DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are pending.
Claims 6 and 9 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/13/2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments it can be noted that the Oldani reference is applied to provide teachings of multiple controllers communicating among each other and sharing a common memory. The Linnell reference is applied to provide teachings of multiple machines sharing common tools. In other words, the common memory is taught by Oldani.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-8,954,180, Oldani (hereinafter Oldani) in view of US-2005/0174086, Iwashita (hereinafter Iwashita).
Regarding claims 1-5, the combination of Oldani and Iwashita teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s), as outlined below.
Regarding claim 1, Oldani teaches a controller (C6 L55-62 - - controller 158) configured to control a tool (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - heads 120, 124, 126) having a memory (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - heads 120, 124, 126 comprise memories associate with controllers 150, 154, 156) detachably attached to a machine (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - detachably attached to horizontal gantry 114 and vertical ram 116. Wherein the horizontal gantry 114 and vertical ram 116 are considered as a machine), the controller comprising: a tool information reading section configured to read at least one of tool setting information and tool condition information written to the memory of the tool (C6-C8 - - controller 158 enables bi-directional communication), and a tool setting section configured to set the tool based on at least one of the read tool setting information and the read tool condition information (C6-C8 - - controller 158 enables bi-directional communication), wherein the tool is driven by a motor (C2 L30-39 and C4 L10-26 - - implicitly disclosed – performing a CNC machining process with the tool); wherein the controller comprises a tool exchange time determining section configured to determine an exchange time of the tool based on the tool condition information (C6-C8 - - exchanged by controller 158. Wherein controller 158 enables bi-directional communication. The controllers implement control logic and parameters such as federate and speed).
Oldani fails to clearly specify the memory attached to the encoder.
However, Iwashita teaches a memory attached to an encoder (Para 0019 and Para 0046- - an encoder provided in a controller/memory).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to machine controllers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above interchangeable machine tool control system, as taught by Oldani and incorporating the concept of reconfigurable encoders, as taught by Iwashita.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to simplify the system by reducing components and enabling hardware resources to be used efficiently, as suggested by Iwashita (Para 0019).
Regarding dependent claims 2-5 the combination of Oldani and Iwashita teaches all the limitations of the base claims, as outlined above. Oldani further teaches:
Claim 2. The controller according to claim 1, further comprising a tool information updating section configured to update the tool condition information (C6-C8 - - updated by controller 158. Wherein controller 158 enables bi-directional communication).
Claim 3. The controller according to claim 1, further comprising a tool information writing section configured to write at least one of the tool setting information and the tool condition information to the memory of the tool (C6-C8 - - written by controller 158. Wherein controller 158 enables bi-directional communication).
Claim 4. The controller according to claim 3, wherein the tool information writing section writes the tool condition information when the tool is operated or stopped (C6-C8 - - written by controller 158. Wherein controller 158 enables bi-directional communication).
Claim 5. The controller according to claim1, wherein the tool information reading section reads the tool setting information when the tool is connected or used (C6-C8 - - read by controller 158. Wherein controller 158 enables bi-directional communication).
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-8,954,180, Oldani (hereinafter Oldani) in view of Linnell et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0336269 (hereinafter Linnell).
Regarding claim 7, Oldani teaches a control system comprising: a first controller (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - controllers 150, 154, 156) configured to control a tool (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - heads 120, 124, 126) having a memory (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - heads 120, 124, 126 comprise memories associate with controllers 150, 154, 156) detachably attached to a first machine (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - detachably attached to horizontal gantry 114 and vertical ram 116. Wherein the horizontal gantry 114 and vertical ram 116 are considered as a machine); and a second controller (C6 L55-62 - - controller 158) configured to control the tool (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - heads 120, 124, 126) detachably attached to a machine (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - detachably attached to horizontal gantry 114 and vertical ram 116. Wherein the horizontal gantry 114 and vertical ram 116 are considered as a machine), wherein the first controller writes at least one of tool setting information and tool condition information to the memory of the tool (Fig 2 and C6 L55-62 - - controllers 150, 154, 156 enable bidirectional communication), and the second controller reads from the memory at least one of the tool setting information and the tool condition information written to the memory (C6-C8 - - wherein controller 158 enables bi-directional communication. It can be noted there is bi-directional communication between the first and second controller and associated memory).
Oldani fails to clearly specify a second machine.
However, Linnell teaches a second machine sharing common tools (Fig 3B and Para 0068-0069).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to machine controllers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above interchangeable machine tool control system, as taught by Oldani and incorporating a configuration wherein multiple machines share common tools, as taught by Linnell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce processing time by allowing parallel operations, as suggested by Linnell (Para 0004).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Oldani and Linnell teaches all the claimed limitations of the base claim, as outlined above. Oldani further teaches the control system according to claim 7, wherein the second controller sets the tool based on the read tool setting information, or updates the tool condition information, or writes at least one of the tool setting information and the tool condition information (C6-C8 - - wherein controller 158 enables bi-directional communication).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Glasgow et al., US Patent No. 7,116,071 – relate to power tool and motor controller.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119