Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-3) in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form (multiple short sentences). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: an imaging portion, a tool holding unit, and a purge mechanism in claim 1.
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.
A review of the original disclosure including the specification and drawings reveals the following:
The camera 106 functions as an imaging portion (paragraph [0065]).
The tool holding unit can be a spindle 116 or a tool rest (paragraph [0021]) or a pot 22 of the magazine 20 (paragraph [0052]).
The purge mechanism 400 includes a pump 402 and a pipe 404 (paragraph [0030]).
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The examiner notices that in claim 1 where a cover for covering a light-receiving surface is first introduced in line 9 is further referred to “the cover” in lines 13 and 15-16. However, dependent claim 3 recites two different covers namely the cover for light-receiving surface from claim 1 and a cover for light-emitting surface and as such, refers to each cover in full descriptive way. Therefore, for clarity and consistency purposes only, it is suggested that claim 1, lines 13 and 15-16 be amended to refer back to the cover for light-receiving receiving surface in full descriptive way.
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 1-3 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.
Claims 1-3 are considered as apparatus claims with some functional language. However, independent claim 1, last paragraph appears to positively recite process steps of moving the shutter and cover after the purge is performed. Similarly, dependent claims 2 and 3 pose the issue of reciting process claims which is confusing and unclear if these limitations are meant to be only functional.
The following amendment to lines 11-13 of claim 1 and wherein clauses of each of claims 1-3 are drafted by the examiner and presented to applicant for consideration to overcome any potential 112(b) issues:
Claim 1:
a purge mechanism for performing purge by causing fluid to flow between the light-receiving surface of the imaging portion and the cover for covering of light-receiving surface of the imaging portion,
wherein, the machine tool is configured such that (i) the purge mechanism performs purge, then the machine tool (ii) starts moving the shutter to the open state and (iii) after the start of moving the shutter, the machine tool moves the cover for covering of light-receiving surface of the imaging portion.
Claim 2:
wherein the machine tool is configured to move the cover for covering the light-emitting surface of the illuminator after start of moving the shutter and before moving the cover for covering the light-receiving surface of the imaging portion.
Claim 3:
wherein the machine tool is configured to move the cover for covering the light receiving surface, and after the cover for covering the light-receiving surface of the imaging portion is moved, the machine tool is configured to move the cover for covering the light-emitting surface of the illuminator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srivatsan et al. (US 20120087647 A1, hereinafter “Srivatsan”).
As applied to claim 1, Srivatsan teaches a machine tool (paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0068], Fig. 2A) comprising an imaging portion (CCD cameras, paragraphs [0005]-[0008], [0045], [0068], [0070], [0071]) for imaging a tool in an imaging area (intended use limitation); a tool holding unit (spindle, paragraphs [0005], [0068]) capable of holding the tool in the imaging area (intended use limitation); a shutter provided between a machining area and the imaging area (shutter 406, abstract, paragraphs Figs. 2B, 4B, paragraphs [0010], [0046], [0050]) and being movable between an open state and a closed state (intended use limitation); a cover (the camera shutter, paragraph [0071]) for covering a light-receiving surface of the imaging portion; and a purge mechanism (gas supplying unit, paragraphs [0010]-[0012]) for performing purge by causing fluid to flow between the light-receiving surface of the imaging portion and the cover (intended use limitation), wherein (i) after the purge is performed by the purge mechanism, the machine tool (ii) moves the shutter, and (iii) moves the cover after start of moving of the shutter (intended use limitations).
The above claim limitations in bold text are considered to be intended use limitations. Although the recitations have been fully considered, it carries limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Srivatsan meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
In particular, Srivatsan teaches (paragraph [0010]) the enclosure includes a housing, a shutter mechanism, and a gas supplying unit. The housing is configured to house an imaging device and includes a transparent window. The shutter mechanism is disposed on the housing and the transparent window. Further, the shutter mechanism includes an opening formed therein and a shutter configured to cover the opening in a closed state and to uncover the opening to allow an image to be captured by the imaging device through the transparent window in an open state. The gas supplying unit is configured to supply gas to a space between the housing and the shutter mechanism such that gas is blown across the surface of the transparent window and purged out of the space through the opening when the shutter is in the open state.
As applied to claim 2, Srivatsan teaches the invention cited including further comprising an illuminator (light source 24, Fig. 2B), installed above the imaging portion (upper portion of 24 is above camera 2, Fig. 2B), for casting light on the tool to be imaged (intended use limitation); and a cover (26, Fig. 2B) for covering a light-emitting surface of the illuminator (intended use limitation), wherein the cover for covering the light-emitting surface of the illuminator is moved after start of moving of the shutter and before moving of the cover for covering the light-receiving surface of the imaging portion (intended use limitation).
The above claim limitations in bold text are considered to be intended use limitations. Although the recitations have been fully considered, it carries limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Srivatsan meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
As applied to claim 3, Srivatsan teaches the invention cited including an illuminator (light source 24) installed below the imaging portion (2, a lower portion of 24 is installed below the top and central portions of 2, Fig. 2B) for casting light on the tool to be imaged (intended use limitation), a cover (26, Fig. 2B) for covering the light-emitting surface of the illuminator (intended use limitation), wherein the cover for covering the light-emitting surface of the illuminator is moved after the cover for covering the light-receiving surface of the imaging portion is moved (intended use limitation).
The above claim limitations in bold text are considered to be intended use limitations. Although the recitations have been fully considered, it carries limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Srivatsan meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coates et al. (WO 2015189600A2) teaches a material processing apparatus including a machine tool adapted and arranged to carry out removal and addition of material on a work piece located in a work station, the machine having a first head arranged to remove material from the work piece and at least a second head arranged to process the work piece, each of the first and second heads being arranged to be moveable in at least two axes and preferably in 3, 4 or 5 axes and wherein the machine is arranged to control an environment of the work station. The work station is at least partially sealable. The machine has a clean side and a dirty side. Novel processing heads particularly adapted for use in the new machine tool are disclosed. These may also be retrofitted to CNC machines. The novel heads include heads adapted to carry out two processes simultaneously. Heads adapted to carry out heat and pressure treatment are also disclosed. Use of the processing heads to carry out analysis in manufacturing steps is disclosed as is the provision and use of heads that can carry out analysis as well as processing (abstract, Figs. 1-3). Coates teaches a tool changer may contain heads with any one or more of the following: an image recording apparatus; lighting, either fixed or moving; touch probes; 3D surface (including laser and structured light varieties) and volumetric scanners, including confocal, focus variation, interferometry and structured light scanners; photogrammetry systems, sensors (such as oxygen sensors; thermal sensors; thermal cameras) eddy current generators, ultrasound transducers (for air, gel, and liquid coupled), electromagnetic wave generators, induction heating coils, electromagnet(s), a magnification device such as confocal microscope, incremental sheet forming tools, heat gun, vacuum, induction heater, galvanometer, oscilloscopes, digital mirror devices, structured light scanners, grinders, abrasives, right angle variations of heads, microscopes, confocal or variable microscopes, electromagnetic detectors including gamma and X-ray, spectrographs, etc. (Description, page 2, 4th full paragraph).
Kasahara (US 20180222002A1) teaches a tool exchange device for a machine tool wherein the device uses an exchange arm to exchange tools between a processing area and a tool accommodation area which are partitioned by a partition wall provided with an opening and a shutter capable of opening and closing the opening. In the tool exchange device, an imaging device is used to capture an image of a tool in the tool accommodation area, the length of the tool is calculated from the captured image of the tool, the opening width of the shutter is determined in accordance with the length of the tool, and the shutter is opened to the determined opening width (abstract, Fig, 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 04/15/2026
Prosecution Insights