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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 10/29/2025. Claims 1-7 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 1 is independent claim. Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-7 are pending,
Claim 1 is amended,
Claim 1 is independent claim,
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argued on pages 4-6 that the Watanabe relates to the “optimization of process period” and does not consider multiple variable conditions of the tool and workpiece such as material and shape, and Watanabe provides no motivation for resolving the problems addressed by the present invention, and Watanabe, Watanabe1 and Woody do not teach the amended features cited in claim 1, such as, “wherein when present machining conditions are not stored by the storage unit, the oscillation condition determination unit selects oscillation conditions obtained by performing interpolation on a plurality of machine conditions stored by the storage unit.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Watanabe in [0002] that a vibration cutting information storing unit that stores a table prepared in advance at least about the advancing amount, retreating amount, advancing speed (specification of the workpiece), and retreating speed of the cutting (machining method) tool feeding mechanism (specification of the tool), in accordance with a mechanical characteristic (specification of the workpiece), such as a feeding axis inertia or a motor characteristic (specification of the tool), that is, Watanabe’s system stores characteristic data of the tool and workpiece, and Watanabe discloses “an object of the present invention is to provide a numerical control device that can automatically select vibration conditions optimum to low frequency vibration cutting” (Watanabe: [0007]), therefore, Watanabe provides motivation to consider multiple variable conditions of the tool and workpiece, such as oscillation conditions including oscillation amplitude and an oscillation frequency. Further, Watanabe discloses an interpolation processing unit (Watanabe: [0032]), and the interpolation processing unit performs interpolation in the X-axis direction and the Z-axis direction (Watanabe: [0057]), and includes a vibration cutting axis detecting unit for detecting drive aces used as feeding axes for vibration cutting (Watanabe: [0064]), Woody is cited to clearly disclose using linear interpolations between the points to create an oscillation (Woody: [0052]).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo Watanabe et al (US Publication 20170322538 A1, hereinafter Watanabe), in view of Mitsuo Watanabe et al (US Publication 20180281090 A1, hereinafter Watanabe1), and Bethany Woody et al (US Publication 20090107308 A1, hereinafter Woody).
As for independent claim 1, Watanabe discloses: A control device for a machine tool for performing machining by relatively oscillating a workpiece and a tool (Watanabe: Abstract: A numerical control device is for machining a machining object by moving a tool and the machining object relative to each other along a movement path while applying vibration, by use of a drive axis provided for the tool or the machining object), the control device comprising: a storage unit that stores a correspondence relationship between machining conditions including at least one specification of the workpiece, at least one specification of the tool, and at least one machining method, or machining shape, and oscillation conditions (Watanabe: [0002], a vibration cutting information storing unit that stores a table prepared in advance at least about the advancing amount, retreating amount, advancing speed (specification of the workpiece), and retreating speed of the cutting (machining method) tool feeding mechanism (specification of the tool), in accordance with a mechanical characteristic (specification of the workpiece), such as a feeding axis inertia or a motor characteristic (specification of the tool); see Watanabe1 for more details) …; an oscillation condition determination unit that selects oscillation conditions to be used for the machining based on the correspondence relationship stored by the storage unit (Watanabe: [0007]: provide a numerical control device that can automatically select vibration conditions optimum to low frequency vibration cutting; [0009], automatically selecting vibration conditions optimum to low frequency vibration cutting); and an oscillation command generation unit that generates an oscillation command based on the oscillation conditions selected by the oscillation condition determination unit (Watanabe: [0035], The analysis processing unit 45 includes: a movement command generating unit 451 for generating a movement command of instructing a movement on a movement path at each block, by reading the machining program 432 including one or more blocks and analyzing the read machining program for each block; and a vibration command analyzing unit 452 for analyzing the machining program 432 as to whether a vibration command for vibration cutting machining is included therein, and generating vibration conditions to be contained in the vibration command if the vibration command is included).
Watanabe discloses a numerical control device for machining a machining object including storing unit that stores a table storing data such as specification of the workpiece, specification of the tool, machine method, etc. but Watanabe does not clearly disclose the table storing data including machining shape, in an analogous art of numerical control device, Watanabe1 discloses: a storage unit that stores a correspondence relationship between machining conditions including at least one specification of the workpiece, at least one specification of the tool, and at least one machining method, or machining shape, and oscillation conditions (Watanabe1: [0002], a vibration cutting information storage unit that stores, in advance in the form of a table, at least the advancement amount, retreat amount, advancement speed, and retreat speed of the cutting tool feed mechanism that correspond to the inertia of the feed shaft or machine characteristics such as motor characteristics according to the rotation speed of the workpiece or the feed amount of the cutting tool per rotation of the cutting tool that is set by the operation unit, as data with which the cutting tool can operate at a low frequency of 25 Hz or higher with which the cutting tool is synchronously fed; Fig. 32, Fig. 53, [0134], As designated in an X address of a G165 command in an “N03” block, a workpiece diameter is 10 mm (workpiece and machining shape and specification data). A tool cutting edge angle is 60° (specification of the tool). The height of a thread ridge, i.e., the depth of cutting, is 1.75 mm; please note the specification of the workpiece, the specification of the tool, machining method, etc. may be stored in the table);
Watanabe and Watanabe1 are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, control device for cutting tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Watanabe using the teachings of Watanabe1 to include storing data of workpiece specification, tool specification, machining specification, etc.. It would provide Watanabe’s device with enhanced capabilities of precisely control oscillation cutting.
