DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 09/29/25, for application number 18/693,107 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended, and Claim 5 has been newly added. Therefore, Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of Claim 4 recites, “The device for a machine tool for the machine tool according to claim 1…” (emphasis added) and should instead read, “The device for the machine tool according to claim 1…” to remove the phrase “a machine tool for,” which, based on the context provided by the preambles of Claims 2 and 3, appears to be an inadvertent repeat of a portion of the preamble.
Claim 5 contains similar language in its preamble, and is objected to accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walker, US 2004/0181610 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Walker discloses a device for a machine tool, attachable to an attachment portion of a machine tool [device of Fig. 3], comprising:
a processor performing a process of booting an operating system (OS) [CPU subsystem 210];
a function portion receiving an instruction from an application running on the OS [ethernet subsystem 208];
a first power line supplying power to the processor [power from main power supply 220 to CPU subsystem 210];
a second power line, different from the first power line, supplying power to the function portion [power from main power supply 220 to Ethernet subsystem 208]; and
a system power supply supplying power to the first power line and the second power line [main power supply 220 with power bus to CPU subsystem 210 and separately to Ethernet subsystem 208],
wherein the processor performs the process of booting the OS upon receiving power from the system power supply through the first power line, and the function portion starts an activation operation upon receiving power from the system power supply through the second power line [an independent power source represents a power source to provide power to selected subsystems in the attachable device to facilitate the aforementioned configuration and/or management tasks without OS involvement. Preferably, the independent power source provides power independently of the power source that triggers a boot cycle of the OS image; i.e. independently activating the system separate from OS activation, which occurs when power is applied; the independent power source provides power independently of the power source that triggers a boot cycle of the OS image; par 32].
Regarding Claim 4, Walker discloses the device for a machine tool for the machine tool according to Claim 1, wherein the system power supply connects to a battery [battery 302, Fig 3].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Nozawa, US 2019/0141208 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Walker discloses the device for the machine tool according to Claim 1. However, Walker does not explicitly teach wherein the OS is a real-time OS, and the processor performs a process of booting the real-time OS upon receiving the power from the system power supply.
In the analogous art of power-on management, Nozawa teaches wherein the OS is a real-time OS, and the processor performs a process of booting the real-time OS upon receiving the power from the system power supply [performs processing to boot RTOS upon power-on, par 94].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Walker and Nozawa before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the real-time OS as taught in Nozawa, into the device as disclosed by Walker, to provide higher real-time performance over a general-purpose OS [Nozawa, par 81].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker and Nozawa, and further in view of Lin et al., US 2012/0290860 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Walker and Nozawa disclose the device for the machine tool according to Claim 2. Nozawa discloses a real-time OS. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the system power supply supplies the power to the function portion in parallel to the process of booting the real-time OS, and the function portion starts a startup operation upon receiving the power.
In the analogous art of power management, Lin teaches wherein the system power supply supplies the power to the function portion in parallel to the process of booting the OS, and the function portion starts a startup operation upon receiving the power [the boot button of the computer mainframe can simultaneously activate the electric power supply of the power supplier and the boot function of the computer mainframe, par 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Walker, Nozawa, and Lin before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the parallel booting as taught in Lin, into the device as disclosed by Walker and Nozawa, to reduce power consumption [Lin, par 6].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Kumar KN et al., US 2019/0056708 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Walker discloses the device for a machine tool for the machine tool according to Claim 1. However, Walker does not explicitly teach a power-communication isolation circuit isolating a power-supply current as the power and a signal current for communication, and the system power supply supplies the power-supply current to the processor and the function portion.
In the analogous art of power management, Kumar KN teaches a power-communication isolation circuit isolating a power-supply current as the power and a signal current for communication, and the system power supply supplies the power-supply current to the processor and the function portion [each isolator 214 a-214 b includes any suitable structure for providing electrical isolation for power or at least one communication signal. For instance, the isolators 214 a-214 b for power and communication signals could include opto, transformer, or capacitive elements that operate as isolating elements. Each energy-limiting circuit 216 includes any suitable structure for limiting electrical energy provided from the IS barrier hardware 204; Each signal isolator 326 includes any suitable structure for electrically isolating a data communication pathway. For example, each signal isolator 326 could include an opto-isolator that uses a photodiode to convert an electrical signal into light and a photodetector to convert the light back into an electrical signal, par 44, 58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Walker and Kumar KN before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the isolators as taught by Kumar KN, into the device as disclosed by Walker, to allow for additional methods of transmitting and receiving data and power [Kumar KN, par 3].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/29/25 have been considered but are moot due to the new rejection based on the references cited above, as well as the newly cited portions of the references previously presented.
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 PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Kim Huynh can be reached at (571) 272-4147. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175