DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/20/2026
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) in view of Lee (US20160207202A1) and further in view of Yasuda (JP6793278B1- US version US20230294228A1 is being cited in the rejection)
Applicant in page 7 argues in part, “Therefore, Ogawa' s processor does not, upon receiving a detachment notification, refer to correspondence information to identify a tool bench and then dynamically search for an empty pot to decide where to place the tool.”
Examiner agrees. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) in view of Lee (US20160207202A1) and further in view of Yasuda (JP6793278B1- US version US20230294228A1 is being cited in the rejection)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the processor refers to the tool-bench information to identify the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool, searches for an empty pot in the tool bench. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a processor. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites referring to the tool-bench information to identify the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool, searches for an empty pot in the tool bench. Human mind is capable of analyzing tool-bench information to identifying tool bench corresponding to the machine tool and searching for an empty pot in the tool bench. The mere nominal recitation of a processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim recites additional limitations directed to, “A tool management device comprising: a memory storing (i) tool information including a location of a tool and (ii) tool-bench information including at least a correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench including a plurality of pots; and a processor changing data in the tool information and receiving a detachment notification when a tool is detached from the machine tool, wherein when the detachment notification is received…changes the location of the tool in the tool information from (a) the machine tool to (b) the empty pot of the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool in the tool bench information.” With regard to a memory storing (i) tool information including a location of a tool and (ii) tool-bench information including at least a correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench including a plurality of pots, this limitation invokes a generic computer component (i.e. memory) as a tool to perform a function that it performs in its ordinary capacity (i.e. storing information). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the processor receiving a detachment notification when a tool is detached from the machine tool, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). With regards to, the processor changing data in the tool information and [changing] the location of the tool in the tool information, these limitations are directed to using a computer as a tool to manipulate stored data with no restriction on how the manipulation is done and no description of the mechanism for performing the manipulation. These limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because these type of recitations is equivalent to the words "apply it". (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites additional limitations directed to, “A tool management device comprising: a memory storing (i) tool information including a location of a tool and (ii) tool-bench information including at least a correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench including a plurality of pots; and a processor changing data in the tool information and receiving a detachment notification when a tool is detached from the machine tool, wherein when the detachment notification is received…changes the location of the tool in the tool information from (a) the machine tool to (b) the empty pot of the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool in the tool bench information.” With regard to a memory storing (i) tool information including a location of a tool and (ii) tool-bench information including at least a correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench including a plurality of pots, this limitation invokes a generic computer component (i.e. memory) as a tool to perform a function that it performs in its ordinary capacity (i.e. storing information). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to the processor receiving a detachment notification when a tool is detached from the machine tool, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). With regards to, the processor changing data in the tool information and [changing] the location of the tool in the tool information, these limitations are directed to using a computer as a tool to manipulate stored data with no restriction on how the manipulation is done and no description of the mechanism for performing the manipulation. These limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because these type of recitations is equivalent to the words "apply it". (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, “the tool information includes information indicating a tool bench as a storage destination of a tool and one of the pots of the tool bench which is the storage destination of the tool.”. This limitation merely recites the tool information to include specific types of information related to tool management. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, “wherein the processor instructs a worker of the empty pot of the tool bench as a storage destination of a tool when the detachment notification is received.”. In view of the published specification ¶0052, this limitation is directed to transmitting a message to user device regarding a storage destination of a tool. This limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data transmission and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found transmitting data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 4 further recites, “wherein when a tool is picked up from the tool bench by an automatic transfer machine, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the tool bench to the automatic transfer machine.” These limitations are directed to using a computer as a tool to manipulate stored data with no restriction on how the manipulation is done and no description of the mechanism for performing the manipulation. These limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because these type of recitations is equivalent to the words "apply it". (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 5 further recites, “wherein when the automatic transfer machine places a tool on a tool bench corresponding to a tool-change area, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the automatic transfer machine to the tool bench corresponding to the tool-change area.” These limitations are directed to using a computer as a tool to manipulate stored data with no restriction on how the manipulation is done and no description of the mechanism for performing the manipulation. These limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because these type of recitations is equivalent to the words "apply it". (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, “wherein when the automatic transfer machine picks up a tool from the tool bench corresponding to the tool-change area and carries the tool to a tool bench corresponding to the machine tool, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the automatic transfer machine to the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool” These limitations are directed to using a computer as a tool to manipulate stored data with no restriction on how the manipulation is done and no description of the mechanism for performing the manipulation. These limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because these type of recitations is equivalent to the words "apply it". (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and therefore recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, “wherein when a tool is attached to the machine tool from the tool bench, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool to the machine tool.” These limitations are directed to using a computer as a tool to manipulate stored data with no restriction on how the manipulation is done and no description of the mechanism for performing the manipulation. These limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because these type of recitations is equivalent to the words "apply it". (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) in view of Lee (US20160207202A1) and further in view of Yasuda (JP6793278B1- US version US20230294228A1 is being cited in the rejection).
Regarding claim 1,
Ogawa teaches, A tool management device comprising:
a memory storing (i) tool information including a location of a tool and (ii) tool-bench information including at least a correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench including a plurality of pots; and(¶0025 teaches memory unit 27 further stores stocker number, type of tool stored in the location of each stocker number and correspondence between each magazine number and each stocker number, therefore it stores information including at least a correspondence between the magazine 50 and the stocker 16. ¶0019 teaches, The tool stocker 16 can store a plurality of tools 40 . Here, the location where each tool 40 is stored in the tool stocker 16 is identified by a stocker number. Therefore, the stocker includes multiple pots)
a processor changing data in the tool information and (¶0043 teaches, the motor control unit 24 updates the correspondence between each magazine number and each stocker number and the weight of the tool stored in the storage unit 27. ¶0018 teaches motor control unit is part of control device 22 which comprises a processor)
receiving a detachment notification when a tool is detached from the machine tool, wherein (¶0030 teaches communication unit 26 of the control device 22 receives notification from communication unit 76 about tool removal completion signal)
when the detachment notification is received, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from (a) the machine tool to (b) the empty pot of the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool in the tool-bench information. (¶0043 teaches determining when the tool attachment/detachment signal from the communication unit 76 is no longer received by the communication unit 26 after tool has been removed from the tool magazine 50, the motor control unit 24 updates the correspondence between each magazine number and each stocker number stored in the storage unit 27. ¶0029 teaches, The removal operation of the specific tool by the tool transport device 14 starts when the robot 70 starts moving to grab the specific tool attached to the tool magazine 50. Completion of the removal operation of the specific tool means that the robot 70 has removed the specific tool from the tool magazine 50, stored it in the tool stocker 16. ¶0025 teaches, when a tool 40 is moved between the tool magazine 50 and the tool stocker 16 by the tool transport device 14, the correspondence between each magazine number and each stocker number and the weight of the tool stored in the memory unit 27 is updated. Therefore, the location of the specific tool is updated from the magazine 50 (machine tool) to stocker 16 (tool bench corresponding to the magazine))
Ogawa doesn’t explicitly teach, the processor refers to the tool-bench information to identify the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool, (Lee in ¶0241 and ¶0256-¶0257 teaches, identifying a desired location within a tool rack based on storage location information to store old tools)
Lee is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a method and apparatus for exchanging tools in a robot (see ¶0002). A combination of Lee with Ogawa would allow the system to identify the tool bench (a desired location within a tool rack) corresponding to the machine tool (old tools) based on tool-bench information (storage location information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Lee with Ogawa. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to store the old tools in the desired tool rack as taught by Lee in ¶0241 and ¶0256-¶0257.
Ogawa and Lee as combined doesn’t explicitly teach, searches for an empty pot in the tool bench, and (Yasuda in ¶0111-¶0112 controller 50 determines a storage destination of tool holder TP by referring to a vacant storage place defined in storage information 175)
Yasuda is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a tool transport system. One of skill in the art could combine the teaching of Yasuda with Ogawa and Lee to teach searching for an empty pot in the tool bench. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Yasuda with Ogawa and Lee. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow identifying a storage place for the tool. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda teaches, The tool management device according to claim 1,
the tool information includes information indicating a tool bench as a storage destination of a tool and one of the pots of the tool bench which is the storage destination of the tool. (Ogawa in ¶0036 teaches, "M100D2E1" written second in the machining program 80 commands the removal of the tool attached to magazine number 2 of the tool magazine 50 and storing it in stocker number 1 of the tool stocker 16)
Regarding claim 4,
Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda teaches, The tool management device according to claim 1, wherein when a tool is picked up from the tool bench by an automatic transfer machine, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the tool bench to the automatic transfer machine. (Yasuda in ¶0121 teaches after arm robot 330 takes tool holder TP out of tool storage portion 250, and places tool holder TP on temporary placing area 336 on carriage 332, the controller deletes identification information of the tool from storage information 175 (see FIG. 14 ) described above, and rewrites the storage source of the tool to a vacant state. ¶0043 teaches carriage 332 is part of transport device 300. Therefore, the location of the tool is rewritten/changed from a storage location to a vacant state (transport device))
Regarding claim 5,
Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda teaches, The tool management device according to claim 4, wherein when the automatic transfer machine places a tool on a tool bench corresponding to a tool-change area, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the automatic transfer machine to the tool bench corresponding to the tool-change area. (Yasuda in Fig. 11 and ¶0107-¶0114 teaches, tool carrying-in step into tool storage portion. ¶0113 teaches, after robot 330 detaches tool holder TP to be carried-in from temporary placing area 336, and stores tool holder TP in the determined storage destination (tool bench corresponding to the tool-change area), controller 50 writes the storage place of tool holder TP, and information about the tool held by tool holder TP into storage information 175)
Regarding claim 6,
Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda teaches, The tool management device according to claim 5, wherein when the automatic transfer machine picks up a tool from the tool bench corresponding to the tool-change area and carries the tool to a tool bench corresponding to the machine tool, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the automatic transfer machine to the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool. (Ogawa in ¶0025 teaches, the memory unit 27 further stores the type and weight of the tools 40 attached to the grips 54 of each magazine number of the tool magazine 50. “When a tool 40 is moved between the tool magazine 50 and the tool stocker 16 by the tool transport device 14, the correspondence between each magazine number and each stocker number stored in the memory unit 27 is updated”)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) in view of Lee (US20160207202A1) and further in view of Yasuda (JP6793278B1- US version US20230294228A1 is being cited in the rejection) and further in view of Faust (US 20080210649 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda doesn’t teach, The tool management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor instructs a worker of the empty pot of the tool bench as a storage destination of a tool when the detachment notification is received. (Ogawa teaches determining when the tool attachment/detachment signal from the communication unit 76 is no longer received by the communication unit 26 after tool has been removed from the tool magazine 50. Yasuda in ¶0111-¶0113 teaches storing the tool in a vacant storage place. However, it doesn’t teach instructing a worker of a tool bench as a storage destination of a tool. Faust in ¶0090 teaches, Computer 73 generates a set of transfer instructions which, when performed by a machine operator will result in the selected machine 79 having the tools required for the selected job. The transfer instructions instruct the operator to transfer tools from the machine 79 to tool storage system 72.)
Faust is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a tool storage system. One of ordinary skill in the art could combine Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda’s teaching of receiving notification after tool has been removed from the tool magazine with Faust’s teaching of instructing operator to transfer tools from the machine to tool storage system, to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Faust with Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would make it possible to ensure the machine 79 has the tools required for the selected job, as taught by Faust in ¶0090.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) in view of Lee (US20160207202A1) and further in view of Yasuda (JP6793278B1- US version US20230294228A1 is being cited in the rejection) and further in view of Nabuchi (Machine translation of JP2020064444A)
Regarding claim 7,
Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda doesn’t teach, The tool management device according to claim 6, wherein when a tool is attached to the machine tool from the tool bench, the processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool to the machine tool. (Nabuchi in ¶0027-¶0039 teaches a method for attaching the tool 15. It teaches ATC mounts the tool 15 from tool pot 45 to a mounting position 46 and stores the machine ID 831 in the location 816 in association with the tool ID 811 (see ¶0038-¶0039))
Nabuchi is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a tool management system for managing tools used in machine tools (see ¶0001). One of skill in the art could combine the teaching of Nabuchi with Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda to teach changing the location of the tool in the tool information to the machine, when a tool is attached to the machine tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Nabuchi with Ogawa, Lee and Yasuda. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow a worker to easily find out where in the factory (machine tool 50 or machine tool 50 in the tool room) the desired tool 15 is located, as taught by Nabuchi in ¶0051.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitamura (US20190118319A1) in 0061-¶0062 teaches stowing a tool after use in an unoccupied pot.
Parness (US12013686B1) in Column 14 Line 46- Column 16 Line 29 and Fig. 7 teaches, the stow system identifies occupied space and unoccupied space within each container of the plurality of containers and matching the item to a container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights