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
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the lack of unity of invention has been demonstrated and there would be a serious burden due to extensive searches in various classification areas.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:Claim 5 recites a dependency to claim 1 twice.Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation " the set of f) " in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the set of g) " in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "g) determining a set of at least one available time interval, in which the movement time duration of one or more tool transports is respectively equal at most to the processing time duration in which the tool provided at the provision location is used for the processing of a workpiece”. This is unclear since according to this step, time intervals are to be determined in which a tool transport movement duration is at most as long as a processing time duration. This is only possible if, for the period in which the mentioned time intervals are being sought, it is already predetermined when tool transports take place and when processing occurs. Only then can the above-mentioned condition be checked for any arbitrary time interval within the search period. However, such a prior determination does not appear to be disclosed in the specification. It also seems to run counter to the purpose of the claimed method: processing time intervals are to be determined into which a tool transport temporally "fits" so that it does not delay the processing. In other words, processing time intervals must be predetermined (presumably in step g), for which it is then checked whether a tool transport of a given duration can be accommodated within them. It is unclear why the duration comparison is performed in both steps g) and h).
Claim 2 recites the limitation " a partial order of the set of tool transports is specified such that a tool transport that has not yet been performed may be performed when all tool transports previously arranged in the partial order have been performed ". The limitation “previously arranged” is unclear in the context of this claim. There is not a clear distinction as to whether the partial order contains all of the tool transports or only some of them since it refers back to the whole set from claim 1. Then it is recited that a tool transport that is not part of the partial order may be performed, however the wording is unclear as it then refers to “all tool transports previously arranged in the partial order”. It is difficult to understand the scope of the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the chronological succession ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the allocated time intervals ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the partial order of the tool transport ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the transport time duration ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the increasing time profile ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the tool transports are taken into account with increasing weighting in the increasing time profile when carrying out the at least one tool transport, presupposing that the tool to be transported is no longer needed for the processing of a workpiece.” It is unclear which tool transports are being referred to and what the increasing weighting specifically refers to. It is unclear what is meant by “presupposing”, it makes it seems that the limitation is theoretical. The scope is unclear.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the increasing time profile ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the tool transports are taken into account with increasing weighting in the increasing time profile when carrying out the at least one tool transport, presupposing that a cumulative waiting time for the magazine operating apparatus in the increasing time profile decreases by a newly allocated magazine location of the tool after the tool transport.” It is unclear which tool transports are being referred to and what the increasing weighting specifically refers to. It is unclear what is meant by “presupposing”, it makes it seems that the limitation is theoretical. It is unclear what it means for a waiting time to “decreases by a newly allocated magazine location...” The scope is unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the time intervals in which a plurality of tool transports are possible are subdivided into further time intervals in which, if possible, only one tool transport is carried out”. The limitations “are possible” and “if possible” is unclear in this context, it makes the limitation appear theoretical. The scope is unclear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Oshima (JP H0929575 A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Oshima discloses a method for computer-aided optimization of tool transports for at least one tool magazine having a number of magazine locations, which is used or is usable for a machine tool that is employed for a processing of one or more workpieces with an aid of tools provided by a magazine operating apparatus at a provision location, the method comprising: a) recording a set of tools (para. 13); b) recording a location requirement for each tool (para. 13); c) recording a set of occupiable magazine locations for each tool, at least one subset thereof comprising allowed magazine locations which are dependent on the respective location requirement of the tools, of the tools respectively neighboring one another (para. 13-14); d) recording a set of movement time durations which respectively comprises a trip of the magazine operating apparatus from one magazine location to another magazine location or from a magazine location to the provision location or from the provision location to a magazine location (para. 13-14); e) recording an allowed initial magazine occupancy, an initial magazine location for each tool being recorded (para. 13-14); f) recording a set of tool transports from one magazine position to another allowed magazine position, a tool transport from the set of tool transports requiring a movement time duration (para. 13-14); g) determining a set of at least one available time interval, in which the movement time duration of one or more tool transports is respectively equal at most to the processing time duration in which the tool provided at the provision location is used for the processing of a workpiece (para. 13-15), h) allocating at least one tool transport from the set of f) to a time interval from the set of g) under a condition that the movement time duration for the tool transport is less than or equal to a length of the time interval (para. 13-15); and i) carrying out the at least one tool transport while the machine tool for the processing of the workpiece is in operation in a ready state or in a processing state, as soon as the machine tool reaches an operating state which has been assigned or is assigned to one of the time intervals determined in g) and allocated in h) (para. 13-15).
Re Claim 2, as best understood, Oshima discloses a partial order of the set of tool transports is specified such that a tool transport that has not yet been performed may be performed when all tool transports previously arranged in the partial order have been performed (para. 13-15).
Re Claim 3, Oshima discloses the partial order influences the allocation of at least one tool transport to a time interval (para. 13-16).
Re Claim 4, as best understood, Oshima discloses the chronological succession of the allocated time intervals is consistent with the partial order of the tool transport (para. 13-16).
Re Claim 6, Oshima discloses a movement time duration includes both a transport time duration, which comprises a trip of the magazine operating apparatus with a tool, and an empty trip time duration, which comprises a trip of the magazine operating apparatus without a tool (para. 13-16; implicit).
Re Claim 7, as best understood, Oshima discloses the transport time duration additionally depends on properties of the tool to be transported (para. 13-16).
Re Claim 10, as best understood, Oshima discloses the time intervals in which a plurality of tool transports are possible are subdivided into further time intervals in which, if possible, only one tool transport is carried out (para. 13-16).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Royer (WO 2019052649 A1).
Re Claim 5, Oshima does not disclose the allocation from h) of claim 1 is carried out by means of mixed integer linear optimization. However, Royer teaches mixed integer linear optimization is well-known in the art, using a solver which are special mathematical computer programs that can numerically solve mathematical problems (page 5) and optimizing the occupation of the magazine locations with tools can be carried out by mixed integer linear optimization (top of page 4). It would be obvious to utilize mixed integer linear optimization, as taught by Royer, for the purpose of utilizing known effective techniques and software for solving complex mathematical problems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights