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 Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “cutting tool” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “tool” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the tool)
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 § 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 and 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “cutting tool” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Examiner notes that while no structure is provided for the cutting tool, paragraph [0079] of the instant specification recites “a blade portion at a tip end of the cutting tool”. However, the blade portion is not clearly defined as being a part of the cutting tool, so it is unknown whether this element is simply located at a tip end of the cutting tool, or if it is intended to give structure to the cutting tool. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear how the dummy pin is able to come into contact with the contact body provided the further limitations in the claim. That is, claim 1 requires that the contact body is capable of contacting the dummy pin when the dummy pin is gripped by the gripping portion. Claim 2 requires that the contact body be located on the work holder. Claim 4 (which depends from 2) then requires that the contact body is located on the back surface of the work holder, wherein the back surface is at a lower side of the work holder while cutting is not performed. Provided this definition of the back surface, it is understood that while cutting is not being performed, the contact body is located at the back surface, or bottom, of the work holder. Since the spindle and gripping portion which move and support the dummy pin are located at the upper side/front surface of the work holder, it is unclear how the dummy pin will ever come into contact with the contact body in a state where cutting is not being performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanja (JP 2017094436) in view of Feng (CN 108466170), and further in view of Bunz (US 20190099834).
Regarding claim 1, Kanja discloses a cutting machine comprising: a cutting tool, in a cutting room, that cuts a cutting object (processing tool 12 cuts workpiece 14 in processing area 98a; see paragraph [0019] and figs. 1-4); a housing including the cutting room in which the cutting object is cut (internal space 98 of case 90 includes processing area 98a; see fig. 1); a gripping portion (chuck 31; see fig. 6); a spindle to rotate the gripping portion around an axis line (spindle 30 rotates around the Z1 axis; see paragraph [0022]); a position adjuster including a main shaft moving device to change a relative positional relationship between the gripping portion and the contact body by moving the gripping portion in an up-down direction (drive unit 30a moves spindle 30 in three dimensions within processing area 98a; see paragraph [0025]); and a controller (control device 50; see paragraph [0035]).
Kanja does not explicitly disclose a dummy pin, in the cutting room, that does not cut the cutting object; a gripping portion to grip the dummy pin; a contact body in the cutting room, the contact body being capable of contacting the dummy pin when the dummy pin is gripped by the gripping portion; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to include a dummy pin cleaning controller configured or programmed to execute dummy pin cleaning by rotating; during the dummy pin cleaning, the dummy pin is gripped by the gripping portion and the dummy pin is brought into contact with the contact body, and the dummy pin together with the gripping portion is rotated by the spindle.
Feng discloses a dummy pin, in the cutting room, that does not cut the cutting object (polishing wheel 6 – as modified, polishing wheel 6 would be located on the storage magazine of Kanja, within the cutting room; see fig. 2); a gripping portion to grip the dummy pin (as modified, the gripping portion is capable of gripping polishing wheel 6); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to include a dummy pin cleaning controller configured or programmed to execute dummy pin cleaning by rotating (as modified, the controller is capable of executing a dummy pin cleaning process by rotating since it already controls rotation of the spindle during a cutting operation); during the dummy pin cleaning, the dummy pin is gripped by the gripping portion and the dummy pin is brought into contact with the contact body, and the dummy pin together with the gripping portion is rotated by the spindle (as modified, polishing wheel 6 can be gripped by the gripping portion and brought into contact with the contact body – the spindle can then rotate the gripping portion and dummy pin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kanja in view of Feng to include a dummy pin. Feng discloses a variety of polishing and grinding tools which are selectively held by a robot (see paragraph [0024]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of including the dummy pin (polishing wheel 6) of Feng being that a work piece can easily be cleaned via a polishing step, which would remove dust and burrs. As modified, the polishing wheel could be supported by the spindle of Kanja such that the work piece can be cleaned and a dummy pin cleaning process can occur afterwards.
Bunz discloses a contact body in the cutting room (brush element 23 is located in working space 8; see fig. 4A), the contact body being capable of contacting the dummy pin when the dummy pin is gripped by the gripping portion (brush element 23 contacts nozzle 11 for cleaning – as modified to include a dummy pin, brush element 23 would be capable of contacting the dummy pin in the same way; see paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Bunz to include a contact body. Bunz discloses a contact body (brush element 23) which is used for brushing slag and dust off of a nozzle (see paragraph [0059]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of including a cleaning element being that debris can be removed from tools between cutting operations. It is beneficial to remove debris from tools in order to prevent damage to the workpiece and machine components. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified further discloses a work holder in the cutting room (holding unit 40 is located within processing area 98a; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 4), the work holder being operable to hold the cutting object (holding unit 40 is configured to hold workpiece 14; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 4).
Kanja as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact body is provided on the work holder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Bunz to include the contact body on the work holder since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including the contact body on the work holder allows for more efficient operation, since the dummy pin can be stored in the storage magazine 20 of the work holder immediately after the cleaning process is complete. In other words, this arrangement allows the dummy pin to be cleaned on its way back to storage magazine 20. Therefore, in order to increase efficiency of the machining and cleaning processes, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified further discloses wherein: the work holder includes: a pair of pinching arms to pinch the cutting object (second member 44b and its opposing arm; see fig. 4); and a coupling portion to couple rear end portions of the pair of the pinching arms with each other (first member 44a couples second member 44b and its opposing arm; see fig. 4); the coupling portion is located rearward of the pair of pinching arms (first member 44a is located to the rear of second member 44b; see fig. 4); the coupling portion extends in a left-right direction (first member 44a extends in the left-right direction; see fig. 4).
Kanja as modified does not explicitly disclose that the contact body is provided on the coupling portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Bunz to include the contact body on the coupling portion of the work holder since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the contact body could be located on the coupling portion of the work holder without impeding operation of the device as modified. That is, if the contact body is located on the coupling portion, the dummy pin can be cleaned by the contact body on its path back to the storage magazine. This would further increase efficiency since the spindle would be able to maintain the shortest path from the workpiece straight to the storage magazine.
Regarding claim 4, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified further discloses wherein the work holder includes: a front surface that is at an upper side while cutting is not performed (holding unit 40 comprises a front surface located on its upper side; see fig. 4); and a back surface that is at a lower side while cutting is not performed (holding unit 40 comprises a back surface opposite the front surface; see fig. 4); the back surface is opposite to the front surface (the back surface is located opposite the upper side; see fig. 4).
Kanja as modified does not explicitly disclose that the contact body is provided on the back surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Bunz to include the contact body on the coupling portion of the work holder since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, including the contact body on the back surface would not impede operation of the device as modified. Since the work holder (holding unit 40) is capable of rotating on the X and Y axes, there is no negative effect to including the contact body on the back surface since the holding unit can simply rotate for ease of access as needed (see paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Feng further discloses wherein: the dummy pin includes: a stick-shaped portion that is gripped by the gripping portion (as modified, the stick-shaped portion is the portion that is grabbed by the gripping portion; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below); and a dummy contact portion that is connected to a lower end of the stick-shaped portion (the dummy contact portion is connected to the lower end of the stick-shaped portion; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below); and the dummy contact portion includes a flat dummy contact surface that is larger than a cross-sectional area of the stick-shaped portion (the flat dummy contact surface of the dummy contact portion is wider than the stick-shaped portion; see annotated portion of fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Feng to make the dummy pin have a stick-shaped portion, dummy contact portion, and flat dummy contact surface. In order for the dummy pin to be securely held within the gripping portion of the spindle, the dummy pin must have a rod-like shape that is capable of fitting within the chuck. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of the dummy contact surface having a wider area than the stick-shaped portion being that a wider surface area of the work piece is able to be cleaned, therefore reducing overall cleaning time. Therefore, in order to provide a structure which fits securely within the spindle and is capable of cleaning a workpiece efficiently, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified further discloses wherein the dummy pin cleaning controller is configured or programmed to bring the dummy contact surface of the dummy pin into contact with the contact body (control device 50 controls drive unit 30a to move spindle 30 in three-dimensions – as modified, control device 50 brings spindle 30 and therefore the contact surface of the dummy pin into contact with the contact body; see paragraphs [0022, 0034-0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Bunz further discloses wherein the contact body includes a flat contact surface (brush element 23 has a substantially flat contact surface; see figs. 2A and 4A).
Kanja as modified further discloses the dummy pin cleaning controller is configured or programmed to bring the dummy contact surface of the dummy pin into contact with the contact surface of the contact body (control device 50 controls drive unit 30a to move spindle 30 in three-dimensions – as modified, control device 50 brings spindle 30 and therefore the contact surface of the dummy pin into contact with the surface of the contact body; see paragraphs [0022, 0034-0036]) such that the dummy contact surface and the contact surface are parallel to each other (as modified, the dummy contact surface would be substantially parallel to the contact surface of the contact body in order to sufficiently clean the dummy pin).
Regarding claim 11, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified further discloses wherein the dummy pin cleaning controller is configured or programmed to include: a contact controller configured or programmed to bring the dummy pin gripped by the gripping portion into contact with the contact body in a state where the gripping portion is not rotated (control device 50 controls drive unit 30a to move spindle 30 in three-dimensions – as modified, control device 50 moves spindle 30, and therefore chuck 31, to cause the dummy pin to come into contact with the contact body, such that chuck 31 does not necessarily have to rotate; see paragraphs [0022, 0034-0036]); a rotation controller configured or programmed to, after control by the contact controller, control the spindle to rotate the dummy pin together with the gripping portion (control device 50 is able to control movement of spindle 30, including rotational movement; see paragraph [0022]); and a separation controller configured or programmed to, after control by the rotation controller, stop rotation of the gripping portion and separate the dummy pin gripped by the gripping portion from the contact body (control device 50 is able to move spindle 30 in three-dimensions, including in the Z1 direction, and thus is able to separate the dummy pin gripped by chuck 31 from the contact body; see paragraph [0025]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanja (JP 2017094436) in view of Feng (CN 108466170), in view of Bunz (US 20190099834), and further in view of Zoller (DE 102018113704).
Regarding claim 5, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact body includes a porous material.
Zoller discloses wherein the contact body includes a porous material (cleaning body 24a can have a sponge-like surface, which is porous; see paragraphs [0010, 0035] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Zoller to make the contact body a porous material. Zoller discloses that the cleaning body is able to absorb foreign particles from the tool and is intended to be deformable during the cleaning process (see paragraph [0010]). This design allows for more effective cleaning, since difficult-to-reach areas of tools can still be accessed by the cleaning body (see paragraph [0029]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify Kanja based on the teachings of Zoller in order to achieve a more effective cleaning tool.
Regarding claim 6, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact body includes a sponge.
Zoller discloses wherein the contact body includes a sponge (cleaning body 24a can have a sponge-like surface; see paragraphs [0010, 0035] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Zoller to make the contact body a sponge. Zoller discloses that the cleaning body is able to absorb foreign particles from the tool and is intended to be deformable during the cleaning process (see paragraph [0010]). This design allows for more effective cleaning, since difficult-to-reach areas of tools can still be accessed by the cleaning body (see paragraph [0029]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify Kanja based on the teachings of Zoller in order to achieve a more effective cleaning tool.
Regarding claim 7, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact body is replaceable.
Zoller discloses wherein the contact body is replaceable (cleaning body 24a is replaceable; see paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Zoller to make the contact body replaceable. Zoller discloses a replaceable cleaning body which has a surface geometry designed to reduce the frequency of replacement (see at least paragraph [0022]). Still, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it will eventually need to be replaced. Therefore, in order to provide the option to replace the contact body when it becomes too dirty or worn, such a modification would be obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanja (JP 2017094436) in view of Feng (CN 108466170), in view of Bunz (US 20190099834), and further in view of Sugahara (US 20200024088).
Regarding claim 12, Kanja as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kanja as modified further discloses a work holder in the cutting room (holding unit 40 is located within processing area 98a; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 4), the work holder being operable to hold the cutting object (holding unit 40 is configured to hold workpiece 14; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 4).
Kanja as modified does not explicitly disclose an air blower to blow air to the cutting object held by the work holder; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to include a work cleaning controller configured or programmed to, after cutting of the cutting object ends, execute work cleaning by blowing air from the air blower to the cutting object held by the work holder in a state there the dummy pin is gripped by the gripping portion; and the dummy pin cleaning controller is configured or programmed to execute the dummy pin cleaning after the work cleaning by the work cleaning controller.
Sugahara discloses an air blower to blow air to the cutting object held by the work holder (air blowing device 7; see paragraph [0024] and fig. 3); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to include a work cleaning controller configured or programmed to, after cutting of the cutting object ends, execute work cleaning by blowing air from the air blower to the cutting object held by the work holder in a state there the dummy pin is gripped by the gripping portion (as modified, control device 1 causes air blowing device 7 to blow air onto workpiece W after machining is finished; see paragraphs [0021, 0032] and fig. 3); and the dummy pin cleaning controller is configured or programmed to execute the dummy pin cleaning after the work cleaning by the work cleaning controller (as modified, the controller can begin the cleaning process after the workpiece has been cleaned by the air blowing device 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Kanja in view of Sugahara to include an air blower. Sugahara discloses that the air blower (air blowing device 7) is capable of blowing away cutting fluid from the workpiece, which could otherwise influence tasks performed after machining (see paragraphs [0024, 0040]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that neglecting to remove debris from the workpiece could negatively impact further machining steps, as suggested by Sugahara. Further, an air blower can typically perform cleaning of a workpiece faster than mechanical means. Therefore, in order to provide means for quickly cleaning the workpiece, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the above references do not teach the dummy pin of the instant invention, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant states that polishing wheel 6 of Feng does not correspond to the dummy pin (see pg. 10 of remarks). Examiner notes that both the dummy pin of the instant invention and the polishing wheel of Feng have a similar structure and are both configured to remove machining debris from a workpiece. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that a polishing operation is capable of removing debris from a workpiece, for example, dust or burrs created during the machining process. Feng further discloses that robot 1 comprises collet 4, which secures the grinding or polishing head in the device (see paragraph [0024]). This is similar to the operation of Kanja as discussed above, therefore it is understood that the dummy pin as taught by Feng can be included in the device of Kanja as modified while maintaining the same operation.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Bunz is not analogous art, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the disclosure of Bunz is from a different field, the problem solved by brush element 23 of Bunz is largely the same as that of the contact body of the instant invention. As previously discussed, Bunz discloses a brush for cleaning the nozzle of a laser head. In this case, nozzle 11 corresponds to the dummy pin of the instant invention. When nozzle 11 is dirtied from the slag and dust created during operation, it is moved to brush element 23 in order to remove debris from the nozzle (see paragraph [0052]). The nozzle can then be swapped if necessary to continue a machining operation. Although the brush is used for cleaning an element of a laser head as opposed to a cutting tool, the problem to be solved is the same: a cleaning element must be provided to remove debris from a tool head. In view of the teachings outlined above, Bunz is analogous art as best understood.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20210323108 to Sagisaka, drawn to a cutting apparatus; and US 20180200851 to Schumacher, drawn to a blank holder for a dental milling machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights