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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not written in English. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species a, claims 17-18 (in addition to generic claims 16, 20 and 26-31) in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that as amended, claim 16 presents a special technical feature over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because as outlined below, claim 16 as now amended does not define over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 16-18, 20 and 26-31 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.
Claim 16 requires that ‘the actuator is arranged for actuating a component of the machine tool’ at Lines 4-5, however, at Lines 7-9 and 7-8 & 10-11 the ‘control unit is configured to, independent of any communication interface between the machine tool and the control unit, trigger at least one function of the machine tool by controlling the actuator’. It is unclear how, if there is no communication interface between the control unit and the machine tool, the control unit can control the actuator (which is part of the machine tool).
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 16-18 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazic et al. (US 20170254724, hereinafter ‘Lazic’).
Regarding claim 16, Lazic discloses a system for automating a machine tool, wherein the machine tool 12 is associated with an external device 10 arranged for feeding machine objects to the machine tool and removing machine objects from the machine tool. The system comprises an actuator (gripper A, see e.g. Fig. 8) and a sensor 70. The actuator is arranged for actuating a component of the machine tool (e.g. for starting the machine operation after loading a part) and the sensor is arranged for detecting a state of the external device (e.g. the presence of an acceptable part). An on-board control unit (inherent to the ‘automation cell’) is configured to, independent of any communication interface between the machine tool and the control unit, trigger at least one function of the external device (e.g. to pass or reject the parts measured by the sensor (Paragraphs [0046-0047])).
Regarding claim 17, Lazic discloses the system including at least one additional actuator (gripper B), arranged for actuating a respective component of the machine tool. The control unit, as above, is configured to, independent of any communication interface between the machine tool and the control unit, trigger a respective additional function of the external device (e.g. gripping or releasing) by controlling the respective additional actuator).
Regarding claim 18, Lazic discloses the system including the sensor and at least one additional sensor (e.g. a camera, Paragraphs [0011-0012]) arranged for detecting a respective additional state of the external device. The control unit is configured to, independent of any communication interface between the machine tool and the control unit, trigger a respective additional function of the external device (e.g. reading recorded data) in response to a respective additional signal from the respective additional sensor.
Regarding claim 26, Lazic discloses the actuator being arrangeable to mechanically couple with the machine tool, when both machine tool and actuator are gripping the workpiece.
Regarding claim 27, Lazic discloses the sensor or actuator including an energy supply or a rechargeable energy supply (Paragraph [0050], the described fluid power which actuates the actuator/gripper).
Regarding claim 28, Lazic discloses the external device including a stationary device (frame 15) with at least one moveable arm 24 arranged for at least one of feeding machine objects to the machine tool and removing machine objects from the machine tool.
Regarding claims 29 and 31, Lazic discloses the control unit being in an ‘automation cell’, which includes a robot ‘programmed’ for controlling the actuator to remove a completed workpiece from the machine tool and feed a new workpiece to the machine tool. Such programming of an automated robot inherently requires a computer and associated computer program/non-transitory computer readable data storage devices storing program code to control the actuator/external device as claimed.
Regarding claim 30, Lazic discloses the control unit including an independent control unit 350 separate from the external device and the machine tool, the independent control unit communicatively coupled to the external device and the sensor (e.g. Fig. 14).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazic et al. (US 20170254724).
Regarding claim 20, Lazic does not explicitly disclose how the actuator and/or sensor are connected to the control unit. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that wireless connection of actuators or sensors to control units are widely used in the art, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a wireless connection of an actuator/gripper or sensor to a control unit to remove wiring from the external device to prevent snagging on the moving robot arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki (US 20170151642), Suzuki (US 20170021467) and Lazic et al. (US 20150276549) disclose elements of or similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722