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 is: illumination device in claim 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 § 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 1-7 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 “at a tip portion one side in an axial direction” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear what the first side relates to in the claimed invention - one side of the main body or one side of the tip portion. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the camera is disposed to image an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction.” It is unclear what the outer side relates to in the claim and how intersecting the axial direction further limits the outer side or radial direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “the base is disposed on a first side in the radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction with respect to the tool axis” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear what the first side relates to in the radial direction that intersects with the axial direction. The scope of this limitation is unclear. It is also unclear how the first side in the radial direction differs from the outer side recited in claim 1 because both are stated as intersecting the axial direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the camera is disposed at the same position in the axial direction or is disposed on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the cutting insert attached to the base.” The scope of the camera being disposed on the other side in the axial direction us unclear. Again, it is unclear as to what the other side references. It is also unclear how two features could be disposed at the same position. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “the camera is disposed on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the distance sensor.” It is unclear what the other side references in terms of what feature. It is also unclear whether the claim is attempting to set forth the axial direction as two opposing directions, with this direction being opposite to that establishing the tip of the tool. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 6 recites “e in the axial direction.” It is unclear whether the claim is attempting to set forth the axial direction as two opposing directions, with this direction being opposite to that establishing the tip of the tool. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 7 recites “the illumination device side” in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction 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.
(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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai (WO 2021/192849 A1).
(Claim 1) Imai discloses a turning tool (Figs. 1-8) having a tool main body (1) that extends along a tool axis (C) and that has a base (4) at a tip portion on one side in an axial direction along the tool axis (Fig. 1); a cutting insert (5) detachably attached to the base (via 6; Fig. 1); and a camera (9) provided in the tool main body and configured to image a machined surface of a work material cut by the cutting insert (translation). The camera is disposed to image an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction (Figs. 1-8; translation).
(Claim 2) The camera images the machined surface from a direction orthogonal to the machined surface of the work material cut by the cutting insert (Figs. 1-8; translation).
(Claim 3) The base (4) is disposed on a first side in the radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction with respect to the tool axis, and the camera (9) is disposed on a second side in the radial direction with respect to the tool axis (Fig. 4). This limitation depends on the viewpoint such that the camera could be considered on an opposite side of the axis.
(Claim 4) As best understood, the camera is disposed at the same position in the axial direction or is disposed on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the cutting insert attached to the base (Figs. 1-8).
(Claim 5) A distance sensor (13) is attached to the tip portion in the tool main body. The camera is disposed on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the distance sensor (Fig. 2).
(Claim 6) An illumination device (LED lights - translation) is provided in the tool main body and configured to illuminate the machined surface imaged by the camera. The camera is disposed between the base and the illumination device in the axial direction (translation - disclosing the lights being disposed around the camera).
(Claim 7) The camera (9) is housed in a housing recess portion formed in the tool main body (Figs. 1-8). The camera further includes a camera cover (7) mounted on the tool main body and that covers the housing recess portion and the camera (Figs. 1-8). The camera cover has an outer peripheral inclined surface inclined outward in the radial direction from the illumination device side toward a lens portion side of the camera in the axial direction (Fig. 4).
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams (DE 102009031166 A1).
(Claim 1) Adams discloses a turning tool (Figs. 1-4) having a tool main body (1) that extends along a tool axis and that has a base (3) at a tip portion on one side in an axial direction along the tool axis (Figs. 1-4); a cutting insert (2) detachably attached to the base (via screws; Figs. 2, 4); and a camera (5) provided in the tool main body and configured to image a machined surface of a work material cut by the cutting insert (translation). The camera is disposed to image an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction (Figs. 2, 4; translation).
(Claim 2) The camera (5) images the machined surface from a direction orthogonal to the machined surface of the work material cut by the cutting insert (Figs. 2, 4; translation).
(Claim 3) The base (3) is disposed on a first side in the radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction with respect to the tool axis, and the camera (5) is disposed on a second side in the radial direction with respect to the tool axis (Figs. 2, 4). This limitation depends on the viewpoint such that the camera could be considered on an opposite side of the axis.
(Claim 4) As best understood, the camera is disposed at the same position in the axial direction or is disposed on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the cutting insert attached to the base (Figs. 2, 4).
(Claim 6) An illumination device (lights - translation) is provided in the tool main body and configured to illuminate the machined surface imaged by the camera. The camera is disposed between the base and the illumination device in the axial direction (Figs. 2, 4; translation - disclosing the lights being disposed around the camera).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (WO 02/24405 A1) in view of Imai (WO 2021/192849 A1) or Adams (DE 102009031166 A1) or Li et al. (CN 106881482 A1) or Takahashi et al. (US Patent No. 5,349,940).
(Claim 1) Zimmerman discloses a turning tool (Fig. 1) having a tool main body (5) that extends along a tool axis (Fig. 1) and that has a base (recess for 6) at a tip portion on one side in an axial direction along the tool axis (Fig. 1); and a cutting insert (7) detachably attached to the base (via 6; Fig. 1). Zimmerman discloses a sensor (9) provided in the tool main body and configured to measure distance to a machined surface of a work material cut by the cutting insert (translation). As best understood, the sensor is disposed to measure an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction (Fig. 1; translation). Yet, the Zimmerman reference does not explicitly disclose a camera in the tool body.
Imai discloses a turning tool (Figs. 1-8) having a tool main body (1) that extends along a tool axis (C) and that has a base (4) at a tip portion on one side in an axial direction along the tool axis (Fig. 1); a cutting insert (5) detachably attached to the base (via 6; Fig. 1); and a camera (9) provided in the tool main body and configured to image a machined surface of a work material cut by the cutting insert (translation). The camera is disposed to image an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction (Figs. 1-8; translation). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed in Zimmerman with a camera as suggested in Imai in order to view the work surface (Imai translation).
Adams discloses a turning tool (Figs. 1-4) having a tool main body (1) that extends along a tool axis and that has a base (3) at a tip portion on one side in an axial direction along the tool axis (Figs. 1-4); a cutting insert (2) detachably attached to the base (via screws; Figs. 2, 4); and a camera (5) provided in the tool main body and configured to image a machined surface of a work material cut by the cutting insert (translation). The camera is disposed to image an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction (Figs. 2, 4; translation). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed in Zimmerman with a camera as suggested in Adams in order to view the work surface (Adams translation).
Li et al. discloses a tool (1) with a camera (8) provided in the tool main body and configured to image a machined surface of a work material (translation). The camera is disposed to image an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction (Fig. 1). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed in Zimmerman with a camera as suggested in Li et al. in order to view the work surface (Li et al. translation).
Takahashi et al. discloses a tool (1A) with a camera (22) provided in the tool main body and configured to image a machined surface of a work material (Fig. 6). The camera is disposed to image an outer side in a radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction (Fig. 5). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed in Zimmerman with a camera as suggested in Takahashi et al in order to view the work surface (Takahashi et al. Col. 4, Lines 18-31).
(Claim 2) In the modified device, the camera images the machined surface from a direction orthogonal to the machined surface of the work material cut by the cutting insert.
(Claim 3) In the modified device, the base (recess for 6) is disposed on a first side in the radial direction of the tool main body intersecting with the axial direction with respect to the tool axis, and the camera (of modifying reference) is disposed on a second side in the radial direction with respect to the tool axis. This limitation depends on the viewpoint such that the camera could be considered on an opposite side of the axis.
(Claim 4) As best understood, the camera is disposed at the same position in the axial direction or is disposed on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the cutting insert attached to the base (Imai Figs 1-8; Adams Figs. 2, 4; Li et al. Fig. 1; Takahashi et al. Figs. 5, 6).
(Claim 5) A distance sensor (Zimmerman 9) is attached to the tip portion in the tool main body. In the modified device, the camera is disposed on the other side in the axial direction with respect to the distance sensor. In the event the modified device would not result in such a configuration, the arrangement of parts is an obvious design consideration. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the tool disclosed in Zimmerman with the claimed arrangement as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions leading to the predictable result of locating the camera within the tool head to perform imaging of the work surface. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including ‘obvious to try’); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950) (holding claims unpatentable because shifting positions of features did not impact operation of device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
(Claim 6) In the modified device, an illumination device (LED lights - Imai translation; Adams translation; Takahashi 21) is provided in the tool main body and configured to illuminate the machined surface imaged by the camera. In the modified device, the camera is disposed between the base and the illumination device in the axial. In the event the modified device would not result in such a configuration, the arrangement of parts is an obvious design consideration. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the tool disclosed in Zimmerman with the claimed arrangement as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions leading to the predictable result of locating the camera within the tool head to perform imaging of the work surface. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553.
(Claim 7) In the modified device, the camera (Imai 9) is housed in a housing recess portion formed in the tool main body (Imai Figs. 1-8). The camera further includes a camera cover (Imai 7) mounted on the tool main body and that covers the housing recess portion and the camera (Imai Figs. 1-8). The camera cover has an outer peripheral inclined surface inclined outward in the radial direction from the illumination device side toward a lens portion side of the camera in the axial direction (Imai Fig. 4). Furthermore, changes in shape have been held to be an obvious design consideration. As such, even in view of the other modifications, the Zimmerman reference discloses a cover for the internal arrangements (e.g., the sensor). As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the tool disclosed in Zimmerman with the claimed shape as an obvious design consideration. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed device was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Austin et al. (GB 2537919 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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 RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights