DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification references patent claims at least at paragraphs [0014]-[0020]. The claims are subject to amendment, renumbering, and cancellation such that the Specification referencing the claims is not necessarily fairly instructive to one having ordinary skill in the art reviewing the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are 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: an image display means in claims 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Image display means appear to be described in paragraph [0046].
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “a tool changer provided in a machine tool” and “when an abnormality is detected during a tool change operation and the change arm stops, the tool change operation that has been stopped is performed in reverse order to return the change arm to a state before the abnormality detection” at lines 1-6. The claim is understood to be directed to the statutory class of an apparatus, however the final lines of the claim are understood to reflect a method step. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim. Where the tool changer of the claim is located on a warehouse shelf, for example, distant from a power source and a tool post, how would one having ordinary skill in the art determine that the tool changer has performed an operation in reverse order?
Claims 2-16 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein no tool changer remains in the change arm returned to the state before abnormality detection” at lines 1-2. This limitation has the general structure of a method limitation. Claim 1 is understood to be directed to a tool changer which does not positively require a tool, such that even in the hypothetical that the method steps are interpreted as having substantial patentable weight, there is not fairly a manner to determine that the tool previously included a tool.
Similar method limitations or temporal limitations allegedly true after the performance of a method step at least in claims 3-16.
Claim 3 recites “before a tool attached to the tool post is unclamped” at lines 2-3. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would determine whether that a tool, understood not to be positively required as part of the claimed tool changer of claim 1, has ever been clamped to a tool post, also understood not to be positively required as part of the claimed tool changer of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0314295 to Watanabe (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a tool changer (13U, 13L) provided in a machine tool (1; see paragraph [0021]) and including a change arm (13UL, 13UR, 13LL, 13LR) that performs an operation of changing a tool (P and P1 to P4; see paragraph [0024]) of a tool post (9U, 9L), wherein when an abnormality is detected during a tool change operation (see paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; stop commands produced and incorrect positions of components may be determined); and the change arm stops, the tool change operation that has been stopped is performed in reverse order to return the change arm to a state before the abnormality detection (see paragraph [0053]; correction operation may be performed including travel in reverse direction).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Watanabe discloses that no tool remains in the change arm (unit 13UR) returned to the state before abnormality (see paragraph [0053]). The examiner notes that the tool changer is not understood to positively require the tools.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Watanabe discloses that the presence or absence of an abnormality is confirmed before a tool attached to the tool post is unclamped (see paragraphs [0043]-[0045]; control unit performs torque detection and compares positions of components with reference positions and then tool change device may automatically perform the appropriate tool changing; see paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Watanabe discloses that presence of absence of an abnormality is confirmed (see paragraphs [0043]-[0045]; control unit performs torque detection and compares positions of components with reference positions and then tool change device may automatically perform the appropriate tool changing; see paragraph [0085]) before a tool (tools P) to be attached to the tool post (9U, 9L) is clamped (see paragraphs [0057]-[0061]; tool locations are calculated and specified for tool storage). Because Watanabe teaches that tools may be unclamped (see paragraph [0007]) one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that tools can be clamped. Because the tool and the tool post are not understood to be positively required by the tool changer as claimed, this limitation is not understood to have substantial patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Watanabe discloses that the presence or absence of an abnormality is confirmed before a tool attached to the tool post is unclamped (see paragraphs [0043]-[0045]; control unit performs torque detection and compares positions of components with reference positions and then tool change device may automatically perform the appropriate tool changing; see paragraph [0085]). Because Watanabe teaches that tools may be unclamped (see paragraph [0007]) one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that tools can be clamped at some point in time. Because the tool and the tool post are not understood to be positively required by the tool changer as claimed, this limitation is not understood to have substantial patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Watanabe discloses that presence of absence of an abnormality is confirmed (see paragraphs [0043]-[0045]; control unit performs torque detection and compares positions of components with reference positions and then tool change device may automatically perform the appropriate tool changing; see paragraph [0085]) before a tool (tools P) to be attached to the tool post (9U, 9L) is clamped (see paragraphs [0057]-[0061]; tool locations are calculated and specified for tool storage). Because Watanabe teaches that tools may be unclamped (see paragraph [0007]) one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that tools can be clamped. Because the tool and the tool post are not understood to be positively required by the tool changer as claimed, this limitation is not understood to have substantial patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 3, and further Watanabe discloses that presence of absence of an abnormality is confirmed (see paragraphs [0043]-[0045]; control unit performs torque detection and compares positions of components with reference positions and then tool change device may automatically perform the appropriate tool changing; see paragraph [0085]) before a tool (tools P) to be attached to the tool post (9U, 9L) is clamped (see paragraphs [0057]-[0061]; tool locations are calculated and specified for tool storage). Because Watanabe teaches that tools may be unclamped (see paragraph [0007]) one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that tools can be clamped. Because the tool and the tool post are not understood to be positively required by the tool changer as claimed, this limitation is not understood to have substantial patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 4, and further Watanabe discloses that presence of absence of an abnormality is confirmed (see paragraphs [0043]-[0045]; control unit performs torque detection and compares positions of components with reference positions and then tool change device may automatically perform the appropriate tool changing; see paragraph [0085]) before a tool (tools P) to be attached to the tool post (9U, 9L) is clamped (see paragraphs [0057]-[0061]; tool locations are calculated and specified for tool storage). Because Watanabe teaches that tools may be unclamped (see paragraph [0007]) one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that tools can be clamped. Because the tool and the tool post are not understood to be positively required by the tool changer as claimed, this limitation is not understood to have substantial patentable weight.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, and 10-16
Claims 5 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0147737 to Nakahama (hereinafter “Nakahama”).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool including the tool changer is provided with an image display means, the image display means displaying a guide for performing the tool change operation in reverse order. Watanabe teaches that a user may interact with the machine tool (see paragraph [0058]) to acquire information about the tools (I/O interface; see paragraph [0030]).
Nakahama teaches a machine tool (2) having an automated tool changer (see paragraph [0031]). The tool changer can detect abnormalities via an abnormality detector (36) which is in communication with a display means (70) capable of changing to display different information in response to a degree of the abnormality (see paragraph [0042]) for an operator to view (see paragraph [0033]) and interact with at an interface. Where a tool is abnormally positioned or attached (see paragraph [0010]), a learner (110) may use machine learning to compare the abnormality with a correct attachment or positioning of the tool (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Watanabe to include a display means, as taught by Nakahama. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would be advantageously capable of receiving information from a user in a predictable manner while providing information regarding errors or abnormalities in a predictable manner. As best understood, any display means would be capable of displaying the recited guide for performing the tool change operation.
Thus, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 2, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool including the tool changer is provided with an image display means, the image display means displaying a guide for performing the tool change operation in reverse order. Watanabe teaches that a user may interact with the machine tool (see paragraph [0058]) to acquire information about the tools (I/O interface; see paragraph [0030]).
Nakahama teaches a machine tool (2) having an automated tool changer (see paragraph [0031]). The tool changer can detect abnormalities via an abnormality detector (36) which is in communication with a display means (70) capable of changing to display different information in response to a degree of the abnormality (see paragraph [0042]) for an operator to view (see paragraph [0033]) and interact with at an interface. Where a tool is abnormally positioned or attached (see paragraph [0010]), a learner (110) may use machine learning to compare the abnormality with a correct attachment or positioning of the tool (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Watanabe to include a display means, as taught by Nakahama. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would be advantageously capable of receiving information from a user in a predictable manner while providing information regarding errors or abnormalities in a predictable manner. As best understood, any display means would be capable of displaying the recited guide for performing the tool change operation.
Thus, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 3, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool including the tool changer is provided with an image display means, the image display means displaying a guide for performing the tool change operation in reverse order. Watanabe teaches that a user may interact with the machine tool (see paragraph [0058]) to acquire information about the tools (I/O interface; see paragraph [0030]).
Nakahama teaches a machine tool (2) having an automated tool changer (see paragraph [0031]). The tool changer can detect abnormalities via an abnormality detector (36) which is in communication with a display means (70) capable of changing to display different information in response to a degree of the abnormality (see paragraph [0042]) for an operator to view (see paragraph [0033]) and interact with at an interface. Where a tool is abnormally positioned or attached (see paragraph [0010]), a learner (110) may use machine learning to compare the abnormality with a correct attachment or positioning of the tool (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Watanabe to include a display means, as taught by Nakahama. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would be advantageously capable of receiving information from a user in a predictable manner while providing information regarding errors or abnormalities in a predictable manner. As best understood, any display means would be capable of displaying the recited guide for performing the tool change operation.
Thus, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 4, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool including the tool changer is provided with an image display means, the image display means displaying a guide for performing the tool change operation in reverse order. Watanabe teaches that a user may interact with the machine tool (see paragraph [0058]) to acquire information about the tools (I/O interface; see paragraph [0030]).
Nakahama teaches a machine tool (2) having an automated tool changer (see paragraph [0031]). The tool changer can detect abnormalities via an abnormality detector (36) which is in communication with a display means (70) capable of changing to display different information in response to a degree of the abnormality (see paragraph [0042]) for an operator to view (see paragraph [0033]) and interact with at an interface. Where a tool is abnormally positioned or attached (see paragraph [0010]), a learner (110) may use machine learning to compare the abnormality with a correct attachment or positioning of the tool (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Watanabe to include a display means, as taught by Nakahama. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would be advantageously capable of receiving information from a user in a predictable manner while providing information regarding errors or abnormalities in a predictable manner. As best understood, any display means would be capable of displaying the recited guide for performing the tool change operation.
Thus, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 5. The limitations of claim 13 appear to be duplicative of the limitations of claim 5, from which the claim depends.
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 6, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool including the tool changer is provided with an image display means, the image display means displaying a guide for performing the tool change operation in reverse order. Watanabe teaches that a user may interact with the machine tool (see paragraph [0058]) to acquire information about the tools (I/O interface; see paragraph [0030]).
Nakahama teaches a machine tool (2) having an automated tool changer (see paragraph [0031]). The tool changer can detect abnormalities via an abnormality detector (36) which is in communication with a display means (70) capable of changing to display different information in response to a degree of the abnormality (see paragraph [0042]) for an operator to view (see paragraph [0033]) and interact with at an interface. Where a tool is abnormally positioned or attached (see paragraph [0010]), a learner (110) may use machine learning to compare the abnormality with a correct attachment or positioning of the tool (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Watanabe to include a display means, as taught by Nakahama. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would be advantageously capable of receiving information from a user in a predictable manner while providing information regarding errors or abnormalities in a predictable manner. As best understood, any display means would be capable of displaying the recited guide for performing the tool change operation.
Thus, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 7, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool including the tool changer is provided with an image display means, the image display means displaying a guide for performing the tool change operation in reverse order. Watanabe teaches that a user may interact with the machine tool (see paragraph [0058]) to acquire information about the tools (I/O interface; see paragraph [0030]).
Nakahama teaches a machine tool (2) having an automated tool changer (see paragraph [0031]). The tool changer can detect abnormalities via an abnormality detector (36) which is in communication with a display means (70) capable of changing to display different information in response to a degree of the abnormality (see paragraph [0042]) for an operator to view (see paragraph [0033]) and interact with at an interface. Where a tool is abnormally positioned or attached (see paragraph [0010]), a learner (110) may use machine learning to compare the abnormality with a correct attachment or positioning of the tool (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Watanabe to include a display means, as taught by Nakahama. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would be advantageously capable of receiving information from a user in a predictable manner while providing information regarding errors or abnormalities in a predictable manner. As best understood, any display means would be capable of displaying the recited guide for performing the tool change operation.
Thus, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 8, however Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the machine tool including the tool changer is provided with an image display means, the image display means displaying a guide for performing the tool change operation in reverse order. Watanabe teaches that a user may interact with the machine tool (see paragraph [0058]) to acquire information about the tools (I/O interface; see paragraph [0030]).
Nakahama teaches a machine tool (2) having an automated tool changer (see paragraph [0031]). The tool changer can detect abnormalities via an abnormality detector (36) which is in communication with a display means (70) capable of changing to display different information in response to a degree of the abnormality (see paragraph [0042]) for an operator to view (see paragraph [0033]) and interact with at an interface. Where a tool is abnormally positioned or attached (see paragraph [0010]), a learner (110) may use machine learning to compare the abnormality with a correct attachment or positioning of the tool (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Watanabe to include a display means, as taught by Nakahama. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would be advantageously capable of receiving information from a user in a predictable manner while providing information regarding errors or abnormalities in a predictable manner. As best understood, any display means would be capable of displaying the recited guide for performing the tool change operation.
Thus, the combination of Watanabe and Nakahama teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2021/1097331 to Murakami teaches a machine tool for performing tool changing and machining (see Fig. 3; S1), the machine tool having determination unit which detects whether an abnormality is present during machining (see paragraph [0037]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights