DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 10/29/2025.
The application has claims 1-10 present. 1, 2, 6, 8-10 have been amended. All the claims present have been examined.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 and cited documents have been considered by the examiner.
This action is made Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 6665579), in view of Green (US 20070236354).
In regards to claims 1 and 10, Sasaki teaches a machine tool (see fig. 8) comprising: a spindle capable of rotating a bar workpiece around its axis (see FIG. 8 main spindle 112); a cutter capable of cutting the workpiece at a surface perpendicular to the axis and comprising a cut-off tool (see FIG. 8 and at least Col 9 lines 12-19: cutting tool T. “Not only a dedicated positioning tool but also a tool used for other use such as a cutting-off tool or a cutting tool”. Also on col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 11; col. 7, lines 45-55: teaches the cutting-off tool and using its dimensions for certain calculations); a sensor capable of detecting whether the workpiece exist in an area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece (see FIG. 8 and at least Col. 7: line 56 – Col. 8, line 4; Col 10 lines 62-65: a sensor for detecting object. The sensor detects the tip of the bar W, which knows exactly where to position it for cutting); the cutter comprising a cut-off tool and the sensor comprising a sensor capable of detecting whether the workpiece exists in the area where the cut-off tool is located to cut the workpiece (see FIG. 8, abstract and at least Col 6 line 50 to Col 7 line 11, Col 7 lines 45-55; Col 10 lines 62 to Col 11 line 37: teaches the process the system does using a sensor for detecting object and after the detecting proceeds to do a cutting process).
Sasaki teaches that after sensing the object sending a signal to the controller to continue with the cutting/machining process (see at least Col 11 lines 1-28), however, it doesn’t specifically teach a controller adapted to execute an abnormality detection process prior to a top cut process of the workpiece, wherein the abnormality detection process comprises an abnormality determination process capable of determining that the workpiece does not exist in the area according to a detection value of the sensor and thereby determining that the machine tool is not ready for the top cut process.
Green teaches a controller adapted to execute an abnormality detection process prior to a top cut process of the workpiece, wherein the abnormality detection process comprises an abnormality determination process capable of determining that the workpiece does not exist in the area according to a detection value of the sensor and thereby determining that the machine tool is not ready for the top cut process (see para 23 and 25-26: teaches using sensor data to communicate with a computing device. Makes a determination if an object is or is not at the correct location. When the object is not at the required location as provided by the sensor data, the system provides a notification of error (interpreted as the abnormality), and prevents the process to continue until the error is corrected).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Green which allows monitoring and determining location of an object at required location with the teachings of Sasaki, since it enhances the system in order to ensure proper operation performed on an automated process (see para 26).
In regards to claim 2, Sasaki teaches that it can displace the workpiece as part of the cutting process so as to place the workpiece at a specific length where the part is going to be worked on (see at least in Col. 6, lines 39-41: the headstock 113 is movable in the Z axis direction and moves forward/backward in accordance with an instruction of the NC apparatus 115; Col. 9, line 65 to Col. 10, line 4: the headstock 113 is moved forward by a predetermined amount so that the length of the bar W projected from the guide bush 116 becomes, equal to a preset value; and col. 11, lines 23 to 26: at the time of discarding the bar W as a remainder, the feeder 123 is moved backward until the optoelectronic sensor 119 detects the tip of the bar W). However, Sasaki doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller is adapted to execute a retry process in the event that the abnormality detection process reveals occurrence of abnormality, the retry process comprising a process of displacing the workpiece in a predetermined direction by a predetermined amount and the predetermined direction being a direction that the workpiece approaches the area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece, and the abnormality detection process further comprises another abnormality determination process capable of determining whether the workpiece exists in the area after the retry process according to a detection value of the sensor.
Green teaches wherein the controller is adapted to execute a retry process in the event that the abnormality detection process reveals occurrence of abnormality, the retry process comprising a process of displacing the workpiece in a predetermined direction by a predetermined amount and the predetermined direction being a direction that the workpiece approaches the area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece, and the abnormality detection process further comprises another abnormality determination process capable of determining whether the workpiece exists in the area after the retry process according to a detection value of the sensor (see para 23 and 25-26: teaches using sensor data to communicate with a computing device. Makes a determination if an object is or is not at the correct location. When the object is not at the required location as provided by the sensor data, the system provides a notification of error (interpreted as the abnormality), and prevents the process to continue until the error is corrected. Additionally teaches on para 25 “the process may continue with a determination of whether the identification and location of the ply detected at 54 is correct, again, as indicated at 56”… “the operator may remove and replace and/or reorient the ply, and the process may continue with a determination of whether the identification and location of the ply detected at 54 is correct, again, as indicated at 56.” Green teaches reorient or replace the part, thus retrying the process after the correct workpiece has been correctly placed).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Green which allows monitoring and determining location of an object at required location, provided abnormality notification and retry with the teachings of Sasaki, since by incorporating these steps, it enhances the system in order to ensure proper operation is performed on during the process (see para 26).
In regards to claim 4, Sasaki doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller is adapted to execute a displacement amount setting process, the displacement amount setting process comprising a process of receiving a user instruction of a displacement amount of the workpiece through an interface, and a process of displacing the workpiece by the displacement amount received in the displacement amount setting process.
Sasaki does teaches entering setting data associated to a workpiece and the machine in order for the machine to properly work on the piece. The setting information includes length data, which is used in the computations the machine does in order to properly process and accomplish the machining process which would include the detecting steps using the sensor (see Col 6 line 50 to Col 7 line 11).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Sasaki, since it enhances the system in order to displace the workpiece until it will be detected by the sensor on the proper location in order to accurately position it prior to executing the cut off operation.
Sasaki doesn’t specifically mention a retry process.
Green teaches a retry process (see para 23 and 25-26: teaches using sensor data to communicate with a computing device. Makes a determination if an object is or is not at the correct location. When the object is not at the required location as provided by the sensor data, the system provides a notification of error (interpreted as the abnormality), and prevents the process to continue until the error is corrected. Further para 25 teaches “the operator may remove and replace and/or reorient the ply, and the process may continue with a determination of whether the identification and location of the ply detected at 54 is correct, again, as indicated at 56.” Green teaches reorient or replace the part, thus retrying the process).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Green which allows monitoring and determining location of an object at required location with the teachings of Sasaki, since it enhances the system in order to ensure proper operation performed on an automated process (see para 26).
In regards to claim 5, Sasaki doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller is adapted to execute an abnormality measures process in the event that the abnormality detection process reveals occurrence of abnormality after the retry process, the abnormality measures process comprising a process of outputting an alarm and shutting off a working machine comprising the cutter and the spindle.
Green teaches wherein the controller is adapted to execute an abnormality measures process in the event that the abnormality detection process reveals occurrence of abnormality after the retry process, the abnormality measures process comprising a process of outputting an alarm and shutting off a working machine comprising the cutter and the spindle (see para 23 and 25-26: teaches using sensor data to communicate with a computing device. Makes a determination if an object is or is not at the correct location. When the object is not at the required location as provided by the sensor data, the system provides a notification of error (interpreted as the abnormality), and prevents the process to continue until the error is corrected).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Green which allows monitoring and determining location of an object at required location and halt the process until its corrected with the teachings of Sasaki, since it enhances the system in order to ensure proper operation performed on an automated process (see para 26) and further avoid waste of materials by taking the error measures.
In regards to claim 7, Sasaki teaches the controller comprising an executing apparatus and a storage apparatus and wherein the controller is adapted to receive a machining program input by a user through an interface (see abstract and at least Col 6 line 50 to Col 7 line 11: setting entered by user), the storage apparatus storing a plurality of code data and the machining program being a selective combination of the code data to instruct the executing apparatus to control a working machine comprising the cutter and the spindle, and the code data comprises a code for instructing the executing apparatus to execute the abnormality detection process (see FIG. 8, abstract and at least Col 6 line 50 to Col 7 line 11: setting entered by user. At least Col 10 lines 62 to Col 11 line 37: teaches the process the system does using a sensor for detecting object).
In regards to claim 8, Sasaki teaches the sensor comprising a detector capable of outputting a signal according to the detection value when the detector is displaced into the area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece (see FIG. 8 and at least Col 10 lines 62-65: a sensor for detecting object).
