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 .
Drawings
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4 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 1 and 4 recite “A machine tool system capable of manufacturing a long product from a bar by performing a grip change by a spindle during a machining cycle..”. The wording makes it appear as though “the gripping” during the machining cycle is what contributes to the manufacturing of the long product, when in fact machining the workpiece does. Furthermore, the term “capable of” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform”.
- Claims 1 and 4 recite “a pusher capable of moving in the axial direction together with the bar; and a bar length shortage prior determination unit that determines whether the pusher is in a position permitting the grip change to be performed during the machining cycle, the determination being made prior to the start of the machining cycle”. First, the term “capable of” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Additionally, the term “unit” is undefined and unclear since it has no clear structure. Is it a software? Hardware? Sensor? Or something else? Furthermore, what are the mets and bounds for the term “permitting”? It should be noted that what the “machining cycle” entails has not be clearly laid out, therefore it is unclear what is meant by “the start of the machining cycle”.
- Claim 2 recites “wherein the determination is made according to a
specified distance specified in a machining program”. The term “determination” is vague.
- Claim 3 recites “wherein the determination is made according to a
calculated distance obtained by calculating a moving distance of the spindle according to a machining program”. The Claim as a whole is vauge including the term “determination”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (USP 6,665,579).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Sasaki et al. discloses a machine tool system capable of manufacturing a long product from a bar by performing a grip change by a spindle during a machining cycle (figure 1 and col. 1, lines 14-25), the long product being
of a length exceeding a movable range of the spindle, the spindle releasably gripping the bar and moving in an axial direction of the bar (col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 4), the machine tool system comprising: a pusher capable of moving in the axial direction together with the bar (i.e. feeder 12, col. 1, line 64 through col. 2, line 12). Sasaki also discloses “length data”, preliminary input to the controller” and feeder position calculation means” (col. 4, lines 1-50) and that a bar length shortage prior determination unit that determines whether the pusher is in a position permitting the grip change to be performed during the machining cycle, the determination being made prior to the start of the machining cycle (col. 4, lines 51-67).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki et al. discloses wherein the determination is made according to a specified distance specified in a machining program (col. 4, lines 1-4 recites The length data of a product and the dimensional data of cutting width may be set by manual input of the operator or may be extracted from a machining program for machining a product”.
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki et al. discloses wherein the determination is made according to a calculated distance obtained by calculating a moving distance of the spindle according to a machining program (col. 10, lines 11-54).
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 1/8/26