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 1-4 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 “…by comparing a moving distance of the spindle in a series of operations after the first grip change and before the last grip change…with a remaining effective length…”, it is not clear what exactly is being compared? Is it the sum of all spindle movements? Is it each individual movement? Is it the maximum movement? Is it a predicted movement from the NC program? It is unclear.
- Claims 1 and 4 recite “…remaining effective length”. The claim defines it as
“…a distance from the current position of the pusher to the bar length shortage position…”. Current position when? Before machining? At the first grip change? At the comparison? At the beginning of the cycle? It is unclear.
- Claims 1 and 4 recite “…the spindle releasing the bar, moves back…and then re-grips the bar…”. The language doesn’t seem tied to the comparison. It almost reads like an unrelated description of what grip changing is. Does this limitation actually limits anything or is merely describing normal spindle operation. It is unclear.
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, it should be noted that the claim is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation. As best understood, the claim recites determining, prior to the start of the machining cycle, whether a grip change can be performed without interference by comparing a spindle moving distance during the machining cycle with a remaining effective length between the pusher and a bar length shortage position, thereby determining whether the pusher reaches the bar length shortage position. 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). Sasaki discloses inputting bar length data to a controller and calculating the feeder (pusher) position before machining begins (col. 4, lines 1–67). Sasaki further determines whether a grip change may be performed during the machining cycle based on the calculated feeder position before the start of machining (col. 4, lines 51–67). The controller necessarily compares the available remaining bar length (remaining effective length) with the spindle movement required during successive grip changes in order to determine whether the feeder reaches the bar shortage position and whether grip change can continue without interference.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, as best understood, Sasaki et al. discloses wherein the moving distance 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”.
Furthermore, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 7/16/26
Prosecution Insights