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 .
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims filed on March 5, 2026.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-20, filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
112(b) Rejection: The applicants remarks are fully considered and found persuasive. The 112(b) rejection will not be maintained.
103 rejection of claim 1: The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection and found non-obvious in view of Petrazzin, Kreh, and Yamamda. Claim 1 and its dependents are considered allowable.
103 rejection of claim 5: The amendment o claim 5 in corporates limitations from claim 6, which was previously rejected. However, the applicant’s remarks are persuasive, in that the tool spindle (26), attached to the oscillating board (22), fails to exhibit linear displacement relative to the oscillating board. The tool spindle will go where the oscillating board goes. Claim 5 and its dependents are considered allowable.
103 rejection of claim 10: Claim 10 was not amended, and applicant remarks that Petrazzini as modified, particularly in view of Yamada fails to teach the control strategy of lengthwise crowning. While Yamada does not explicitly disclose this method or technique, that is not what is required of the claim, nor does it have to solve the same problem in order to be considered analogous art. Yamada and Petrazzini are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor. And while the intent for Yamada’s control algorithm may be different, the application of it would bring an improvement to Petrazzini, which provides motivation to modify. As claimed, the control device doesn’t need to perform or be concerned with lengthwise crowning, but capable of controlling the radial infeed speed and axial guide speed. The arguments are not found persuasive and rejection of claim 10 is maintained.
103 rejection of claim 11: Claim 11 was not amended, and applicant remarks that Petrazzini as modified, particularly in view of Yamada, fails to make obvious a first transformation or a second transformation. Note, as the applicant has listed the two respective transformations with an “or” between, the prior art need only disclose or make obvious at least one. With that regard, the first transformation simply requires position variables of the machines coordinate system are transformed (stored) in to a virtual (coordinate) system. Yamada recites the NC (numerically controlled) system having a detector that stores the coordinates of relative points on the machine for the purpose of executing the milling process. Simply, taking real-life points and coordinates and inputting them into the control for process execution. The arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection of claim 11 is maintained.
103 rejection of claim 12: Claim 12 was amended, including limitations from claim 13, as well as requiring that the dressing tool use the movements of the axial slide in order to generate the relative movements. The amendments are successful in overcoming the previous rejection and art of record. Claim 12 and its dependents are considered allowable.
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(s) is/are:
A second transformation device in claims 11, 36, and 40 (figure 6 and page 14)
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 limitations, within claims 11, 36, and 40 of “first/second transformation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As written, the “transformation device”s are not physical devices, rather the specification describes transformations and inverse transformations in terms of equations. However there is no specific disclosed structure that is clearly linked to performing the transformations/claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-11 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrazzini (US PG Pub No. 20130034398) in view of Kreh (US PG Pub No. 20040105731) and Yamada et al. (US PG Pub No. 20110044778).
In regards to claim 10, Petrazzini discloses
a machine tool (power honing/grinding machine 10, fig. 1-7; [0025]) for the machining of gears ([0025] With reference to FIG. 1, numeral 10 indicates a power honing/grinding machine for the finishing of cylindrical gears after their heat treatment), comprising:
a workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]) to drive a workpiece for rotation ([0028]:… The workpiece clamping unit 14 and the tool-holder unit 26 operate in rotation about the axes C and B) about a workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]: The axis of rotation C of the workpiece clamping unit 14);
a tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) to drive a tool (tool 40, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) for rotation about a tool axis (axis B, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]);
an axial slide (at least slide 22 and oscillating board 24, fig. 1-2; [0024], [0026], [0030]) configured to vary a relative axial feed position between the tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) and the workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]) with respect to the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]),
[0026]… The frame 20 carries a slide 22 equipped with a movement along a vertical direction Z. The slide 22 in turn carries an oscillating board 24 equipped with a pivoting movement V about a horizontal axis and with a rotational movement A relative to the slide 22. The oscillating board 24 carries a tool-holder unit 26.
the axial slide (at least slide 22 and oscillating board 24, fig. 1-2; [0024], [0026], [0030]) being guided along an axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) relative to the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]) by an angle of inclination,
an infeed slide (board 18, fig. 1-2; [0026]) configured to vary a radial distance ([0026] The base 12 of the machine 10 carries a board 18 equipped with a movement along a radial direction X) between the tool axis (axis B, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) and the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]) along a radial infeed direction ([0026] The base 12 of the machine 10 carries a board 18 equipped with a movement along a radial direction X),
wherein the axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) runs in a common plane (horizontal plane that directions and axis occupy) with the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]) and the radial infeed direction ([0026])
wherein the movement along the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) is carried out at an axial guide speed (as the slide moves, there is displacement over an amount of time, thus a speed) and the movement along the radial infeed direction ([0026]) is carried out at a radial infeed speed (as the slide moves, there is displacement over an amount of time, thus a speed).
Petrazzini fails to disclose “a control device configured to cause simultaneous movements” between the tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) and the workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]) along the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) and the radial infeed direction ([0026]) while a tool (tool 40, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) clamped on the tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) is in machining engagement with the workpiece clamped on the workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]).
Petrazzini also fails to disclose that the “control device is configured to control the radial infeed speed and the axial guide speed such that the radial infeed speed does not change its sign during a machining stroke, while a resulting movement between the tool spindle and the workpiece spindle along the radial infeed direction has a speed which changes its sign during the machining stroke.”
Yamada, which also discloses a gear grinding tool, teaches a control device, wherein the simultaneous movement of the work spindle and tool spindle is executed within its “five axis simultaneous control machine” parameters:
Abstract: It is an object of the present invention to provide a controller for a machine tool and a five axis simultaneous control machine tool controlled thereby which can improve the machining accuracy in machining by controlling a driving axis including a linear axis and a pivoting axis.
The controller comprises a detecting member 102 detecting a machining position where a pivoting axis is reversed in machining by the machine tool 1 based on the control data, an allowable position error setting member 103 setting an allowable position error .DELTA. between a commanded machining position P1 and an actual machining position P2… based on the allowable position error .DELTA. being set, and a controlling member 108 controlling a velocity about the driving axis based on the allowable acceleration.
[0003] The present invention relates to a controller for a machine tool and a five-axis simultaneous control machine tool controlled thereby. The controller for the machine tool controls a driving motor for a driving axis of the five-axis simultaneous control machine tool having at least a linear axis and a rotational axis.
[0014] The controller for the machine tool detects the position commanding value commanding the machining position of the reversed axis from the control data. In other example, the driving axis of the axis reversing is the pivoting axis and the position commanding value for each of driving axes included in the NC program in the workpiece coordinate coincides with the position commanding value from the construction of the machine tool. In this case, the controller may detect the machining position of the reversed axis from the NC program. Therefore, the detecting member detects the machining position of the reversed axis and detects the position commanding value commanding the machining position from the control data or the NC program. The controller may have same effects to the above-identified one by the way of controlling the velocity by the controlling member for machining by the detected position commanding value.
Further, Yamada discloses that upon the detection of an error/difference between the input coordinates and actual coordinates in order to adjust the location/position of the tool spindle through changing its acceleration and velocity (recited as a movement) along their respective rotational axes:
[0074] The controlling section 108 may be constructed to control the velocity of the driving axis by combining adequately of rewriting the velocity commanding value and switching the override. By this construction, it can rewrite the velocity commanding value to the adequate value previously, and further switch the override when the machine tool machines based on the control datum, thereby to control the velocity more correctly…
[0075] For example, while the tool 60 is pivoted along the A-axis and the workpiece W is pivoted along the B-axis in the machine tool 1 of the five-axis simultaneous control machining center, however it may be constructed that the tool 60 is pivoted along the A-axis and the B-axis as a vertical machining center. The five-axis simultaneous control machining center may have a tilting table with the rotational table to pivot the workpiece along the A-axis and the B-axis. In each of these machining centers, it calculates the allowable angular errors .theta.1, .theta.2 on a basis of the distances L1, L2 and the allowable position error .DELTA.. The present invention is applied to each of the different types of the machining center by using a different machine character according to each type of the machining center in order to decide the adequate allowable acceleration of the driving axis in each type of machining centers, thereby to control the velocity based on the decided acceleration, restraining the generation of the machining error at the position of the reversed axis.
Petrazzini and Yamada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gear grinding machines with tool spindles, work spindles, and a plurality of elements that translate in different directions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrazzini to incorporate the teachings of Yamada and provide the aforementioned controller to perform simultaneous movements of at least the tool spindle and workpiece spindle, as described by its five simultaneous axis capacity, as well as performing at least the duties of affecting and transforming command functions in the controller by adjusting the acceleration and velocity of the machine spindle ([0016]… Thereby, it can decide the more corrective allowable acceleration reflecting the machine character so that it can restrain the machining error by the axis reversing steadily in controlling the velocity for the driving axis.) in order to improve the quality of the product, as such a controller “[0008] … can improve machining accuracy in machining by controlling a driving axis including a linear axis and a pivoting axis.”
Petrazzini fails to disclose the axial slide being guided along an axial guide direction “which is inclined relative to the workpiece by an angle of inclination, the angle of inclination having an absolute value between 0.1° and 30°.”
However Kreh, which discloses a bevel gear cutting machine, teaches an axial slide with an inclined guide path (Kreh [0049]).
Petrazzini and Kreh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor (apparatuses and methods for machining bevel gears).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrazzini in light of Kreh and provided a guide that was inclined (tilted relative to a vertical axis), as it would have been obvious to try given a finite number of solutions (orthogonal or inclined).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
page 3: According to the invention, the axial slide is guided along an axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) which is inclined by an angle of inclination with respect to the workpiece axis. The angle of inclination has a value between 0.1° and 30°, preferably between 0.1° and 15°, especially preferably between 0.1° and 3°. In some embodiments, the angle of inclination has a value between 0.5° and 30°, between 0.5° and 15°, or between 0.5° and 30°.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the angle of the grinding tool would need to be adjusted in order to accommodate the desired resulting profile of the workpiece, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 11, Petrazzini discloses
a machine tool (power honing/grinding machine 10, fig. 1-7; [0025]) for the machining of gears ([0025]), comprising:
a workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]) to drive a workpiece for rotation ([0028]) about a workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]);
a tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) to drive a tool (tool 40, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) for rotation about a tool axis (axis B, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]);
an axial slide (at least slide 22 and oscillating board 24, fig. 1-2; [0024], [0026], [0030]) configured to vary a relative axial feed position between the tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) and the workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]) with respect to the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]),
[0026]… The frame 20 carries a slide 22 equipped with a movement along a vertical direction Z. The slide 22 in turn carries an oscillating board 24 equipped with a pivoting movement V about a horizontal axis and with a rotational movement A relative to the slide 22. The oscillating board 24 carries a tool-holder unit 26.
the axial slide (at least slide 22 and oscillating board 24, fig. 1-2; [0024], [0026], [0030]) being guided along an axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) relative to the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]) by an angle of inclination ([0026]),
an infeed slide (board 18, fig. 1-2; [0026]) configured to vary a radial distance ([0026]) between the tool axis (axis B, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) and the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]) along a radial infeed direction ([0026]),
wherein the axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) runs in a common plane (horizontal plane that directions and axis occupy) with the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]) and the radial infeed direction ([0026]);
wherein the movement along the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) is carried out at an axial guide speed (as the slide moves, there is displacement over an amount of time, thus a speed) and the movement along the radial infeed direction ([0026]) is carried out at a radial infeed speed (as the slide moves, there is displacement over an amount of time, thus a speed).
Petrazzini fails to disclose “a control device configured to cause simultaneous movements” between the tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) and the workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]) along the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) and the radial infeed direction ([0026]) while a tool (tool 40, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) clamped on the tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) is in machining engagement with the workpiece clamped on the workpiece spindle (workpiece clamping unit 14, fig. 1-3; [0028]-[0029]).
Petrazzini also fails to disclose that “the control device is configured to carry out at least one of the following transformations:
a first transformation by which position variables measured along the radial infeed direction and the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) are transformed into position variables along the radial infeed direction and an axial feed direction parallel to the workpiece axis; and
a second transformation by which control commands for a movement of the tool spindle relative to the workpiece spindle along an axial feed direction parallel to the workpiece axis are transformed into transformed control commands for a simultaneous movement of the tool spindle along the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) and the radial infeed direction.”
