DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Kawai (JP 2012020359 A, from IDS).
Re Claim 1, Kawai discloses a cutting tool comprising: a cutting bite 20 having a cutting edge 21, a shank that holds the cutting edge, and a sensor 3 attached to the shank; a power path 40 that supplies power to the sensor, the power path having a first terminal connected to the cutting bite and a second terminal opposite to the first terminal; and a housing 5 that accommodates a battery that stores power to be supplied to the power path, the housing being connected to the second terminal (para. 46).
Re Claim 2, Kawai discloses a communication device that transmits data measured by the sensor to outside, wherein the communication device is accommodated in the housing (para. 39-50).
Re Claim 3, Kawai discloses the cutting bite includes a first bite and a second bite different from the first bite, and the power is supplied from the housing to the first bite and the second bite in a branched manner (Fig. 9).
Re Claim 4, Kawai discloses a signal path that transmits the data to the communication device, the signal path having a third terminal connected to the cutting bite and a fourth terminal opposite to the third terminal (Fig. 1-2; para. 39-41).
Re Claim 5, Kawai discloses the power path is a heat-resistant cable (inherently has some level of heat resistance, especially since connected to a cutting tool).
Re Claim 9, Kawai discloses the housing has a power supply connector 42 (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 11, Kawai discloses a cutting apparatus comprising: the cutting tool according to claim 1; and a turret 295 to which the cutting tool is attached (Fig. 8-9), wherein the cutting bite has a first end surface facing a central axis of the turret, the housing has a second end surface facing the central axis, and the power path connects the first end surface and the second end surface (Fig. 8-9; para. 85-86).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Krapf (PGPub 2016/0178398).
Re Claim 6, Kawai does not disclose a tilt detection sensor that is able to recognize a position of the housing, wherein the tilt detection sensor is accommodated in the housing. However, Krapf teaches a tilt detection sensor that is able to recognize a position of the housing, wherein the tilt detection sensor is accommodated in the housing (para. 10). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a tilt detection sensor, as taught by Krapf, for the purpose of allowing monitoring and awareness of inclination and positioning so that machining can be more accurate and under control and also since such devices are well known in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Hashimoto (WO 2020171156, from IDS).
Re Claim 7, Kawai does not disclose at least a portion of a side surface of the housing is composed of a resin. However, Hashimoto teaches at least a portion of a side surface of the housing is composed of a resin (para. 24). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a resin, as taught by Hashimoto, for the purpose of providing a strong yet cheap material for the housing which is well known and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai.
Re Claim 8, Kawai discloses the power path has a first power line portion having the first terminal, a second power line portion having the second terminal, a first connector attached to the first power line portion, but does not specifically disclose a second connector attached to the second power line portion, and the first connector is connected to the second connector. However, it would be extremely commonplace to provide a second connector attached to the second power line portion, and the first connector is connected to the second connector, as these are extremely common setups for connecting electronics. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have this configuration for the purpose of effectively connecting the components using known means and which could allow for more flexibility in placement of the housings relative to each other.
Re Claim 10, Kawai discloses the battery includes a first battery portion accommodated in a first housing portion and a second battery portion accommodated in the second housing portion, and the first battery portion is electrically connected to the second battery portion (para. 46). Kawai does not disclose the housing has a first housing portion and a second housing portion different from the first housing portion, second battery portion accommodated in the second housing portion. However, it is well known and common to have separate housings for secondary batteries. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize another housing for secondary battery since this allows easy replacement of secondary battery as well as easier access to power in the case of a failed or low battery.
Re Claim 14, Kawai does not disclose the housing is fixed to the turret using a magnet. However, it is well known in the art to connect components by magnets. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a magnet to attach the housing such that it is held in place effectively and using known means.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai in view of Shiba (JP 2003200333 A).
Re Claim 12-13, Kawai discloses the housing is fixed to the turret (Fig. 8-9; para. 85-86). Kawai does not disclose the housing is fixed to the turret using a fixation jig or using a screw or using a magnet. However, Shiba teaches a housing is fixed to the turret using a fixation jig and using a screw (Fig. 5). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a jig or screw to attach the housing, as taught by Shiba, such that it is held in place effectively and using known means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799