DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/15/2025
- Claim 1 and 3-7 are amended.
- THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in page 7 of remarks filed on 12/15/2025 argues, “In Ogawa, the correspondence is merely a status record of which specific slots (magazine numbers) in the machine align with which specific slots (stocker numbers) in a fixed tool stocker based on current inventory (Ogawa, paragraph [0025], Fig. 3). Ogawa describes a single "work system 10" (Ogawa, paragraph [0012]) where a tool stocker 16 is fixedly provided. Ogawa does not disclose a "correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench" in the sense of installation information linking two distinct entities (a specific machine tool and a specific tool bench assigned to it), as described in the present invention (see paragraphs [0009], [0033] - [0034] of the specification, and Fig. 4).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a "correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench" in the sense of installation information linking two distinct entities (a specific machine tool and a specific tool bench assigned to it), as described in the present invention (see paragraphs [0009], [0033] - [0034] of the specification, and Fig. 4)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Broadest reasonable interpretation of “memory storing …a correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench” does not require installation information linking two distinct entities (a specific machine tool and a specific tool bench assigned to it), it merely requires the memory to store a connection between a machine tool and a tool bench. Ogawa in ¶0025 teaches memory unit 27 stores correspondence between each magazine number and each stocker number, therefore it stores a connection between the magazine 50 and the stocker 16.
Applicant in page 8 of remarks argues, “Further, Ogawa fails to disclose changing location based on detachment notification and correspondence. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites that "when the detachment notification is received, the processor changes the location ... to (b) the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool in the tool-bench information." This claim language defines a logic where the detachment notification triggers a lookup of the correspondence information to determine the destination (the corresponding tool bench).
….
Therefore, in Ogawa, when a "detachment notification" is received (indicating the robot finished moving), the system does not look up a "machine-to-bench correspondence" to figure out where the tool went. In other words, the system of Ogawa already knows the tool went to "Stocker Number I" because the command MI00D2El instructed it to go there.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., detachment notification triggers a lookup of the correspondence information to determine the destination (the corresponding tool bench)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claimed limitation does not require “look up a "machine-to-bench correspondence" to figure out where the tool went”. The claimed limitation recites “processor changes the location of the tool in the tool information from (a) the machine tool to (b) the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool in the tool-bench information” Ogawa in ¶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)
Applicant in page 8-9 recites, “Without the claimed "correspondence between a machine tool and a tool bench," the step in claim I of changing the location to "the tool bench corresponding to the machine tool" cannot be performed. Ogawa merely updates a slot status (Stocker No. I = "Present" or "None") based on the execution of a specific transport command (paragraph [0040], etc.). This does not anticipate the logic of claim 1, which automatically updates the location to a specific tool bench associated with the machine tool upon receipt of a detachment notification, even in the absence of a specific transport command specifying a destination slot. Accordingly, Ogawa does not disclose each and every element of claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “automatically updates the location to a specific tool bench associated with the machine tool upon receipt of a detachment notification, even in the absence of a specific transport command specifying a destination slot”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A).
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; 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)
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 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))
Regarding claim 2,
Ogawa teaches, The tool management device according to claim 1,
wherein the tool bench includes a plurality of pots, and (¶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.)
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. (¶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)
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) in view of Faust (US 20080210649 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Ogawa doesn’t teach, The tool management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor instructs a worker of a 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, 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’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. 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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) in view of Yasuda (JP6793278B1- US version US20230294228A1 is being cited in the rejection).
Regarding claim 4,
Ogawa doesn’t teach, 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))
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 to teach changing the location of the tool in the tool information from the tool bench to the automatic transfer machine, when a tool is picked up by an automatic transfer machine. 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. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow tracking the location of the tool as it is being handled by the automatic transfer machine. 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 5,
Ogawa 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 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (Machine translation of JP2020110897A) 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 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 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 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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