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 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 5-12 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 5 and 6 recite the limitation ‘a second abnormality’ in Line 3. Claim 1, from which the claim depends only sets forth ‘an abnormality’. It is unclear what the first abnormality is when only a second is claimed.
In the same manner, claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation ‘a second retry process’ in Line 2. No first retry process has been set forth in claims 1-2 and/or 5-6, from which these claims depend.
Similarly, claim 9 recites the limitation ‘a third abnormality’ in Line 5, and claim 11 recites ‘a fourth abnormality’ in Line 8. As above, these claims only depend on claim 1, which recites ‘an abnormality’. There are not first and second or first through third abnormalities already set forth in these claims respectively, and it is unclear how there can be a third/fourth type of something without a clearly set forth first and second/first through third type.
Finally, claim 10 recites the limitation ‘a third retry process’ and claim 12 recites the limitation ‘a fourth retry process’ in Lines 5 and 2 respectively. As above, there are not first and second and first through third retry processes respectively set forth in any claims from which these claims depend. Appropriate correction/clarification is 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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “pusher”, “abnormality determining unit”, “machine controller”, “cut-off portion transporting device”, “defective product receiver” and “pusher controller” in claims 1-12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arisaka (JP 10-71504).
Regarding claim 1, Arisaka discloses a machine tool system comprising a rotating spindle 16 capable of releasably gripping a bar 14 via chuck 17. A pusher 5-13 biases the bar from a rear end thereof toward a front end thereof to be movable together with the bar in an axial direction thereof. An abnormality determining unit 22 determines whether an abnormality occurs by monitoring movement of the pusher in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 2, Arisaka discloses the spindle being movable in the axial direction (Abstract) and the abnormality determining unit determines that a first abnormality occurs when a moving distance of the spindle differs from a moving distance of the pusher in a state that the spindle grips the bar (Paragraphs [0006-0007] of the English translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Arisaka discloses a machine controller 4 that controls an operation of the spindle. The abnormality determining unit determines that an abnormality occurs when the pusher moves in the axial direction in response to movement of the spindle in a state that the spindle releases the bar under control by the machine controller (Paragraphs [0006-0007] of the English translation provided by Applicant, which discuss the relationship and measuring of the displacement of the bar pusher and spindle relative to one another).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arisaka (JP 10-71504) in view of Iemca (VIP80E-II VIP80Er-II Automatic Bar Feeder Manual for use and maintenance, 01/09/2008, https://www.1mta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/technical-help/manual/10/Vip80E-II-Use-_-Maintenance-Manual.pdf, Retrieved 01/23/2026).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Arisaka discloses a tool post to which a machining tool 18 for machining a front end portion of the bar is attached, the tool post being movable in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction and a machine controller 4 that controls operation of the tool post and the spindle. Arisaka does not explicitly disclose the machine controller performing a first retry process as claimed.
Iemca discloses a first retry process that cuts off a machined portion of the bar and restarts machining a front end portion of the bar when the abnormality determining unit determines that the first abnormality occurs (i.e. Trouble 4 on the troubleshooting chart 8.3 on Page 103 of the document). A cut-off portion transporting device (ejector) is capable of transporting a cut-off portion that is cut off from the bar after being machined by the machining tool (see Fig. 8070_02_05_1 on Page 23 of the document) into a defective product receiver (any suitable bin that Examiner takes Official Notice that is well known in the art to deposit scrap/reject/remnants into). The machine controller of Iemca discharges the cut-off portion to the defective product receiver when the abnormality determining unit determines that the first abnormality occurs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to operate the machine tool system of Arisaka as taught by Iemca, and to cut off and discharge a remnant when the first error occurs, in order to ensure the workpiece is fully seated in the proper location and has the appropriate dimensions for machining.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Arisaka discloses the positions of the pusher and spindle being monitored. An abnormality in which the pusher moves and the bar does not advance in the spindle would inherently be detected. However, Arisaka does not explicitly disclose the claimed retry operation.
Iemca discloses an error state in which the pusher is advanced and the bar does not advance in the spindle (i.e. the spindle grips the bar) (trouble 4, ‘the bar hardly enters the lathe collet’ on Page 103 of the document). In such a case, a retry operation is performed in which the bar is cut off and advanced before machining is restarted.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform a retry operation as taught by Iemca in the machine tool system of Arisaka in the case that an abnormality such as the pusher moving but the spindle still grips the bar (e.g. having a burr catch on the spindle and not allow the bar to be advanced) to enable machining of parts to continue.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arisaka (JP 10-71504).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Arisaka does not explicitly disclose the claimed retry process.
However, in the case that during monitoring of the relative positions of the pusher/bar and the spindle, the abnormality determining unit detects an abnormality such as the one disclosed in claims 5 and 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform a retry operation in which the spindle performs a gripping and releasing operation to ensure the bar is in a released position such that the spindle can move without moving the bar to allow the machine to be set up for the next machining operation if desired.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Arisaka discloses a tool post to which a machining tool 18 for machining a front end portion of the bar is attached. The tool post is movable in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction. A machine controller 4 controls operation of the tool post and spindle and also contains a pusher controller that controls operation of the pusher. The spindle is capable of being fixed immovably in the axial direction by means of not operating the machine controller to instruct it to move. Arisaka does not explicitly disclose the abnormality determining unit operating and performing a retry process as claimed.
However, as discussed above, Arisaka discloses monitoring the movement of both the pusher/bar and the spindle, and comparing the movements of each. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to monitor for an abnormality in which the pusher does not move when ordered to advance by the pusher controller in a state that the spindle releases the bar under control by the machine controller so as to allow the bar to be fed. If the abnormality determining unit were to detect such an abnormality, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to retry the advancing process by gripping and releasing the spindle, and repeating the bar pusher operation so as to feed the bar into position to allow for machining to take place.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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 K 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722