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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending, of which claims 1 and 5 are independent claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Korean Application No. 10-2022-0169471 filed on December 7, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
35 USC § 112(f) Analysis
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.
Claim 1 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as reciting means for performing a specified function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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 limitation(s) uses 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.
Referring to independent claim 1, this claim recites the claim limitation “a processing tool replacement obstruction part…configured to obstruct the processing tools from being replaced”.
Paragraph [0022] of the published Specification describes “The processing tool replacement obstruction part 30 may be mounted as a separate element, or the conventional workpiece fixing part 10 on which the workpiece 1 is mounted may be used as the processing tool replacement obstruction part 30. That is, as shown in FIG. 2 and FIGS. 3 to 6 to be described later, the workpiece fixing part 10 may approach or move away from the processing tools 40 and/or the spindle 20 while moving in the +z and −z directions, and perform the role of the processing tool replacement obstruction part 30.” Thus, for purposes of examination, the processing tool replacement part is construed a workpiece fixing part on which the workpiece is mounted as also shown in FIGs. 2-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US Patent No. 4,249,243 A) (“Yoshida”) in view of Ito et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0207023 A1) (“Ito”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yoshida teaches:
…
one or more processing tools for processing a workpiece …; Yoshida: Column 1, lines 6-10 (“The invention relates to an automatic operating system of a machine tool and method, more particularly to a system and method of operation for exchanging a tool and a workpiece worked thereby when the tool breaks or wears.”) Yoshida: Column 2, lines 28-33 (“According to one aspect of this invention, there is provided an automatic operating system of a machine tool having a spindle on which a tool is mounted for machining a workpiece mounted on a machining area of the machine tool in accordance with a numerically controlled machining program…”)
a spindle on which the processing tools are replaceably mounted and that is spatially movable in position; Yoshida: Column 2, lines 30-33 (“…a spindle on which a tool is mounted for machining a workpiece mounted on a machining area of the machine tool in accordance with a numerically controlled machining program…”) Yoshida: Column 9, lines 5-9 (“Where the break judgement signal is applied to unit 75, the operation is transferred to step 77 to execute a retract cycle thereby separating the tool NN from the workpiece W. Under these conditions, if necessary, the rotation of the spindle SPD is stopped.”) Yoshida: Claim 1 (“…means (77) for moving said spindle relative to said workpiece to separate said tool therefrom…”)
a processing tool replacement obstruction part located in close proximity to the processing tools and/or the spindle and configured to obstruct the processing tools from being replaced; and Yoshida: Column 2, lines 9-12 (“when a tool, for example a drill, breaks, the machining of a workpiece by the tool is interrupted and the workpiece is exchanged with a new workpiece. At the same time a new program is selected for machining the new workpiece and the broken tool is exchanged with a new tool suitable for machining the new workpiece. Then the new workpiece is machined with the new tool.”) Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43 (“At the righthand end of the transfer line 11 is provided a waiting area 12 for accommodating pallets P on which workpieces to be machined are mounted and secured. At the lefthand end of the transfer line 11 is provided an area 14 for collecting pallets which carry workpieces whose machining have been interrupted for the reason described below.”) [As shown in FIG. 1, the pallet onto which the workpiece is mounted and secured close to the tool and spindle reads on “a processing tool replacement obstruction part”. Having to move the spindle relative to the workpiece to exchange to tool upon the judging of the broken state of the tool reads on, in normal operation state, “to obstruct the processing tools from being replaced”.]
a controller configured to determine whether to replace the processing tools, Yoshida: Column 6, lines 53-58 (“As shown in FIG. 4, the NC devices NCl . . . NCj of respective machining centers MCl through MCj are coupled with a central computer 41. When a workpiece is mounted on a machining center, for example MCj, the program data for machining the workpiece are transmitted to the NC device NCj from the central computer 41.”) Yoshida: Column 7, lines 46-55 (“…the NC device produces an instruction signal to the machining center MC to stop its drilling operation and an instruction signal to remove the workpiece from the working area of the machining center MC. At the same time, the NC device applies a signal to the central computer 41 to cause the transfer control device 21 to make a request for removing the workpiece out of the working area, a request for supplementing the broken drill and a request for mounting a new workpiece.”) [The central computer in combination with the NC device reads on “a controller”.]
wherein, in response to determining that replacement of the processing tools is not necessary, the controller brings the processing tools and/or the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part close to each other, thereby preventing the processing tools from being replaced, and Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43 [As described above.] Yoshida: Column 2, lines 35-59 (“…means for detecting a broken state of a tool while it is mounted on the machine tool and machining the workpiece; memory means including first and second memory areas corresponding to the tools contained in the tool storage means for respectively storing a first data which is referred to for judging the broken state of the tool on the machine tool, and a second data representing that the tool has been judged to be broken in accordance with the first data; means for detecting a third data and storing the same in the second memory area, the third data being compared with the first data during actual cutting operation of the workpiece with the tool mounted on the machine tool; means to read out the first and third data from the first and second memory areas respectively and to compare the read out data with each other for judging the broken state of the tool; means for storing the second data in the second memory area of the memory means when the tool is judged to be broken; means responsive to the judgement of the broken state of the tool for interrupting the machining of the tool; means for moving the spindle relative to the workpiece to separate the tool therefrom; means for removing the workpiece out the machining area; means for mounting a new workpiece on the machining area…”) Yoshida: Column 8, line 59, to Column 9, line 14 (“A comparator 74 having a logical operation performance is provided to calculate a value IV in accordance with a value of the cutting current iCNSTNN when the tool NN is actually machining the workpiece W and then compare the value IV with iNETNN. When the value IV is larger than iNETNN by predetermined times, it is judged that the tool is broken or worn out. These judgement signals are also applied to the memory areas of the memory device 73 which stores data FTWNN, FTBNN, etc. The break judgement signal and the wear judgement signal are applied to a unit 75 containing the sequencer 58 and the NC device. When the wear judgement signal is applied the operation is advanced to step 76 for stepwisely decreasing the feed of the tool NN by an instruction from the NC device. Where the break judgement signal is applied to unit 75, the operation is transferred to step 77 to execute a retract cycle thereby separating the tool NN from the workpiece W. Under these conditions, if necessary, the rotation of the spindle SPD is stopped. Then the program operation is advanced to step 78 to initialize the NC device. At step 79 the workpiece W is transferred to the transfer line 11 from the table that is the working region of the machining center MC.”) [In response to the value IV not being larger than iNETNN by predetermined times, judging that the tool is not broken or worn out and not interrupting the machining of the tool reads on “preventing the processing tools from being replaced”.]
wherein, in response to determining that the replacement of the processing tools is necessary, the controller moves the processing tools and/or the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part away from each other, thereby allowing a user to replace the processing tools. Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43 and Column 2, lines 9-12 and 35-59 [As described above.] [In response to judging the broken state of the tool, moving the spindle relative to the workpiece to exchange the tool reads on “in response to determining that the replacement of the processing tools is necessary, the controller moves the processing tools and/or the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part away from each other, thereby allowing a user to replace the processing tools”.]
Yoshida does not expressly teach that the milling machine is a dental prosthesis processing device. However, Ito describes cutting machining device for a dental prosthesis cuts a block shaped workpiece with a machining tool. Ito teaches:
A dental prosthesis processing device comprising: one or more processing tools for processing a workpiece into a prosthesis of a predetermined shape; Ito: Paragraph [0001] (“This invention relates to a cutting machining device 100, a holding device, and a machining method for a dental prosthesis.”) Ito: Paragraph [0019] (“The cutting machining device 100 of the present embodiment is a cutting machining device 100 that cuts the workpiece W with a machining tool 12 to make a dental prosthesis P such as a crown, a bridge, or an implant by changing the relative positional relationship between the machining tool 12 and the block shaped workpiece W in three dimensions.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshida and Ito before them, for the machining tool to be a dental prosthesis device to form a prosthesis of a predetermined shape because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on machining a workpiece.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification as a type of milling machine including the features of Yoshida and Ito to be able to machine a dental prosthesis while able to replace a tool in the event of breakage and enable a dental prosthesis to be cut more efficiently and accurately in a shorter time, with no restrictions on the shape or the orientation of the prosthesis material, and with greater freedom in the cutting. Ito Paragraph [0009].
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida and Ito teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Yoshida further teaches:
The dental prosthesis processing device of claim 1, wherein whether to replace the processing tools is determined according to one or more selected from a group consisting of the number of uses of the processing tools, types of the processing tools, and a material of the workpiece processed by the processing tools. Yoshida: Column 8, lines 35-38 (“…a signal FTWNN representing that the tool was judged worn out, and a signal FCOMNN showing that the tool NN is one of the tools of the same type.”) Yoshida: Claim 13 (“…said tool storage means containing a group of tools of the same type which are used to substitute said tool when it is judged to be broken, and said first memory including another memory area adapted to store another data for identifying one of the tools of said group, and wherein said method further comprising the step of designating one of the tools of said group whose second data is not yet stored in said second memory area of said first memory as a substitute for the tool now being mounted on said spindle when it is judged to be broken.” Which reads on “types of the processing tools”.)
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida and Ito teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Yoshida further teaches:
The dental prosthesis processing device of claim 1, wherein a workpiece fixing part on which the workpiece is mounted is used as the processing tool replacement obstruction part. Yoshida: Column 2, lines 9-12 and Column 4, lines 37-43 [As described in claim 1.]
Regarding independent claim 5, Yoshida teaches:
…
one or more processing tools for processing a workpiece …; Yoshida: Column 1, lines 6-10 (“The invention relates to an automatic operating system of a machine tool and method, more particularly to a system and method of operation for exchanging a tool and a workpiece worked thereby when the tool breaks or wears.”) Yoshida: Column 2, lines 28-33 (“According to one aspect of this invention, there is provided an automatic operating system of a machine tool having a spindle on which a tool is mounted for machining a workpiece mounted on a machining area of the machine tool in accordance with a numerically controlled machining program…”)
a spindle on which the processing tools are replaceably mounted and that is spatially movable in position; Yoshida: Column 2, lines 30-33 (“…a spindle on which a tool is mounted for machining a workpiece mounted on a machining area of the machine tool in accordance with a numerically controlled machining program…”) Yoshida: Column 9, lines 5-9 (“Where the break judgement signal is applied to unit 75, the operation is transferred to step 77 to execute a retract cycle thereby separating the tool NN from the workpiece W. Under these conditions, if necessary, the rotation of the spindle SPD is stopped.”) Yoshida: Claim 1 (“…means (77) for moving said spindle relative to said workpiece to separate said tool therefrom…”)
a processing tool replacement obstruction part located in close proximity to the processing tools and/or the spindle and configured to obstruct the processing tools from being replaced; and Yoshida: Column 2, lines 9-12 (“when a tool, for example a drill, breaks, the machining of a workpiece by the tool is interrupted and the workpiece is exchanged with a new workpiece. At the same time a new program is selected for machining the new workpiece and the broken tool is exchanged with a new tool suitable for machining the new workpiece. Then the new workpiece is machined with the new tool.”) Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43 (“At the righthand end of the transfer line 11 is provided a waiting area 12 for accommodating pallets P on which workpieces to be machined are mounted and secured. At the lefthand end of the transfer line 11 is provided an area 14 for collecting pallets which carry workpieces whose machining have been interrupted for the reason described below.”) [As shown in FIG. 1, the pallet onto which the workpiece is mounted and secured close to the tool and spindle reads on “a processing tool replacement obstruction part”. Having to move the spindle relative to the workpiece to exchange to tool upon the judging of the broken state of the tool reads on, in normal operation state, “to obstruct the processing tools from being replaced”.]
a controller configured to determine whether to replace the processing tools, the method comprising: determining by the controller whether to replace the processing tools; Yoshida: Column 6, lines 53-58 (“As shown in FIG. 4, the NC devices NCl . . . NCj of respective machining centers MCl through MCj are coupled with a central computer 41. When a workpiece is mounted on a machining center, for example MCj, the program data for machining the workpiece are transmitted to the NC device NCj from the central computer 41.”) Yoshida: Column 7, lines 46-55 (“…the NC device produces an instruction signal to the machining center MC to stop its drilling operation and an instruction signal to remove the workpiece from the working area of the machining center MC. At the same time, the NC device applies a signal to the central computer 41 to cause the transfer control device 21 to make a request for removing the workpiece out of the working area, a request for supplementing the broken drill and a request for mounting a new workpiece.”) [The central computer in combination with the NC device reads on “a controller”.]
in response to determining that replacement of the processing tools is not necessary, preventing the processing tools from being replaced by bringing the processing tools and/or the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part close to each other by the controller, and Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43 [As described above.] Yoshida: Column 2, lines 35-59 (“…means for detecting a broken state of a tool while it is mounted on the machine tool and machining the workpiece; memory means including first and second memory areas corresponding to the tools contained in the tool storage means for respectively storing a first data which is referred to for judging the broken state of the tool on the machine tool, and a second data representing that the tool has been judged to be broken in accordance with the first data; means for detecting a third data and storing the same in the second memory area, the third data being compared with the first data during actual cutting operation of the workpiece with the tool mounted on the machine tool; means to read out the first and third data from the first and second memory areas respectively and to compare the read out data with each other for judging the broken state of the tool; means for storing the second data in the second memory area of the memory means when the tool is judged to be broken; means responsive to the judgement of the broken state of the tool for interrupting the machining of the tool; means for moving the spindle relative to the workpiece to separate the tool therefrom; means for removing the workpiece out the machining area; means for mounting a new workpiece on the machining area…”) Yoshida: Column 8, line 59, to Column 9, line 14 (“A comparator 74 having a logical operation performance is provided to calculate a value IV in accordance with a value of the cutting current iCNSTNN when the tool NN is actually machining the workpiece W and then compare the value IV with iNETNN. When the value IV is larger than iNETNN by predetermined times, it is judged that the tool is broken or worn out. These judgement signals are also applied to the memory areas of the memory device 73 which stores data FTWNN, FTBNN, etc. The break judgement signal and the wear judgement signal are applied to a unit 75 containing the sequencer 58 and the NC device. When the wear judgement signal is applied the operation is advanced to step 76 for stepwisely decreasing the feed of the tool NN by an instruction from the NC device. Where the break judgement signal is applied to unit 75, the operation is transferred to step 77 to execute a retract cycle thereby separating the tool NN from the workpiece W. Under these conditions, if necessary, the rotation of the spindle SPD is stopped. Then the program operation is advanced to step 78 to initialize the NC device. At step 79 the workpiece W is transferred to the transfer line 11 from the table that is the working region of the machining center MC.”) [In response to the value IV not being larger than iNETNN by predetermined times, judging that the tool is not broken or worn out and not interrupting the machining of the tool reads on “preventing the processing tools from being replaced”.]
in response to determining that the replacement of the processing tools is necessary, allowing a user to replace the processing tools by moving the processing tools and/or the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part away from each other by the controller. Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43 and Column 2, lines 9-12 and 35-59 [As described above.] [In response to judging the broken state of the tool, the central computer and NC device moving the spindle relative to the workpiece to exchange the tool reads on “in response to determining that the replacement of the processing tools is necessary, the controller moves the processing tools and/or the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part away from each other, thereby allowing a user to replace the processing tools”.]
Yoshida does not expressly teach that the milling machine is a dental prosthesis processing device. However, Ito describes cutting machining device for a dental prosthesis cuts a block shaped workpiece with a machining tool. Ito teaches:
A method of managing processing tools of a dental prosthesis processing device comprising one or more processing tools for processing a workpiece into a prosthesis of a predetermined shape; Ito: Paragraph [0001] (“This invention relates to a cutting machining device 100, a holding device, and a machining method for a dental prosthesis.”) Ito: Paragraph [0019] (“The cutting machining device 100 of the present embodiment is a cutting machining device 100 that cuts the workpiece W with a machining tool 12 to make a dental prosthesis P such as a crown, a bridge, or an implant by changing the relative positional relationship between the machining tool 12 and the block shaped workpiece W in three dimensions.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshida and Ito before them, for the machining tool to be a dental prosthesis device to form a prosthesis of a predetermined shape because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on machining a workpiece.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification as a type of milling machine including the features of Yoshida and Ito to be able to machine a dental prosthesis while able to replace a tool in the event of breakage and enable a dental prosthesis to be cut more efficiently and accurately in a shorter time, with no restrictions on the shape or the orientation of the prosthesis material, and with greater freedom in the cutting. Ito Paragraph [0009].
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida and Ito teach all the claimed features of claim 5, from which claim 6 depends. Yoshida further teaches:
The method of managing processing tools of a dental prosthesis processing device of claim 5, wherein the processing tool replacement obstruction part is located in close proximity to a front or side of the processing tools and/or the spindle and obstructs the processing tools from being removed from the spindle by blocking a path along which the processing tools are separated from the spindle or obstructing an entry of a tool for separating the processing tools from the spindle. Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43, Column 2, lines 9-12 and 35-59, and Column 9, lines 5-9 [As described in claim 5.] [As shown in FIG. 1, the pallet onto which the workpiece is mounted and secured close to the tool and spindle reads on “the processing tool replacement obstruction part is located in close proximity to a front or side of the processing tools and/or the spindle and obstructs the processing tools from being removed from the spindle”.]
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida and Ito teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Yoshida further teaches:
The method of managing processing tools of a dental prosthesis processing device of claim 5, wherein an approach and a move-away of the processing tools and/or the spindle to and from the processing tool replacement obstruction part are performed by moving the processing tools and the spindle, moving the processing tool replacement obstruction part, or moving both the processing tools and the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part Yoshida: Column 4, lines 37-43, Column 2, lines 9-12 and 35-59, and Column 9, lines 5-9 [As described in claim 5.] Yoshida: Column 2, lines 55-59 (“…when the tool is judged to be broken; …means for moving the spindle relative to the workpiece to separate the tool therefrom; means for removing the workpiece out the machining area; means for mounting a new workpiece on the machining area…” which reads on “moving the processing tools and the spindle, moving the processing tool replacement obstruction part, or moving both the processing tools and the spindle and the processing tool replacement obstruction part”.]
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Ito and further in view of Sarig et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0161618 A1) (“Sarig”).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida and Ito teach all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Although Ito provides in Paragraph [0018] that “In this disclosure, “cutting” is intended to mean the overall machining that cuts a dental prosthesis out of a workpiece, and includes, for example, grinding.”, thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the machining illustrated in FIG. 5 is using a bur for the grinding, Ito does not expressly show that the tools are “burs”. However, Sarig describes a dental tool apparatus. Sarig teaches:
The dental prosthesis processing device of claim 1, wherein the processing tools are burs for grinding the workpiece. Sarig: Paragraph [0061] (“In this specific example, the alert signifies that the dental tool has been excessively used (e.g., is worn out) and should be replaced by a new tool.”) Sarig: Paragraph [0065] (“In further embodiments, the transponder may be similarly attached to or integrated with other tools such as dental files, dental implants, dental burs, dental drills, obturators and the like.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshida, Ito, and Sarig before them, for the tools of Yoshida and Ito to be burs because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on machining a workpiece.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification as a type of tools for managing tool usage based on data stored on dental tools. In one example, incorrect tool usage is identified based on a mismatch between data read form the tools and the expected data (e.g., mismatch of tool type identification with expected tool sequence). An alert may be generated to a user. Sarig Paragraph [0066].
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bondenmiller (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0137002 A1) describes a milling/grinding machine having a double spindle, at the ends of which two different tools, e.g. a rough working tool and a fine working tool may be arranged. The double spindle may then for example be rotated on all sides around 180, in order to take up one of the two tools for the working of the workpiece. Also the workpiece receiver can be rotated on all sides around 180, so that without re-chucking, a change can be made from a working of the primary side to a working of the secondary side. Furthermore an auxiliary device can be provided by means of which the surface of the workpiece can be finished.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117