Further, Watanabe discloses a numerical control device for machining a machining object including storing unit that stores a table storing data such as mechanical characteristic, but Watanabe does not clearly disclose oscillation conditions including oscillation amplitude and an oscillation frequency, in an analogous art of control device for oscillation, Woody discloses: oscillation conditions including at least an oscillation amplitude and an oscillation frequency (Woody: [0008], [0029], [0033], [0035], [0040], [0042], [0052], For chip breaking to occur using equations 1-5, it is important to properly select two parameters: the oscillation frequency, which dictates the length of the chip, and the ratio of the oscillation amplitude to the feed rate, R.sub.Af=A/f.sub.r, which determines if and when the chip will break; In a more refined methodology, when creating chip breaking toolpaths, there are several parameters that must be set, including: 1) the amplitude ratio, R.sub.Af, defined as the ratio between the oscillation amplitude, A, and the feed, f.sub.r, giving R.sub.Af=A/f.sub.r; 2) the oscillation frequency, .omega.; 3) the phase shift, .epsilon., between the part surface being cut and the previous part surface; and 4) the chip length, an operator input parameter that affects the choice of the previous three parameters. For a given oscillation frequency, .omega., the combination of the amplitude ratio, R.sub.Af, and the phase shift, .epsilon., determines the chip length. FIG. 9 illustrates that the phase shift, .epsilon., is critical);
Furthermore, Watanabe discloses an interpolation processing unit (Watanabe: [0032]), and the interpolation processing unit performs interpolation in the X-axis direction and the Z-axis direction (Watanabe: [0057]), and includes a vibration cutting axis detecting unit for detecting drive aces used as feeding axes for vibration cutting (Watanabe: [0064]), in addition, Woody discloses: wherein when present machining conditions are not stored by the storage unit, the oscillation condition determination unit selects oscillation conditions obtained by performing interpolation on a plurality of machine conditions stored by the storage unit (Woody: [0052], An example of how this would work is illustrated in FIG. 15. In this figure, the red pluses are the points that are generated by the CAM software, whereas the green x's are simply linear interpolations between the points. Using a linear distance calculation, the program is then able to create an oscillation by simply moving forward a certain number of points then back a specific number (less than the number of points moved forward), both of which can be defined by the oscillation amplitude and feed);
Watanabe and Woody are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, control device for cutting tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Watanabe using the teachings of Woody to include considering oscillation amplitude and frequency, and using linear interpolation on a plurality of machining condition. It would provide Watanabe’s device with enhanced capabilities of precisely control oscillation cutting.
As for claim 2, Watanabe-Watanabe1-Woody discloses: wherein the oscillation condition determination unit selects an oscillation condition corresponding to a machining condition automatically determined from a machining program based on the correspondence relationship stored by the storage unit (Watanabe: [0007]: provide a numerical control device that can automatically select vibration conditions optimum to low frequency vibration cutting; [0009], automatically selecting vibration conditions optimum to low frequency vibration cutting).
As for claim 3, Watanabe-Watanabe1-Woody discloses: wherein the oscillation condition determination unit selects a plurality of candidates for the oscillation condition to be used for the machining, and allows a user to select the oscillation condition to be used for the machining from the plurality of candidates (Watanabe: [0031], The input operation unit 20 is formed of an input unit, such as a keyboard, buttons, or a mouse, and is used by a user to input a command for the numerical control device 1 or to input a machining program or parameter; please note the user may select a machining program).
As for claim 4, Watanabe-Watanabe1-Woody discloses: wherein when a present machining condition is not stored by the storage unit, the oscillation condition determination unit selects an oscillation condition corresponding to a machining condition closer to the present machining condition from the machining conditions stored by the storage unit (Watanabe: [0046], the vibration condition determining unit 484 has to select a value of the main shaft rotational speed (r/min) in FIG. 5, which is closest to the given value of the main shaft rotational speed (r/min); [0047], the vibration condition determining unit 484 automatically selects a frequency of 76.9 (Hz) in the conditions of No. 12, which include the main shaft rotational speed=3,076 (r/min) that is closest to the main shaft rotational speed=3,000 (r/min), to perform vibration cutting).
As for claim 5, Watanabe-Watanabe1-Woody discloses: wherein when a present machining condition is not stored by the storage unit, the oscillation condition determination unit selects an oscillation condition obtained by performing interpolation based on a plurality of the machining conditions stored by the storage unit (Watanabe: [0032], [0037], [0041], an interpolation processing unit).
As for claim 6, Watanabe-Watanabe1-Woody discloses: comprising a display unit that displays an input of a machining condition and an output of a selection result made by the oscillation condition determination unit (Watanabe: [0028], a display unit; [0031], The input operation unit 20 is formed of an input unit, such as a keyboard, buttons, or a mouse, and is used by a user to input a command for the numerical control device 1 or to input a machining program or parameter; The display unit 30 is formed of a display unit, such as a liquid crystal display device, and is used to display information processed by the control arithmetic unit).
As for claim 7, Watanabe does not expressly disclose using linear interpolation, Woody discloses: optimal oscillation conditions are determined by linear interpolation using the correspondence relationship (Woody: [0052], An example of how this would work is illustrated in FIG. 15. In this figure, the red pluses are the points that are generated by the CAM software, whereas the green x's are simply linear interpolations between the points. Using a linear distance calculation, the program is then able to create an oscillation by simply moving forward a certain number of points then back a specific number (less than the number of points moved forward), both of which can be defined by the oscillation amplitude and feed);
Watanabe and Woody are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, control device for cutting tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Watanabe using the teachings of Woody to include using linear interpolations. It would provide Watanabe’s device with enhanced capabilities of precisely control oscillation cutting.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118