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.
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, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigure (JP 2019082836 A, machine translation provided).
As to claim 1, Ishigure teaches a machine tool (machine tool 1, see [0014]) comprising: a machining device configured to machine a workpiece (workpiece W) with a tool ([0014]: “The machine tool 1 performs, for example, cutting, grinding, forging, electric discharge machining, etc., using a tool.” See also Fig 1); one or more tag readers configured to read tags that are attached to removable items including the tool and that record unique ID information (as described at [0031], particular tools are identified by “tool identification information.” At [0086], Ishigure teaches that RFID (RF tags) may be attached to each tool and/or workpiece. Although Ishigure doesn’t specifically teach tag readers, Examiner takes official notice that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed for RFID tags to usefully identify individual parts by use of at least one corresponding tag reader. Thus, in order to achieve Ishigure’s purpose of recording tool information, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for one or more tag readers as claimed.); and a control device (Tool life prediction device 50, see [0027] and Fig 3) comprising a setup display unit (display device 27) configured to display work information on setup work to be performed by a worker according to the ID information read by a tag reader of the one or more tag readers (see [0066]: “The first prediction unit 39 can also execute processing for displaying the current level of each tool 15 of the tool number T1-T50 on the operation panel, the portable terminal, or the like. Furthermore, the first prediction unit 39 can also execute processing for displaying the behavior of the levels up to the present as shown in FIG. 12 in addition to the current level. Therefore, the operator can grasp which tool 15 has reached the life, whether or not there is a tool 15 which is likely to reach the life, and the behavior until the life is reached. Therefore, the worker can prepare in advance the tool 15 to be replaced.”).
As to claim 3, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the setup display unit obtains the work information from an external server (see [0025] which discusses obtaining data useful for the prediction device to be accessed by a server over a LAN).
As to claim 4, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the work information displayed by the setup display unit comprises information of the items to be used (as discussed at [0066], the information displayed relates to a particular tool), and wherein the control device further comprises a mode change unit configured to change a display mode of the work information when a tag reader of the one or more tag readers read the ID information of the items related to the work information (As discussed in Ishigure [0066], information relating to tools 1-50 is displayed on the operational panel or a portable terminal. As discussed in [0065], the prediction unit 39 uses several kinds of information to determine the end of life of a tool, including usage frequency and usage time, or number of processes. The different modes are shown for example in Fig 13.).
As to claim 5, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 4, wherein the control device further comprises a work log recording unit (detector 23) configured to record a time from display of the work information by the setup display unit to reading of the ID information of the items (as described at [0035], the time a particular tool has been in use is detected by detector 23).
As to claim 7, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising a tool changer (automatic tool changer 18, see [0019]) comprising a plurality of tool holders (tool magazine 17, see [0016] and Fig 1) each configured to hold the tool ([0016]: “a plurality of tools are stored in a tool magazine”), wherein a tag reader of the one or more tag readers is disposed so as to read a tag of the tool held in a tool holder positioned at a predetermined checking position (as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, a tag reader is obviated to be able to determine the tool identification information of a tool. Ishigure doesn’t specify a particular placement of a tag reader. However, Ishigure [0031] teaches that each tool has a specified tool number and that the tool numbers are tracked by the CNC and PLC devices. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have disposed a tag reader so as to read a tag of the tool held in a tool holder positioned at a predetermined checking position. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that the tool number (ID) in the CNC and PLC databases matches the real-life position of that tool within the magazine.).
As to claim 8, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising a tool changer comprising a plurality of tool holders each configured to hold the tool (the magazine 17 is illustrated as having a plurality of tool holders. See Fig 1.). Ishigure does not teach wherein the tag readers are respectively provided in the plurality of tool holders.
However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, a tag reader is obviated to be able to determine the tool identification information of a tool. Ishigure doesn’t specify a particular placement of a tag reader. However, Ishigure [0031] teaches that each tool has a specified tool number and that the tool numbers are tracked by the CNC and PLC devices. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided a tag reader in respective plurality of tool holders as claimed. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that the tool number (ID) in the CNC and PLC databases matches the real-life position of that tool within the magazine.
As to claim 9, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the control device further comprises a usage time recording unit configured to record a usage time of the tool for each piece of the ID information (the usage time of each tool is determined calculated. See [0033] which discusses usage time, and [0029] which discusses that data detected by detectors is stored in a database ready to be calculated by the PLC.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigure as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (CN 113487156 A).
As to claim 2, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, but does not teach, when the ID information identifies the worker, the setup display unit obtains the work information associated with the worker.
Rather, Ishigure is directed to tracking tools and tool usage details in order to serve useful information to a worker, and does not teach that the workers themselves should be identified, or that a given setup display should be associated with a specific worker. However, it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to track not just workpieces in a tool changer, but to also track the workers working on the workpieces. See Lu which teaches a worker behavior monitoring and identifying method and device. As described at step 01, the worker is identified by RFID card or fingerprint or face recognition. Lu further teaches the device gathers information specific to a particular worker. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for the worker information gathering of Lu in the device of Ishigure. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to more accurately track the performance of the tools and the workers in the machining factory.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigure as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyajima (JP H06738 A).
As to claim 6, Ishigure teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, but does not teach a tag reader of the one or more tag readers is provided in a manual pulse generator.
However, manual pulse readers were well known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to be part of tool changers. See Miyajima which teaches a tool changer 3 having a manual pulse generator 23. Miyajima teaches the manual pulse generator is useful for precisely positioning a tool. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a manual pulse generator in the machine tool of Ishigure. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to manually precisely position the machine tool before or after a CNC operation.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for one or more tag readers in a manual pulse generator. Such a person would have further understood that the tag reader can be placed at any reasonable part of the machine tool, including the obviated manual pulse generator, in order to read tags associated therewith.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12 June 2026
Prosecution Insights