DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recites “rotary drives.” It should be changed to “rotationally drives.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “a workpiece holder that holds the workpiece; and.” Since the same claim language was recited in claim 2 from which claim 7 depends, it needs to be removed.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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: a signal acquirer and determiner in claim 1.
The signal acquirer and determiner are interpreted as CPU according to the paragraph [0021].
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.
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura (JP20022337042) of which attached corresponding English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshimura teaches a cutting machining apparatus comprising:
a head (Fig. 1, 1 & 2) including a spindle drive (Although Yoshimura is silent, it is old and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a numerically controlled machine to have a spindle drive to rotate the spindle according to [0013], paragraph 3. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a spindle drive in the numerically controlled machine of Yoshimura in order to rotate the spindle.) that rotary drives a rotary spindle (Fig. 1, 2) with a tool (Fig. 1, 3) secured to a tip of the rotary spindle;
a first proximity sensor (Fig. 1, 4);
a signal acquirer (Fig. 1, 7) (Although Yoshimura teaches a data processing unit, it is well known in the art that to interchangeably employ either a data processing unit or a central processing unit (CPU) depending on the level of data processing required for the job. 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 replace the data processing unit of Yoshimura with a central process unit in order to run a data process requiring a higher computing power.) obtaining detection signal information indicating an intensity of a detection signal ([0013], paragraph 7: distance d) that is output from the first proximity sensor (Fig. 1, 4) ([0013], paragraph 7: the distance d from the displacement sensor 4 and the data is taken into the data processing unit 7) when the rotary spindle is rotated ([0013], paragraph 6: the main shaft 1 is rotated.) in a state in which the head is moved so that the first proximity sensor faces a lateral side of the tool (Fig. 1 shows the sensor (5) facing the lateral side of the tool (3)) ([0013], paragraph 5: the blade 3 is brought to a position) before and after cutting machining of a workpiece using the tool ([0013], paragraph 9: sampling data 3ax regarding the blade 3 having no blade defect was taken before cutting machining of a workpiece); and
a determiner (Fig. 1, 7) (Although Yoshimura teaches a data processing unit, it is well known in the art that to interchangeably employ either a data processing unit or a central processing unit (CPU) depending on the level of data processing required for the job. 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 replace the data processing unit of Yoshimura with a central process unit in order to run a data process requiring a higher computing power.) determining whether or not the tool is broken based on whether or not there is a difference in signal waveforms (Figs. 4 & 5) corresponding to time transitions (Figs. 4 & 5, x-axis of the graph) in intensities of the detection signals indicated by the detection signal information obtained before and after the cutting machining ([0013], paragraphs 10-15: If there is no difference between 3ax1’, 3ax2’, 3ax3’ and the sampling data 3ax1, 3ax2, 3ax3… On the other hand, when there is a defective portion 3b …).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura (JP20022337042) of which attached corresponding English translation is cited in view of Miyazawa (JPH09239631) of which attached corresponding English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshimura teaches the cutting machining apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a holding unit (Fig. 8 shows what appears to be a workpiece holding unit under the spindle (105)) including:
a unit body (Fig. 8 shows what appears to be a unit body under the spindle (105)).
Yoshimura does not explicitly teach
a workpiece holder that holds the workpiece; and
a unit body that supports the workpiece holder in a state in which the workpiece holder is exposed outside,
wherein the first proximity sensor is disposed inside the unit body.
Miyazawa teaches a workpiece holder (Fig. 1, 6) that holds the workpiece ([0014], paragraph 3: a work table 6 for holding a workpiece); and
a unit body (Fig. 1, 10) that supports the workpiece holder (Fig. 1, 6) in a state in which the workpiece holder is exposed outside ([0014], paragraph 3: a guide table 10 on which the work table 6),
wherein the first proximity sensor (Fig. 1, 7) is disposed on top of the unit body (Fig. 1, 10) ([0014], paragraph 3: a work table 6 for holding a work to be a workpiece and an on-machine measurement unit 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the first proximity sensor of Yoshimura somewhere on the unit body including inside the unit body as taught by Miyazawa where the first proximity sensor (4) can easily measure the distance to the blade without requiring a separate structure such as an apparatus wall (6) of Yoshimura to hold the first proximity sensor in order to avoid additional manufacturing cost and storage space necessary for an apparatus wall (6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the above claim objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (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 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/5/2025