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 .
Comment on Claim Line Numbers
It is noted that on the pages of claims that were filed with this application, line numbers for each page were provided. However, it is noted that (unless otherwise specified herein) for any references herein to line numbers of claims, those line numbers are for the line number of the particular claim rather than being line numbers for the page. For example, in present claim 1, the text “and second stations at each of which a tool is able to be” is found in claim 1, line 3 (even though that text is on page 36, line 5, of the specification as filed).
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:
“tool storage unit” in at least claim 1, lines 5 and 11, and in at least claim 5, lines 4 and 10;
“machining control unit” in at least claim 1, line 7, and claim 5, lines 6 and 17; and
“tool changing unit” in at least claim 1, lines 10 and 21, in claim 4, line 5, and claim 5, lines 9 and 19.
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.
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 1-5 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 1, lines 2-4, the claim recites “a plurality of stations including first and second stations at each of which a tool is able to be attached”. However, it is unclear as set forth in this limitation to what “which” is intended to refer, i.e., “a plurality of stations”, vs. “first and second stations”.
In claim 1, lines 7-8, the claim recites “a machining control unit for controlling a tool attached to the turret…”. However, it is noted that in lines 2-4, the claim previously set forth “a turret having a plurality of machining stations including first and second stations at each of which a tool is able to be attached”. That said, it is unclear as claimed whether “a tool attached to the turret” (in lines 7-8) is intended to be additional to the tools previously mentioned in lines 2-4 of claim 1, or whether “a tool attached to the turret” is instead intended to be a subset of the tools previously mentioned in lines 2-4 of claim 1.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, the claim recites “a tool changing unit for replacing the tool attached to the turret with a tool stored in the tool storage unit”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether “a tool stored in the tool storage unit” is intended to be a subset of the “plurality of tools” mentioned in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or is instead intended to be additional thereto. Additionally, the limitation “the tool attached to the turret” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to reference the “tool attached to the turret” set forth in lines 7-8 of claim 1, or whether such is instead intended to refer to one of the tools previously mentioned in lines 2-4 of claim 1.
In claim 1, lines 13-19, the claim sets forth “a tool pattern memory for memorizing, as a first tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations which is associated with a first part of the machining program and memorizing, as a second tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations which is associated with a second part of the machining program after the first part”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as being or occurring “after the first part”, i.e., the second part of the machining program, vs. the memorizing, as a second tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations which is associated with a second part of the machining program, i.e., the second part of the program vs. the aforedescribed action of memorizing.
In claim 1, line 20, the claim sets forth “when machining work is stopped…”. It is unclear as set forth in this limitation whether “work” in the recitation of “machining work” in this context is intended to reference the (previously mentioned in line 9) “workpiece”, or is instead intended to reference a machining action/task.
In claim 1, last two lines, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “on the machining program” is intended to go, i.e., it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as “on the machining program”. Note that in the event “on the machining program” is intended to go with “time of stop”, it is unclear how or in what regard a “time” of “stop” is to be considered to be “on the machining program”.
In claim 1, the last five lines, the claim recites “wherein when machining work is stopped during execution of the second part, the tool changing unit performs tool change in accordance with a past tool pattern that is saved to be associated with a part of the machining program before a time of stop on the machining program”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as occurring “before a time of stop”, e.g., the performance of the tool change via the tool changing unit; the saving of the “past tool pattern”; the association of the past tool pattern with a part of the machining program; etc.
In each of claim 2 and claim 5 (lines 12-13 in claim 5), the claim sets forth “the machining program includes a station tool code that is a command instructing to memorize a tool pattern”. However, it appears that this limitation is missing some verbiage, e.g., “is a command instructing” what “to memorize a tool pattern”?
In claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the machining program includes a station tool code that is a command instructing to memorize a tool pattern” and also recites “and the tool pattern memory memorizes a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations as a tool pattern when the station tool code is detected during execution of the machining program”. However, noting that claim 1 already previously recited a “first tool pattern”, a “second tool pattern” and a “past tool pattern”, it is unclear as claimed whether either (or both) of the recitations of “a tool pattern” in claim 2 are intended to be any of the previously-recited tool patterns (and if so, it is unclear which specific one of the previously-recited tool patterns is intended to be referenced), vs. whether either (or both) of the recitations of “a tool pattern” in claim 2 are intended to be additional to the previously-recited tool patterns.
In claim 2, in the limitation “the tool pattern memory memorizes a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations as a tool pattern when the station tool code is detected during execution of the machining program”, it is unclear as claimed with what the limitation “when the station tool code is detected” is intended to go, and thus, it is unclear as claimed what actions are intended to be recited as occurring “when the station tool code is detected”, i.e., the act of memorizing, vs. a combination of the tools that are attached at the first and second stations. For example, it is unclear whether the claim intends to require that, when the station tool code is detected, the tool pattern memory memorizes, (as a tool pattern), a combination of tools that are attached at the first and second tool stations. Alternatively, it is unclear whether the claim instead intends to require that the tool pattern memory is configured to memorize a combination of tools (as a tool pattern) that are attached (i.e., so attached/located at a time when the station tool code is detected) at the first and second stations.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the tool pattern memory memorizes a tool pattern for each machining program”. However, it is noted that claim 3 depends from claim 1, and that claim 1 already previously recited “a tool pattern memory for memorizing, as a first tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations which is associated with a first part of the machining program and memorizing, as a second tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations which is associated with a second part of the machining program after the first part, wherein when machining work is stopped during execution of the second part, the tool changing unit performs tool change in accordance with a past tool pattern that is saved to be associated with a part of the machining program before a time of stop on the machining program”. In other words, claim 1 previously only recited one machining program, and previously recited each of “a first tool pattern”, “a second tool pattern”, and “a past tool pattern”. That said, to the extent that “each machining program” is intended to reference plural machining programs, and/or is intended to reference programs additional to the previously-recited “machining program”, then it appears that “each machining program” lacks sufficient clear antecedent basis in the claim, as no machining programs additional to the “machining program” of claim 1 were previously recited. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed whether “a tool pattern” in claim 3 is intended to be the same as one of the three previously recited tool patterns (and if so, it is unclear which one of the three previously-referenced tool patterns is intended to be referenced), vs. whether “a tool pattern” in claim 3 is intended to be additional to the three previously-recited tool patterns. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed whether claim 3 intends to recite one (same/common) tool pattern for each machining program, vs. a respective tool pattern for each machining program.
In claim 5, lines 6-7, the claim recites “a machining control unit for controlling a tool attached to the turret…”. However, it is noted that in lines 2-3, the claim previously set forth “a turret having a station at which a tool is able to be attached”. That said, it is unclear as claimed whether “a tool attached to the turret” (in lines 6-7) is intended to be additional to the tool previously mentioned in lines 2-3 of claim 5, or whether “a tool attached to the turret” is instead intended to be the tool previously mentioned in lines 2-3 of claim 5.
In claim 5, lines 9-10, the claim recites “a tool changing unit for replacing the tool attached to the turret with a tool stored in the tool storage unit”. However, firstly, it is unclear as claimed whether “a tool stored in the tool storage unit” is intended to be a subset of the “plurality of tools” mentioned in lines 4-5 of claim 5 (i.e., a tool that is one of the plurality of tools), or is instead intended to be additional thereto (i.e., a tool that is not one of the plurality of tools). Additionally, the limitation “the tool attached to the turret” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to reference the “tool attached to the turret” set forth in lines 6-7 of claim 5, or whether such is instead intended to refer to one of the tools previously mentioned in lines 4-5 of claim 5.
In claim 5, lines 12-13, the claim sets forth “the machining program includes a station tool code that is a command instructing to memorize a tool pattern”. It appears that the specification as filed sets forth a special definition of the term “tool pattern” in paragraph 0008 as “a combination (hereinafter, a ‘tool pattern’) of work tools attached to the tool rest” (and it is noted that the specification uses the term “turret”, or the turret in combination with the turret base, synonymously with the term “tool rest”; see paragraph 0015 of the specification as filed, for example). That being said, noting that claim 5 does not expressly recite plural tools that are attached to the tool turret, it is unclear as set forth in claim 5 whether claim 5 does or does not intend to require plural turret tools and/or plural turret tool stations, by virtue of the special definition of the term “tool pattern” set forth in paragraph 0008 of the specification as filed (which thus requires a “combination” of, i.e., plural, “work tools attached to the tool rest”/turret), and by virtue of the limitation “the machining program includes a station tool code that is a command instructing to memorize a tool pattern”. In particular, it is unclear as claimed whether a machine program including a station tool code that is a command instructing (something to perform) memorizing the address/location/station number or the like of a single tool constitutes memorizing a “tool pattern”, vs. whether the command must instruct the memorizing of plural tools in order for the memorizing to be considered to be memorizing of a “tool pattern” as set forth in claim 5.
