DETAILED ACTION
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 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “target 200” in line 9. It appears that this limitation should be changed to “target.”
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the sharply focussed zone" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demesy et al. US 5,084,827 (“Demesy”).
Demesy discloses:
1. Method for detecting the position of a tool mounted on a toolholder in a machining module including a part support (e.g., Figs. 1-6 #1,2) and a toolholder (e.g., Figs. 1-6 #3,4), including the following steps:
i) providing a detection unit in the machining module, said detection unit including an optical system for determining the profile of said end portion of the tool mounted on the toolholder, wherein said optical system is mounted on the part support (e.g., Figs. 1-6, col. 2 lines 52-63, col. 3 lines 32-51),
ii) loading the tool (e.g., Figs. 1-6 #28) into the toolholder (e.g., Figs. 1-6 #3,4),
iii) positioning the toolholder relative to the part support in a measuring operational position (e.g., Figs. 1-3 #4,5,7, col. 2 lines 31-45),
iv) activating said detection unit, and
v) via the optical system, determining the position of the tool in the machining module (e.g., Figs. 1-6, col. 2 lines 52-63, col. 3 lines 32-51).
4. Method according to claim 1,
wherein said optical system comprises a first image capture system including a first image acquisition system enabling an image to be captured of the end portion of the tool in the measuring operational position (e.g., col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 15, col. 3 line 18 – col. 4 line 9),
wherein in step iv) of activation of said detection unit, said first image acquisition system generates one or more images of the end portion of the tool (e.g., col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 15, col. 3 line 18 – col. 4 line 9), and
wherein in step v) by analyzing this image and in particular the position of the sharply focused zone of this image enabling determination of the distance of the tool relative to the optical system, and therefore the position in Z of the tool (e.g., col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 15, col. 3 line 18 – col. 4 line 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the target includes on said active face: a first structure defining a plane reference face, and a second structure having a face inclined relative to said plane reference face, wherein said optical system comprises a first image capture system and a second image capture system, and wherein the difference between the focal distance of the second image capture system and the focal distance of the first image capture system is between the minimum distance and the maximum distance inclusive separating the reference face from the inclined face,” as recited in claim 2, in combination with the remaining features and elements of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and is thus allowable by virtue of this dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ekback et al. US 2018/0147684 discloses a method of determining pull-out of a cutting tool mounted in a rotatable tool holder includes the steps of rotating the tool holder and thus the cutting tool, machining a work piece with the rotating cutting tool, measuring an axial position of the cutting tool in the tool holder during machining by a position sensor in the tool holder, calculating an axial displacement from an initial position of the cutting tool by the measured axial position, and determining pull-out of the cutting tool when the axial displacement exceeds a threshold value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-3742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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 A JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
09/26/26
