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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “a working machine capable of machining a bar”, “a bar feeder capable of delivering the bar to the working machine” and “the bar feeder is capable of updating the parameter”. What are the mets and bounds for the term “capable”. The recitation “capable” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patent sense.
Claim 1 recites “A machine tool system comprising: a working machine capable of machining a bar”. What is meant by the term “a working machine”? It is unclear.
Claim 1 recites “; and a bar feeder capable of delivering the bar to the working machine according to the machining of the bar”. This sentence is unclear. What is meant by “according to the machining of the bar”? What structural limitations does that entail?
Claim 1 recites “wherein the bar feeder delivers the bar in accordance with a set parameter”. What are the parameters? Applicant has not clearly claimed the set of parameters (i.e. length, diameter etc).
Claim 1 recites “the bar feeder is capable of updating the parameter according to parameter information transmitted from the working machine”. This sentence and entire claim 1 is unclear. For example, updating the parameters (which have not been defined) in what way? What exactly is the “parameter information”? Furthermore, what are the mets and bounds for the term “capable”. The recitation “capable” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patent sense.
Claim 2 recites “the working machine comprises an operating part for use to operate the working machine, and the parameter for the bar feeder is capable of being set through the operating part”. Again the entire sentence is unclear as to what the claimed limitations are. For example, how is the “operating part” defined? What is meant to “operate the working machine”? Furthermore, what are the mets and bounds for the term “capable”. The recitation “capable” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patent sense.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “the working machine executes a machining program for the machining of the bar, and the parameter for the bar feeder is capable of being set through execution of the machining program”. Again, the entire sentence is unclear as to what the claimed limitations are. For example, what is being executed? The claim in its entirety is unclear. Furthermore, what are the mets and bounds for the term “capable”. The recitation “capable” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patent sense.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “wherein the machining program comprises a parameter setting command for instructing the bar feeder to set the parameter, and the
parameter setting command comprises the parameter information specified by an
argument”. Again, the entire sentence is unclear as to what the claimed limitations are.
For example, what is meant by “specified by an argument”? It is not clear how a machining program instructs the bar feeder to set the parameters, and what parameters?
Claims 7 and 8 recite “the working machine comprises a table associating the parameter information with each of a specification of the bar feeder and provides a common interface regardless of the specification of the bar feeder by
referring to the table to deal with the parameter. The entire sentence is unclear as to what the claimed limitations are. For example, what is said “table”? What exactly are the “specification of the bar feeder”? What is meant by “a common interface”?
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.
Claims 1-8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 60-215214.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, ‘214 discloses a machine tool system comprising: a working machine (1) capable of machining a bar; and a bar feeder (3) capable of delivering the bar to the working machine according to the machining of the bar wherein the bar feeder delivers the bar in accordance with a set parameter, and the bar feeder is capable of updating the parameter according to parameter information transmitted from the working machine (i.e. bar feeder feeds a bar when the machining on the previous workpiece is completed) (figures 1 and abstract).
Regarding claims 2-4, as best understood, ‘214 discloses “a working program PRO is stored in a working program memory 15, and a bar feeder cycle program BSP is stored in a memory 16. If a bar feeder fixed cycle execution command BAC is stored in the memory 15”, thus reads on the claimed subject matters of(claim 2) wherein the working machine (1) comprises an operating part (i.e. working program memory 15) for use to operate the working machine, and the parameter for the bar feeder is capable of being set through the operating part and (regarding claims 3 and 4) wherein the working machine executes a machining program for the machining of the bar, and the parameter for the bar feeder is capable of being set through execution of the machining program (figures 1-3 and abstract).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, as best understood, ‘214 discloses “a working program PRO is stored in a working program memory 15, and a bar feeder cycle program BSP is stored in a memory 16. If a bar feeder fixed cycle execution command BAC is stored in the memory 15”, thus reads on the claimed subject matter of wherein the machining program comprises a parameter setting command for instructing the bar feeder to set the parameter, and the parameter setting command comprises the parameter information specified by an argument.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, as best understood, ‘214 discloses “executing a bar feeder cycle with one command by making an M code and a G code unnecessary in case of generation of a working program even when a working including the bar feeder cycle is performed” (abstract).
Conclusion
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 1/10/26