In claim 5, lines 12-13, the claim sets forth “the machining program includes a station tool code that is a command instructing to memorize a tool pattern”. Claim 5 further sets forth (in lines 14-21) “in a case where execution of the machining program is interrupted in middle of the machining program and thereafter the machining program is resumed from a point of interruption, the machining control unit reads the station tool code and, when a tool corresponding to the station tool code is not attached at the station, the tool changing unit performs tool change in accordance with a past tool pattern saved in advance before the point of interruption”. However, noting that as set forth in lines 12-13, the “station tool code” is a “command instructing to memorize a tool pattern”, it is unclear in lines 18-19 what constitutes “a tool corresponding to the station tool code”, i.e., it is unclear as claimed what constitutes “a tool corresponding to” the “command instructing to memorize a tool pattern”, as it is unclear how or in what regard a tool, per se, can be considered to “correspond” to a “command” that instructs memorization.
In claim 5, last three lines, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as occurring “before the point of interruption”, e.g., the saving in advance of the “past tool pattern”, or the tool change via the tool changing unit. {Note that the claim does not provide an indication of when the machining control unit carries out the function of reading the tool station code, nor an indication of when (it happens that) a tool corresponding to the tool station code is not attached at the station, in the limitation “in a case where execution of the machining program is interrupted in middle of the machining program and thereafter the machining program is resumed from a point of interruption, the machining control unit reads the station tool code and, when a tool corresponding to the station tool code is not attached at the station, the tool changing unit performs tool change in accordance with a past tool pattern saved in advance before the point of interruption”.}
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As noted above in a separate rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC 112(b), in claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the tool pattern memory memorizes a tool pattern for each machining program”. However, it is noted that claim 3 depends from claim 1, and that claim 1 already previously recited “a tool pattern memory for memorizing, as a first tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations which is associated with a first part of the machining program and memorizing, as a second tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations which is associated with a second part of the machining program after the first part, wherein when machining work is stopped during execution of the second part, the tool changing unit performs tool change in accordance with a past tool pattern that is saved to be associated with a part of the machining program before a time of stop on the machining program”. In other words, claim 1 previously only recited one machining program, and previously recited each of “a first tool pattern”, “a second tool pattern”, and “a past tool pattern”. That said, to the extent that “each machining program” is intended to reference plural machining programs, and/or is intended to reference programs additional to the previously-recited “machining program”, then it appears that “each machining program” lacks sufficient clear antecedent basis in the claim, as no machining programs additional to the “machining program” of claim 1 were previously recited. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed whether “a tool pattern” in claim 3 is intended to be the same as one of the three previously recited tool patterns (and if so, it is unclear which one of the three previously-referenced tool patterns is intended to be referenced), vs. whether “a tool pattern” in claim 3 is intended to be additional to the three previously-recited tool patterns. Additionally, it is unclear as claimed whether claim 3 intends to recite one (same/common) tool pattern for each machining program, vs. a respective tool pattern for each machining program.
All that being said, in the event that claim 3 intends to redefine the tool patterns such that there is one tool pattern for the previously-recited machining program, as opposed to three (i.e., the previously-recited “first tool pattern”, “second tool pattern” and “past tool pattern saved to be associated with a part of the machining program…”), then it appears that claim 3 does not require all of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3 and 5, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 62-236642 A (hereinafter, “JP ‘642”).
It is noted that JP ‘642 was cited on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 12/8/2022. It is additionally noted that Applicant provided a copy of a translation of JP ‘642 with that IDS. That said, an additional translation of JP ‘642 is being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) attached to this Office Action. Attention is directed to the presently-cited translation of JP ‘642 regarding any references herein to paragraph numbers, line numbers, page numbers, or the like re JP ‘642.
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘642 teaches a machine tool (such as an NC lathe; see page 1 of the translation, the paragraph under the heading “Industrial Application”, for example) comprising:
a turret (see page 1 of the translation, the paragraph under the heading “Industrial Application”, for example; see also the partial annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below, noting that the element labeled below as Q is the tool rest/turret/post that is described on at least page 5, lines 5-7, by JP ‘642 as being driven by the tool rest control device 7a; see also the sentence spanning pages 3-4, which teaches that Figure 1 is an embodiment of the present invention; see also Th in Figures 4a and 4b, as well as pages 7-8, particularly lines 8 and 12 of page 7 and line 4 of page 8, which pages 7-8 describe operation of Figure 4 in conjunction with the invention of JP ‘642, i.e., as opposed to Figure 4 being solely the prior art) having a plurality of stations (such as the stations labeled in the annotated partial reproduction of Figure 1 below as S1, S2; see also page 3 under the heading “Industrial application”, as well as pages 1-3, for example) including first and second stations (such as, for example, S1, S2) at each of which a tool (T) is able to be attached;
a tool storage unit (the “tool magazine” described by JP ‘642, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as M, which is described by JP ‘642 as being controlled by magazine control device 7c; see at least Figure 1 and page 5, the sentence beginning on line 5; see also Mg in Figure 4 and page 8, lines 13-15; see also the paragraph on page 1 under the heading “Industrial Application”, for example) capable of storing a plurality of tools (T) therein;
a machining control unit (7, or 7+1, or 7+1+3, for example) (Figure 1, page 5, lines 5-7, as well as page 4, lines 1-12) for controlling a tool attached to the (aforedescribed) turret (Q/Th) in accordance with a machining program (see at least page 5, the sentence beginning “[T]he machine control means 7…”, and see also at least page 4, lines 1-12, for example, and pages 2-3 under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, as well as page 5, lines 5-17, for example), to machine a workpiece;
a tool changing unit (ATC, including arm Ar; see Figures 1 and 4a-4b, as well as at least page 1 under the heading “Prior Art”, which teaches that ATC refers to an automatic tool changer; see also pages 2-3 under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, page 5, lines 5-7, page 7, lines 7-18, and page 8, lines 13-15, for example) for replacing the tool (T) attached to the (aforedescribed) turret with a tool stored in the (aforedescribed) tool storage unit (see Figures 1 and 4a-4b, as well as at least page 1 under the heading “Prior Art”, which teaches that ATC refers to an automatic tool changer; see also pages 2-3 under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, page 5, lines 5-7, page 7, lines 7-18, and page 8, lines 13-15, for example); and
a tool pattern memory (4 and/or 5; see Figures 1-2c, as well as page 4, line 1 through page 5, line 4, for example; see also page 5, lines 9-17, for example) for memorizing, as a first tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations (see Figures 2a-c and page 4, line 1, through page 5, line 4, and page 5, lines 9-17, for example, noting that all of the storage locations of the tools in the tool turret/post are stored in memory) which is “associated with” (as broadly claimed) a first part of the machining program (such as the part of the machining program for machining the first/initial workpiece, i.e., the workpiece before the “next” workpiece; see page 1, the paragraph under “Industrial Application Field”, and pages 2-3, under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, for example, as well as page 3, under the heading “Function”, for example) and memorizing, as a second tool pattern, a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations (of the aforedescribed turret) which is associated with a second part of the machining program (i.e., the time and portion of the overall program that occurs/exists/is executed after the machining of the first workpiece is finished, including the time to remove the finished workpiece, and including the time and actions for machining the “next” workpiece; see page 1, the paragraph under “Industrial Application Field”, and pages 2-3, under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, for example, as well as page 3, under the heading “Function”, for example, re the “next” workpiece; note that the determination of which tools are in the turret and which tools that are needed for machining the “next”, i.e., second, workpiece, are missing from the turret, and then using the ATC to swap some tools between the turret and the tool magazine to make sure all of the necessary tools for machining the “next” workpiece are provided in the tool turret, is a memorizing of the second tool pattern) after the first part (i.e., the second part of the program is after the first part of the program, noting that the first part of the program is for machining a first workpiece, whereas the second part of the program is after the machining of the first workpiece and includes steps for machining a “next” workpiece, as described above), wherein
when machining work is stopped during execution of the second part (such as the time during the “second part” of the program when machining of the first workpiece has stopped and the first workpiece has not yet been removed from the workpiece holder, and machining of the “next” workpiece has not yet begun, such is a time during the execution of the “second part”, as broadly claimed, and is also a time when machining work is stopped), the tool changing unit (ATC) performs tool change (see page 3 under “function” – “[W]hen the machine side moves from the current work to the next work or the next process of the current work, the unnecessary tools and missing tools are exchanged between the tool post and the tool magazine by the ATC, and automatic setup is performed”) “in accordance with” (as broadly claimed) a “past” tool pattern (noting that the “past” tool pattern, i.e., the pattern of tools present in the tool turret for the machining of the “first” workpiece, is analyzed to determine whether or not the past tool pattern is sufficient for machining the “next” workpiece, or whether the “past” tool pattern is missing tools that are needed for machining the “next” workpiece; see page 3 under the heading “function”, as well as pages 2-3 under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, as well as pages 4-8) that is saved “to be associated with” (as broadly claimed) a part of the (overall) machining program (such as, for example, the part of the machining program that causes the machining of the “next” workpiece) “before a time of stop” on (overall) the machining program (e.g., before stopping of machining of the “next” workpiece, for example).
[AltContent: textbox (S2)]
[AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Q)]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (M)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
238
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘642 teaches that the (aforedescribed overall) machining program includes a station tool code that is a command instructing to memorize a tool pattern (see page 3, under the heading “Function”, for example), and
the (aforedescribed) tool pattern memory memorizes a combination of tools attached at the first and second stations (of the turret) as a tool pattern when the station tool code (i.e., the command “instructing to memorize a tool pattern”) is detected during execution of the (overall) machining program (see page 3, the paragraph under the heading “Function”, for example, as well as pages 4-8 and Figures 1-2c, for example).
Regarding claim 3, the (aforedescribed) tool pattern memory memorizes a tool pattern for “each” (as broadly claimed) machining program (such as the aforedescribed overall machining program).
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘642 teaches a machine tool (such as an NC lathe; see page 1 of the translation, the paragraph under the heading “Industrial Application”, for example) comprising:
a turret (see page 1 of the translation, the paragraph under the heading “Industrial Application”, for example; see also the partial annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below, noting that the element labeled below as Q is the tool rest/turret/post that is described on at least page 5, lines 5-7, by JP ‘642 as being driven by the tool rest control device 7a; see also the sentence spanning pages 3-4, which teaches that Figure 1 is an embodiment of the present invention; see also Th in Figures 4a and 4b, as well as pages 7-8, particularly lines 8 and 12 of page 7 and line 4 of page 8, which pages 7-8 describe operation of Figure 4 in conjunction with the invention of JP ‘642, i.e., as opposed to Figure 4 being solely the prior art) having a station (such as any of the stations labeled in the annotated partial reproduction of Figure 1 above as S1, S2; see also page 3 under the heading “Industrial application”, as well as pages 1-3, for example) at which a tool (T) is able to be attached;
a tool storage unit (the “tool magazine” described by JP ‘642, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as M, which is described by JP ‘642 as being controlled by magazine control device 7c; see at least Figure 1 and page 5, the sentence beginning on line 5; see also Mg in Figure 4 and page 8, lines 13-15; see also the paragraph on page 1 under the heading “Industrial Application”, for example) capable of storing a plurality of tools (T) therein;
a machining control unit (7, or 7+1, or 7+1+3, for example) (Figure 1, page 5, lines 5-7, as well as page 4, lines 1-12) for controlling a tool attached to the (aforedescribed) turret (Q/Th) in accordance with a machining program (see at least page 5, the sentence beginning “[T]he machine control means 7…”, and see also at least page 4, lines 1-12, for example, and pages 2-3 under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, as well as page 5, lines 5-17, for example), to machine a workpiece; and
a tool changing unit (ATC, including arm Ar; see Figures 1 and 4a-4b, as well as at least page 1 under the heading “Prior Art”, which teaches that ATC refers to an automatic tool changer; see also pages 2-3 under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, page 5, lines 5-7, page 7, lines 7-18, and page 8, lines 13-15, for example) for replacing the tool (T) attached to the (aforedescribed) turret with a tool stored in the (aforedescribed) tool storage unit (see Figures 1 and 4a-4b, as well as at least page 1 under the heading “Prior Art”, which teaches that ATC refers to an automatic tool changer; see also pages 2-3 under the heading “Problem to be solved by the invention”, page 5, lines 5-7, page 7, lines 7-18, and page 8, lines 13-15, for example);
wherein the (aforedescribed) machining program includes a station tool code that is a command instructing to memorize a tool pattern (see page 3, under the heading “Function”, for example), and in a case where execution of the machining program is interrupted in middle of the machining program (such as when the machining is switched from machining a first workpiece to machining a “next” workpiece, as described above re the discussion of JP ‘642 re claim 1) and thereafter the machining program is resumed from “a” point of interruption, the machining control unit reads the station tool code (i.e., the “command instructing to memorize a tool pattern”) and, when a tool “corresponding to” (as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112) the station tool code (i.e., the “command instruction to memorize a tool pattern”) is not attached at the station, the tool changing unit (ATC) performs tool change “in accordance with” (as broadly claimed, noting the breadth of the term “in accordance with”) a “past” tool pattern saved in advance before the point of interruption, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112. For example, as noted on page 3 of JP ‘642 under the heading “Function”, “[T]he tool placement code on the turret surface and each pot number in the tool magazine are stored in a memory means in correspondence with each other, and by comparing these with a discrimination means, unnecessary tools and missing tools are detected and sorted together” and “[W]hen the machine side moves from the current work to the next work or the next process of the current work, the unnecessary tools and missing tools are exchanged between the tool post and the magazine by the ATC, and automatic setup is performed”. Note that the claim does not specify when the machining control unit reads the station tool code (i.e., the “command instructing to memorize a tool pattern” as set forth in claim 5, lines 12-13), nor when (or what is occurring when) a tool corresponding to the station tool code is not attached at the station, nor is it clear what is occurring “before the point of interruption”. That being said, note that JP ‘642 teaches that “the machining control unit reads the station code and, when a tool corresponding to the station tool code is not attached at the station, the tool changing unit” (ATC) “performs tool change”, as noted previously, such as is taught by JP ‘642 on page 3, under the heading “Function”, for example. Furthermore, that tool changing is, as broadly claimed, “in accordance with” a “past pattern saved in advance before the point of interruption”, noting that the control unit and tool changing unit must take the “past” tool pattern, used to machine the first workpiece and saved “in advance before the point of interruption”, into consideration in some fashion when determining what tools to exchange (as taught on age least page 3, under the heading “Function”), or else the tool changing unit (ATC) would not know which tools to remove from the turret. Thus, as broadly claimed, the tool change (via the tool changing unit) is “in accordance with” a past tool pattern saved in advance before the point of interruption.
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 4, as best understood in view of the above rejections under 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 62-236642 A (hereinafter, “JP ‘642”).
JP ‘642 teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, regarding claim 4, JP ‘642 does not teach that the machining program includes a restoring code that is a command instructing reproduction of a tool pattern, and when the restoring code is detected during execution of the machining program, the tool changing unit (ATC) attaches tools at the first and second stations of the (aforedescribed) turret in accordance with a tool pattern specified by the restoring code.
That said, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in manufacturing to take another order in the future for the same product, so as to again cause the same machine tool to perform the same machining steps, with the same configuration of tooling, on a workpiece to create a duplicate of that product that was (previously) machined in the past, for the well-known purpose of selling more of that product to make money, with the added well-known benefit of not having to create/determine entirely new machining processes.
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, as is well-known, taken an order (subsequent to the order for the first and “next” workpieces described by JP ‘642) to create another “first” workpiece taught by JP ‘642, using the same machine tool, same configuration of tooling, and same machining steps, as is also well-known, for achieving the well-known purpose of selling more of that product to make money, with the added well-known benefit of not having to create/determine entirely new machining processes. Note that resultantly, the overall (ongoing) “machining program” (as broadly claimed) includes a “restoring code that is a command instructing reproduction of a tooling pattern” (i.e., the tool pattern that was used to machine the “first” workpiece for the previous/initial “order”/production) that, when detected during execution of the overall/ongoing “machining program” (regardless of how much time has lapsed, such can still be considered part of the same overall ongoing program), the tool changing unit attaches tools at the first and second stations of the turret in accordance with a tool pattern specified by the restoring code (page 3 of JP ‘642, under the heading “Function”, for example).
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 8, 2025