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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1 and 2 in the reply filed on 5/28/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim 1 recites “the machine tool capable of performing a cut-off of a workpiece gripped by the first spindle and the second spindle and then performing a separation movement of the second spindle in a direction separating from the first spindle”. From the claim language, it appears as though the cut’-off is performed by the action of “gripping the workpiece by the first spindle and second spindle” AND “separating the second spindle”. It does not claim a cut-off tool doing the acutal cutting, thus making the claim unclear.
Claim 1 recites “the machine tool comprising: a movement controlling unit adapted to perform a stop control of the first spindle at a command position of the first spindle during the separation movement of the second spindle”. Adapted to how? What are the mets and bounds for the language? Furthermore, “perform a stop control of the first spindle at a command position” is vague. Does it mean holding, braking, servo-position control, stopping motion, or maintaining commanded position? Additionally, “movement controlling unit” and “cut-off success or failure determining unit” are purely functional. If Applicant intended to claim structure, it is not clear.
Claim 1 recites “a cut-off success or failure determining unit adapted to monitor a positional deviation of the first spindle during the separation movement of the second spindle to determine a success or a failure of the cut-off, the positional deviation being a difference between the command position and an actual position of the first spindle”. The claimed subject matter is unclear as there are multiple functionality languages. First, what is “success” or “failure”? Complete separation? No remaining connection? Positional deviation threshold only? The claim should define objective boundaries.
Claim 1 recites “capable of” in the preamble/body. It is unclear if it positively limits structure or just intended use.
Claim 2 recites “an amount of difference of the positional deviation from a reference deviation”. The language is unclear.
Claim 2 recites “the reference deviation being the positional deviation of the first spindle immediately before the separation movement of the second spindle”. What are the mets and bounds for the term “immediately before”. Immediately before command? before actual movement? before second spindle starts separating?
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 and 2, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/105383.
Regarding claim 1, ‘383 discloses a machine tool comprising a first spindle (12) capable of moving in an axis direction thereof and a second spindle (22) capable of moving to a position facing the first spindle, the machine tool, as best understood, having a cut-off tool (T1) capable of performing a cut-off of a workpiece while the workpiece is gripped by the first spindle and the second spindle (figure 1 and Steps S102, S104, S108 of figure 7) and then performing a separation movement of the second spindle in a direction separating from the first spindle (Step S114, figure 7). ‘383 also discloses an NC apparatus (70) meets the claimed language of controlling a movement controlling unit adapted to perform a stop control of the first spindle at a command position of the first spindle during the separation movement of the second spindle (figure 2, step S106 and S110 of figure 7 and see English publication for translation, US Pub. No. 2021/0245257, paragraphs 33-35 and 52-56); and a cut-off success or failure determining unit and adapted to monitor a positional deviation of
the first spindle during the separation movement of the second spindle to determine a success or a failure of the cut-off, the positional deviation being a difference between the command position and an actual position of the first spindle (Step 116 of figure 7 and see English publication for translation, US Pub. No. 2021/0245257, paragraph 56 (emphasis), 33-35 and 52-56).
Regarding claim 2, ‘383 discloses wherein, the cut-off success or failure
determining unit determines a failure of the cut-off when an amount of difference of the positional deviation from a reference deviation exceeds a predetermined amount, the reference deviation being the positional deviation of the first spindle immediately before the separation movement of the second spindle (Step 116 of figure 7 and see English publication for translation, US Pub. No. 2021/0245257, paragraph 56 (emphasis), 33-35 and 52-56).
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 6/27/26
Prosecution Insights