In regards to claim 9, Sasaki teaches the sensor comprising a non-contact sensor capable of detecting whether the workpiece object existing in the area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece (see FIG. 8 and at least Col 10 lines 62-65: a sensor for detecting object. Col 7 lines 45-55: teaches the process the system does using a sensor for detecting object and after the detecting proceeds to do a cutting process).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and Green, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Manmohan et al. (US 8413144).
In regards to claim 3, Sasaki doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller is adapted to execute a number of retries setting process, the number of retries setting process comprising a process of receiving a user instruction of the number of retries through an interface and the number of retries being an upper limit of the number of retries of the abnormal detection process and the retry process, and the controller is adapted to repeat the retry process within the upper limit until the abnormality detection process reveals no occurrence of abnormality.
Manmohan teaches wherein the controller is adapted to execute a number of retries setting process, the number of retries setting process comprising a process of receiving a user instruction of the number of retries through an interface and the number of retries being an upper limit of the number of retries of the abnormal detection process and the retry process, and the controller is adapted to repeat the retry process within the upper limit until the abnormality detection process reveals no occurrence of abnormality (see at least Col. 8 lines 33-44: teaches providing an interface which allows to set a number of retry attempts for a process in order to try to accomplish the process).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Manmohan which allows setting values for retry attempts with the teachings of Sasaki, since it enhances the system in order to improve the possibility for the system to proceed with the process by re-attempting the step.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and Green, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collins (EP 1560091) as provided by the IDS.
In regards to claim 6, Sasaki doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller is adapted to execute a cut-off tool breakage detection process after a cut-off process to determine that the sensor detects the workpiece exists in the area and thereby determine that the cut-off tool is broken.
Collins teaches wherein the controller is adapted to execute a cut-off tool breakage detection process after a cut-off process to determine that the sensor detects the workpiece exists in the area and thereby determine that the cut-off tool is broken (see at least para 18, 19 and 23: detecting tool breakage and based on the determination stopping the process).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Collins for tool breakage detection with the teachings of Sasaki, since it enhances the system by preventing workpieces to come out wrong and preventing further damage to the machine (see para 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sasaki fails to teach “sensor capable of detecting whether the workpiece exist in an area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim language only required to detect the workpiece exist in an area where the cutter is.
As provided above, the prior art teaches a sensor to detect whether workpiece (bar W) exists in an area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece (Sasaki - col. 7: line 56 – col. 8, line 4; col. 10: lines 62-65). The sensor detects the tip of the bar W, which knows exactly where to position it for cutting. The process includes a step to make sure the bar is present before beginning the cutting process. As mentioned above, the claim states “detecting whether the workpiece exists in an area where the cutter is located to cut the workpiece.” Therefore, when the tip of bar W is detected, it is “in the area” according to col. 7: line 56 – col. 8: line 4, since it starts the cutting process right after detecting it. The claim language only mentions in the area, but there are no additional limiting parameters for defining that. As such, the prior art of Sasaki teaches the limitations as provided by the claim language.
Applicant further argues that Green fails teach when the workpiece is not present as provided on the non-final rejection mailed 7/31/2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In par. 23 of Green, it specifically states that the plies had ID tags and uses sensor data, and then states “if an incorrect one of the plies is selected or is in an incorrect location…” This language provided by Green clearly teaches that the wrong ply has been selected, meaning that the correct ply does not exist in the area. As such, when combined with Sasaki the combination teaches the limitations as provided by the claim language.
Also, the fact that Green cuts a panel and Sasaki cuts a bar is not “significantly different.” Both of the prior arts are in the same field of endeavor for cutting material and a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have known and looked at other processes for cutting material for means to improve or enhance an automated process which alleviates the work the user need to do manually.
Applicant further argues that the reference of Collin doesn’t have “a cutter … comprising a cut-off tool”. However, as explained above, those teachings are covered and taught by Sasaki. Collins, as explained in the rejection above, is specifically used to teach the tool abnormality/breakage detection process. Colins teaches on paragraphs 18-19 and 23 provide teachings for using sensor data to determine that a cutting tool is broken and stopping the cutting process to avoid further damages.
As such, Sasaki teaches “a cutter … comprising a cut-off tool” as provided in the arguments above. Therefore, as presented in the rejection above, the claim limitations have been rejected as provided by the claim language in view of Sasaki, Green and Collins.
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 MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights