025, it is also considered to be inherent that the instructions from the controller (31) to the replacing apparatus (20) to cause the replacing apparatus (20) to carry out the tool change (described in paragraphs 0020 and 0030, for example) are ”transmitted”, in some fashion, to the replacing apparatus (20), or else no such exchange could occur. See Figures 1 and 3-5, as well as at least paragraphs 0020-0030, for example.
In the alternative, in the event that it is held that Oda does not expressly teach that the processing apparatus performs the action of “determining” as to “whether a replacement of the processing tool is necessary”, attention is directed to Susnjara.
In particular, Susnjara teaches a computer numerically controlled (CNC) machining system (Figure 1, col. 2, lines 14-22, for example) that is provided with (among other things) an automatic tool changer (113) and a tool spindle (103). See Figure 1 and col. 2, lines 14-49.
In particular, Susnjara teaches that when the CNC controller 110 determines that a given tool has reached its maximum useful life span, the controller 110 causes the tool to be automatically replaced. See at least Figures 1 and 3, as well as col. 1, lines 5-12, for example, though col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 2, col. 2, lines 36-49, col. 2, line 50 through col. 3, line 23, and col. 3, lines 35 through col. 4, line 10 provide further details of such.
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 caused the machine control apparatus (31) taught by Oda to have carried out an algorithm to determine when a given tool that is being used to perform work processing has reached its maximum useful life span, as taught by Susnjara, and then (based on that determination) to have (sent a resultant replacement instruction to the replacing apparatus 20 to have) caused the replacing apparatus (20) taught by Oda to carry out an automated tool change (as taught by Susnjara), for the purpose of improving the quality and accuracy of the machining operation being carried out by Oda (as taught by Susnjara; see col. 1, lines 5-23 and col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 2) with minimal operator intervention (as also taught by Susnjara; col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 2).
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claim 20, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claim 20 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
December 10, 2025