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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Claims 13-16 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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a tool holder information storing unit ; a holder information acquiring unit ; an attaching tool information storing unit ; an attaching tool check unit; an interference check unit.
As interpreted, each “unit adapted” to does not represent a generic placeholder, MPEP 2181.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomonori (JP4658734B1).
Claim 1
Tomonori teaches a machine tool system (ABSTRACT) comprising:
a tool post to which a tool for machining a workpiece is attached (Figure 1-12->17, 5a, 5b, ABSTRACT e.g. “5a and 5b are retractable tool posts protruding from the partition walls 1a and 1b”)
a numerical control unit adapted to control a movement of the tool post according to
a numerical control program (Description, e.g. “A lathe capable of high-performance and complicated machining is controlled by an NC device according to a machining program. If the number of spindles and turrets increases or the movement of the tool becomes complicated, there is a risk of collision between machine operating parts such as tools, turrets, chucks, etc., or these and bulkheads, covers, etc., due to program errors. Increase. For example, when a long boring tool or drill is mounted on the turret and the workpiece is being processed by the adjacent tool, interference between the adjacent long tool and the tool mounted on the chuck or other tool post Often occurs. Further, in a tool post having a tool that is swiveled and positioned around the Y axis, interference between the casing of the swiveling tool driving device and the cover or chuck or workpiece of the second main spindle is likely to occur.”)
a measuring apparatus adapted to measure a position and a shape of the tool attached to the tool post (Description, Figure 1-8 e.g. “ In the present invention, a non-contact type three-dimensional shape measuring device 8 such as a three-dimensional digitizer equipped with a laser and a light receiving CCD is mounted in a lathe machine, and the three-dimensional data acquired by the three-dimensional shape measuring device 8 is NC. Input to the apparatus, detect the shape and positional relationship of the chuck 3, tools 7, 17, turning tool post 12, covers 1, 2, 5, etc., and stop the machine when moving to the set area, Alternatively, when the shape of the tool or workpiece cannot be recognized due to the influence of the machining fluid flowing around the tool, the shape and position of each machine operating part is acquired and measured without using the machining fluid in advance. The above problem is solved by setting the interference area obtained by data analysis in the NC device and stopping the machine when the machine operating unit moves to the set interference area.”)
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Meany et al. (PG/PUB 20240220534).
Claim 2.
The machine tool system of claim 1 but does not teach the tool holder information and acquiring unit described below. Yoshida teaches the tool holder information and Meany teaches the acquiring unit described below, wherein the measuring apparatus further measures a shape of a tool holder for attaching the tool to the tool post
a tool holder information storing unit (e.g. database 3) adapted to store a shape information of the tool holder in association with a property information of the tool holder for each of a plurality of the tool holders attachable to the tool post (‘445 e.g. “The data stored in the tool/holder database 3 b includes serial numbers of the tools, dimensions and the shape of the tool holder, material and life of the tools, the trip characteristic and the run-out characteristic of the tools under load, and the dimensions and shape of the forward end of the main spindle, see Meany et al. for obtaining information about an a 3D object, ABSTRACT, Figure 1A, 0024 -0025
a holder information acquiring unit (Meany, see obtaining object attributes based on measurement, where the acquiring unit is the module for applying image recognition and retrieving object attributes, and see Yoshida comprising a database of tool holder attributes) adapted to identify the shape information of the tool holder corresponding to the shape measured by the measuring apparatus among the shape information of the plurality of the tool holders stored in the tool holder information storing unit and then acquire the property information of the tool holder stored in association with the identified shape information of the tool holder (see Meany et al. for obtaining information about an a 3D object corresponding to measurement information and acquiring shape property information about the 3D object, ABSTRACT, Figure 1A, 0024, see acquiring tool holder shape information of Arai and obtaining stored information of the tool holder of ‘445, Yoshida, e.g. “The data stored in the tool/holder database 3 b includes serial numbers of the tools, dimensions and the shape of the tool holder, material and life of the tools, the trip characteristic and the run-out characteristic of the tools under load, and the dimensions and shape of the forward end of the main spindle. The data stored in the machining conditions database 3 c include the amount of feed and the amount of cut per blade, the pick feed amount, whether coolant is used or not, the machining pattern, the partitioning data for dividing the machining surface into a plurality of machining areas, and fundamental data for selecting an optimum tool for machining a given machining surface. “)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention applying the teachings of Meany, namely accessing a database of object attributes responsive to acquiring object measurements, to the teachings of ‘734, namely obtaining tool holder shape measurements, would achieve an expected and predictable result of employing image recognition to a tool holder for accessing a database associated with tool holder attributes.
The applied combination of prior art does not expressly teach the database comprises tool holder. ‘445 teaches a tool holder database described above
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention applying the teachings of ‘734, as modified, namely accessing a tool holder database responsive to identifying a tool holder shape via object recognition, to the teachings of ‘445, namely providing a tool holder database, would achieve an expected and predicable result of acquiring tool holder attributes with a benefit of assessing potential interference.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Jacot (PG/PUB 20220250201)
Claim 3.
The machine tool system of claim 1 but does not expressly teach the attaching tool check unit and attaching tool information storing unit described below. Jacot teaches the attaching tool check unit; Yoshida teaches the attaching tool information storing unit; and Jacot teaches verifying a tool is properly attached to a holder/post described below, further comprising:
an attaching tool information storing unit adapted to store an attaching tool information according to the position and the shape of the tool measured by the measuring apparatus (‘734 e.g. “The shape of the tool is recognized by comparing the measured data, and the shape and position of the workpiece and the tool post and the position of the tool are recognized from the measured data acquired by the three-dimensional shape measuring instrument, and see Yoshida as a database adapted to store machining data via an input unit, supra claim 2)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Yoshida, namely providing a database adapted to store tool information, to the teachings of ‘734, namely measuring tool shape and position, would achieve an expected and predictable result of storing tool shape and position data in a database for comparison purposes.
The combination does not expressly teach the attaching tool check unit and determining a tool is attached. Jacot teaches the attaching tool check unit and determination limitations described below.
an attaching tool check unit (e.g. “unit for detecting, Jacot, claim 1, 0030) adapted to compare the attaching tool information stored in the attaching tool information storing unit with an attaching tool information acquired from the position and the shape of the tool newly measured by the measuring apparatus to determine whether the tool that is desired is attached to the tool post (supra claim 1 for a tool attached to a tool post, the tool data is acquired via measurement means, and see above for the database comprising tool shape and position data, and see Jacot for determining whether a tool is properly attached to a tool post/holder , ABSTRACT, 0084 e.g. “The use of this kind of method of detecting the profile of the tool 312 in particular determines the angular orientation of the tool 312 relative to the axis X of the toolholder and therefore relative to the part support 312, in the measuring operational position, and also enables verification that the tool 312 is in the required orientation relative to the part support in the measuring operational position. Also, the use of a method of this kind of detecting the profile of the tool 312 makes it possible to establish the profile and to verify that the tool 312 mounted on the toolholder corresponds to the expected tool (the profile detected corresponds to the expected predetermined profile)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Jacot, namely determining a whether a tool is properly mounted to a holder, to the teachings of ‘734, as modified, namely obtaining measurement data of a tool, tool post, and the like, would achieve an expected and predictable result of determining whether a tool is mounted to a tool post.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Meany et al. (PG/PUB 20240220534) in view over Jacot (PG/PUB 20220250201)
Claim 4.
The machine tool system of claim 2, further comprising:
an attaching tool information storing unit adapted to store an attaching tool information according to the position and the shape of the tool measured by the measuring apparatus, supra claim 3 mapping and analysis and
an attaching tool check unit adapted to compare the attaching tool information stored in the attaching tool information storing unit with an attaching tool information acquired from the position and the shape of the tool newly measured by the measuring apparatus to determine whether the tool that is desired is attached to the tool post, supra claim 3 mapping and analysis.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Adachi (PG/PUB 20190217434) in view over Huang (PG/PUB 20090265030).
claim 5.
The machine tool system of claim 1 but does not teach the nozzle, model, and interference limitations described below. Adachi teaches the nozzle limitations and Huang teaches the model and interference limitations described below,
wherein the measuring apparatus further measures a position and a shape of a coolant nozzle whose position and a coolant discharging angle is adjustable (Adachi, claim 1, 0008, see ‘734 for measuring machining tool component position and shape, supra claim 1)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Adachi, namely providing a cooling nozzle, to the teachings of ‘734, namely acquiring shape and position data of machining components, would achieve an expected and predictable result of acquiring nozzle shape and position data for interference processing.
the combination does not teach the interference unit limitations described below. Huang teaches the interference unit limitations described below
the machine tool system further comprising:
an interference check unit adapted to generate an imaginary three-dimensional model by using the position and the shape of the coolant nozzle measured by the measuring apparatus and the position and the shape of the tool measured by the measuring apparatus to perform an interference check between the tool and the coolant nozzle by moving the tool post of the imaginary three-dimensional model according to the numerical control program (Huang, see generating a model of machining components; supra above for nozzle position and shape, supra claim 1 for tool, tool post, and machining components; and supra claim 1 for measuring the tool and other machining components for collision checking, see Huang, ABSTRACT, 0005, 0079 , 0090 e.g. “ model-processing control section for calculating model data of the tool, workpiece, tool rest, chuck and spindle which are moved relative to one another along the moving path of the tool on the basis of the result of the calculation performed by the simulation control section and the model data in the model memory; a model-plotting-processing control section for generating image data on the basis of the model data calculated by the model-processing control section and other components. The image data generated by the model-plotting-processing control section is displayed on the display device under the display control of the main control section, see Huang, see imaginary model as the a virtual representation of the machining components in relation, and supra claim 1 for collision checking tool post relative to machining components/entire representation of machine by moving the tool post, ABSTRACT, , supra claim 1 for interference checking by moving the tool post with tool
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Huang, namely generating an imaginary model for all machining components for collision checking, to the teachings of ‘734, namely determining collision between a moving tool post relative to machine components, would achieve an expected and predictable result of identifying interference by moving a tool post relative to virtual representation of the tool, tool post, and machining components.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (Pg/PUB 20230182230)
Claim 9.
The machine tool system of claim 1 but does not teach the headstock and measure limitatiosn described below. Kaever teaches the measure and Kitakaze teaches the headstock limitations described below
further comprising a first spindle gripping the workpiece and rotatable around a spindle axis; and
a headstock provided with a second spindle facing the first spindle, the headstock being movable in a direction perpendicular to the spindle axis (Kitakaze, ABSTRACT, 0032, 0040, 0095)
wherein the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock to measure a distance to an object while moving in the direction perpendicular to the spindle axis as the headstock moves (Kaever, ABSTRACT)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Kitakaze, namely providing movable headstock comprising rotating spindles, to the teachings of Kaever, namely mounting distance sensors for determining collision between moving objects, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Meany et al. (PG/PUB 20240220534) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (Pg/PUB 20230182230)
Claim 10. The machine tool system of claim 2 further comprising a first spindle gripping the workpiece and rotatable around a spindle axis; supra claim 9 mapping and rationale
a headstock provided with a second spindle facing the first spindle, the headstock being movable in a direction perpendicular to the spindle axis, supra claim 9 mapping and rationale
wherein the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock to measure a distance to an object while moving in the direction perpendicular to the spindle axis as the headstock moves, supra claim 9 mapping and rationale
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Jacot (PG/PUB 20220250201) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (Pg/PUB 20230182230)
Claim 11. The machine tool system of claim 3 further comprising a first spindle gripping the workpiece and rotatable around a spindle axis;supra claim 9 rationale and
a headstock provided with a second spindle facing the first spindle, the headstock being movable in a direction perpendicular to the spindle axis, supra claim 9 rationale
wherein the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock to measure a distance to an object while moving in the direction perpendicular to the spindle axis as the headstock moves, supra claim 9 rationale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Meany et al. (PG/PUB 20240220534) in view over Jacot (PG/PUB 20220250201) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (PG/PUB 20230182230)
Claim 12. The machine tool system of claim 4 further comprising a first spindle gripping the workpiece and rotatable around a spindle axis; supra claim 9 rationale and
a headstock provided with a second spindle facing the first spindle, the headstock being movable in a direction perpendicular to the spindle axis, supra claim 9 rationale
wherein the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock to measure a distance to an object while moving in the direction perpendicular to the spindle axis as the headstock moves, supra claim 9 rationale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (PG/PUB 20230182230) in view over Ibara (USPN 12142132)
Claim 17.
The machine tool system of claim 9, wherein the measuring apparatus is removably mounted on the headstock, and
when the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock, it sends a signal representing that the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock, supra claim 9
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Meany et al. (PG/PUB 20240220534) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (Pg/PUB 20230182230)
Claim 18. The machine tool system of claim 10, wherein the measuring apparatus is removably mounted on the headstock, and
when the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock, it sends a signal representing that the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock, supra claim 9 rationale
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Jacot (PG/PUB 20220250201) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (PG/PUB 20230182230)
Claim 19. The machine tool system of claim 11, wherein the measuring apparatus is removably mounted on the headstock, and
when the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock, it sends a signal representing that the measuring apparatus is mounted on the headstock.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonori (JP4658734B1) in view over Yoshida (USPN 6438445) in view over Meany et al. (PG/PUB 20240220534) in view over Jacot (PG/PUB 20220250201) in view over Kaever (PG/PUB 20050010324) in view over Kitakaze (PG/PUB 20230182230)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
claim 1 relevancy
20220250201 4651601 JP2007048210 12330254 9122267 20190217434 6230595 9651938 20230182230 20220314332 20220253036 20210382455 20210311460 20120143369 6571671 20020066197 6230595 7847506 20050010324 20240220534
claim 2 relevancy
6438445 10907963 20210291309 20080086220 20240220534
claim 3 relevancy
20220250201 20210291309
claim 9 relevancy
20050010324 20200256039
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights