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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0039219) and as evidenced by https://www.micro-epsilon.com/distance-sensors/inductive-sensors-eddy-current/eddyncdt-3001/.
Regarding claim 1, Imai discloses a turning tool comprising: a tool main body that extends along a tool axis and that has a pedestal at a tip portion (18); a cutting insert (20) that is detachably attached to the pedestal (figures 1 and 3); and a distance sensor (31/32) that is attached to the tool main body, Imai is silent about the sensor type. The previous Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of eddy current sensor is old and well known in the machining art for detecting proximity, displacement, positions etc has been and presents as evidence
https://www.micro-epsilon.com/distance-sensors/inductive-sensors-eddy-current/eddyncdt-3001/ (Please note: The eddyNCDT 3001 eddy current displacement sensor was released by Micro-Epsilon on August 3, 2015) that an eddy current sensor was a known non-contact distance/displacement sensor at the time of the invention. The website recites “The eddyNCDT 3001 is a new, efficient, inductive displacement sensor based on eddy currents whose compact dimensions have to date only been reserved for inductive proximity switches. The temperature-compensated design provides high stability even in fluctuating ambient temperatures. The eddyNCDT 3001 comes with integrated electronics, offering an outstanding price/performance ratio and easy operation”.
Regarding claim 2, Imai discloses wherein the distance sensor includes
a first distance sensor (31) that takes a radially outer side of the tool axis as a
measurement direction, and a second distance sensor (32) that takes an axial tip side of the tool axis as a measurement direction (figures 1-3 and paragraphs 74-84).
Regarding claims 7, 17, 18 and 20, Imai discloses a communication unit (5) that is configured to transmit measurement data measured by the distance sensor to an outside (paragraphs 133 and 138).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Imai discloses the claimed invention (i.e. distance sensor 31/32) except for distance sensor being fixed by a first bracket (instead of being embedded). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sensor attached by another piece/bracket, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to attach Imai’s sensor with an external bracket for the purpose of allowing serviceability, adjustability, and replacement with ease thus reduced down time.
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0039219) and as evidenced by https://www.micro-epsilon.com/distance-sensors/inductive-sensors-eddy-current/eddyncdt-3001/ and in view of Hashimoto et al. (WO 2020/171157).
Imai discloses all aspects of the invention as set forth in the rejection above. Imai fails to disclose having an imaging device that is attached to the tool main body and that is configured to capture an image. Hashimoto discloses a turning tool having a sensor (9) (figure 2). Hashimoto also discloses that “the sensor (9) is not limited to the above embodiment, and other elements not particularly described above may be used as long as it may be possible to measure the physical values of the base 5 illustrated above. Examples thereof may include a camera and a microphone” (see USP 12,103,088, col. 5, lines 62-67 for English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an imaging device on Imai’s tool, as taught by Hashimoto for the purpose of having multimodal measuring means and visual confirmation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument that “"In the present embodiment, the first distance sensor 31 and the second distance sensor 32 are optical distance sensors using a white coaxial and confocal method." Imai further teaches in [0076] as follows: [0076] The first distance sensor 31 and the second distance sensor 32 are not particularly limited as long as both of these can measure the distance to the object. However, the first distance sensor 31 and the second distance sensor 32 are preferably non-contact distance sensors, and more preferably optical distance sensors from a viewpoint of measurement accuracy. Accordingly, Imai teaches away from using an eddy current sensor by expressly preferring optical distance sensors for measurement accuracy”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Imai teaches selecting a non-contact distance sensor, with an optical sensor merly being a preferred implementation. Imai is not limiting itself to optical. It teaches a non-contact distance sensor and optical a preference.
The previous Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of eddy current sensor is old and well known in the machining art for detecting proximity, displacement, positions etc has been and presents as evidence https://www.micro-epsilon.com/distance-sensors/inductive-sensors-eddy-current/eddyncdt-3001/ (Please note: The eddyNCDT 3001 eddy current displacement sensor was released by Micro-Epsilon on August 3, 2015) that an eddy current sensor was a known non-contact distance/displacement sensor at the time of the invention. The website recites “The eddyNCDT 3001 is a new, efficient, inductive displacement sensor based on eddy currents whose compact dimensions have to date only been reserved for inductive proximity switches. The temperature-compensated design provides high stability even in fluctuating ambient temperatures. The eddyNCDT 3001 comes with integrated electronics, offering an outstanding price/performance ratio and easy operation”. This teaches that eddy current sensor is a known non-contact distance/displacement sensor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 6/27/26
Prosecution Insights