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 A and Species 1 (claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 02/102/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in a narrative form (several short sentences). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 (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 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (JP6775704A, hereinafter “Yasuda”) in view of Imashiro (JPS63105852).
As applied to claim 1, Yasuda teaches Yasuda teaches a tool transport system 10 comprising: a plurality of machine tools 400; a tool storage unit 250 for storing a plurality of tools; a tool set-up device 200; a transport device 300; and a control device 50, wherein the transport device 300 transports tools between the tool set-up device 200 and the tool storage unit 250, and between the tool storage unit 250 and the machine tools 400, and when a worker designates a tool to be unloaded, the control device 50 drives the transport device 300 and transports said tool to be unloaded from the tool storage unit 250 or machine tool 400 to the tool setup device 200, and the worker removes said tool to be unloaded from the tool set-up device 200 (see English Machine Translation, paragraphs [0018]-[0024], [0081]-[0085], Figs. 1, 3-6 and 8-9).
Yasuda’s tool transport system 10 appears not to explicitly teach the feature of specifying out of the machine tool at a higher priority than other tool holders in the machine tool.
However, it is known in the field of machine tool transport to select a tool to be unloaded for replacement in order to deploy a new tool with priority over other tools of an unusable tool which is damaged or has reached the end of its service life, as taught by Imashiro (English Machine Translation, page 6, lines 235-247) as follows:
When a tool relocation command for a certain tool is issued in step 50, it is determined in step 52 whether the tool size is S or not. If the size is not S, the process proceeds to the processing using the basic masks of the other sizes M, L, and X described above. If the size is S, then in step 54, the presence or absence of ejection tools is checked for all N (20) cartridges. Here, the term "removed tools" refers to tools that should be removed from the tool magazine, such as tools that have been broken, tools that have reached the end of their service life, or tools that will not be used in the near future. If there are ejection tools in M cartridges among the N cartridges, step 56 checks whether they have E-type tool-holding holes, i.e., empty tool-holding holes into which tools can be inserted. If there are no E-type tool holding holes, the presence or absence of the necessary tools is checked in step 58. Here, the necessary tools are tools that must be kept in the tool magazine. If there are necessary tools, in step 60, the tool holding hole with the smallest number that holds the necessary tools is selected, and after that, the tool of size S that should originally be relocated is moved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the system of Yasuda a feature taught by Imashiro in which an unusable tool which is damaged or has reached the end of its useful life is selected, as a tool to be unloaded, with priority over other tools resulting in a continuous and uninterrupted operation of transporting and managing each of a plurality of common tools used in a plurality of machine tools.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (JP6775704A, hereinafter “Yasuda”) in view of Imashiro (JPS63105852) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirman et al. (US 11,209,812, hereinafter “Hirman”).
As applied to claim 2, the combination of Yasuda and Imashiro teaches the invention cited except for explicitly teach wherein the other tool holders in the machine tool include a vacant tool holder holding no tool.
Hirman teaches a machine tool and a system including one or more processors, and computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform acts. The acts may include receiving information associated with a wear surface of a part, sending the information associated with the wear surface of the part to a wear processing system, receiving, from the wear processing system, the wear processing system having determined based at least in part on the information, that the part should be replaced, an indication that the part should be replaced. The acts may also include causing a notice indication to be displayed indicating that the part should be replaced, causing the part to move to a replacement orientation for replacement, and causing an indication to be visible to an operator indicating which part of a plurality of parts is the part that should be replaced (title, paragraph bridging cols. 1 and 2). FIG. 2 also shows illustrative tool holders. For example, machines using replaceable parts, for example, new part 202, may mount the replaceable parts in tool holders. These tool holders may facilitate the replacement of the worn parts. In this example, the new tool holder 210 may be representative of a new tool holder or a tool holder that is in good condition. The new tool holder 210 also shows a new part, such as new part 202, mounted therein. Hirman further teaches in FIG. 2 the empty tool holder 212. The empty tool holder 212 may indicate that a tool has fallen out or needs to be replaced. In this example, a warning and/or notice may be generated and provided to a user to investigate or inspect, for example, to determine whether a new part should be installed or whether the empty tool holder 212 is damaged or otherwise needs replacing itself. The missing-tool tool holder 214 shows an example, where the part has worn away or has broken off. In this example, a warning and/or notice may be generated and provided to a user to investigate or inspect, for example, to determine whether a new part should be installed or whether the missing-tool tool holder 214 is damaged or otherwise needs replacing itself. FIG. 2 also shows body tool holder 216 showing a wear pattern that has consumed the part (or the part fell or broke off) and part of the tool holder itself. In this example, a warning and/or notice may be generated and provided to a user to investigate or inspect and replace the body wash tool holder 216 (col. 10, lines 5-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the system of Yasuda/Imashiro a system command to identify and remove any other tool holders in the machine tool to include a vacant tool holder holding no tool (missing-tool tool holder), as taught by Hirman, as an effective means of allowing the transport system to remove the vacant tool holder from the process and thus save processing time which would result in higher efficiency of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Junike et al. (US 3,925,877) teaches an apparatus for changing the tool holders carrying mounted tools on a machine tool (title).
Hirose (JP 02083134A) teaches a tool arrangement control device for tool magazine of NC machine tool (title).
Oyamada et al. (JP 2020146792 A) teaches a machine tool, machining system, and management system (title).
Yamada (JP 60044241 A) teaches a tool changing method in machine tool (title).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 03/20/2026