Yamada, which also discloses a gear grinding tool, teaches:
Abstract: It is an object of the present invention to provide a controller for a machine tool and a five axis simultaneous control machine tool controlled thereby which can improve the machining accuracy in machining by controlling a driving axis including a linear axis and a pivoting axis.
The controller comprises a detecting member 102 detecting a machining position where a pivoting axis is reversed in machining by the machine tool 1 based on the control data, an allowable position error setting member 103 setting an allowable position error .DELTA. between a commanded machining position P1 and an actual machining position P2… based on the allowable position error .DELTA. being set, and a controlling member 108 controlling a velocity about the driving axis based on the allowable acceleration.
[0003] The present invention relates to a controller for a machine tool and a five-axis simultaneous control machine tool controlled thereby. The controller for the machine tool controls a driving motor for a driving axis of the five-axis simultaneous control machine tool having at least a linear axis and a rotational axis.
[0014] The controller for the machine tool detects the position commanding value commanding the machining position of the reversed axis from the control data. In other example, the driving axis of the axis reversing is the pivoting axis and the position commanding value for each of driving axes included in the NC program in the workpiece coordinate coincides with the position commanding value from the construction of the machine tool. In this case, the controller may detect the machining position of the reversed axis from the NC program. Therefore, the detecting member detects the machining position of the reversed axis and detects the position commanding value commanding the machining position from the control data or the NC program. The controller may have same effects to the above-identified one by the way of controlling the velocity by the controlling member for machining by the detected position commanding value.
[0069] The controlling section 108 is constructed to control the velocity about the driving axis by amending the velocity commanding value at machining by the machine tool 1 on a basis of the control datum. Therefore, the controlling section 108 calculates the reduction rate of the velocity from the ratio of the commanded velocity and the actual velocity about the driving axis, and controls the velocity by switching the override according to the reduction rate of the velocity. Thereby, the driving axis is reduced sufficiently its velocity at the beginning of the machining by each of the position commanding values included in the target controlled the velocity so that the acceleration in controlling the velocity until the position of the reversed axis is within the allowable acceleration. Therefore, it can refer the allowable acceleration firmly and easily so that it can control the velocity about the driving axis with restraining the machining error by the axis reversing steadily.
Petrazzini and Yamada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gear grinding machines with tool spindles, work spindles, and a plurality of elements that translate in different directions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrazzini to incorporate the teachings of Yamada and provide the aforementioned controller to perform simultaneous movements of at least the tool spindle and workpiece spindle, as described by its five simultaneous axis capacity, as well as performing at least the functions found in the second transformation, affecting and transforming command functions in the controller by adjusting the acceleration and velocity of the machine spindle ([0016]… Thereby, it can decide the more corrective allowable acceleration reflecting the machine character so that it can restrain the machining error by the axis reversing steadily in controlling the velocity for the driving axis.) in order to improve the quality of the product, as such a controller “[0008] … can improve machining accuracy in machining by controlling a driving axis including a linear axis and a pivoting axis.”
Petrazzini fails to disclose the axial slide being guided along an axial guide direction “which is inclined relative to the workpiece by an angle of inclination, the angle of inclination having an absolute value between 0.1° and 30°.”
However Kreh, which discloses a bevel gear cutting machine, teaches an axial slide with an inclined guide path (Kreh [0049]).
Petrazzini and Kreh are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor (apparatuses and methods for machining bevel gears).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrazzini in light of Kreh and provided a guide that was inclined (tilted relative to a vertical axis), as it would have been obvious to try given a finite number of solutions (orthogonal or inclined).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
page 3: According to the invention, the axial slide is guided along an axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) which is inclined by an angle of inclination with respect to the workpiece axis. The angle of inclination has a value between 0.1° and 30°, preferably between 0.1° and 15°, especially preferably between 0.1° and 3°. In some embodiments, the angle of inclination has a value between 0.5° and 30°, between 0.5° and 15°, or between 0.5° and 30°.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the angle of the grinding tool would need to be adjusted in order to accommodate the desired resulting profile of the workpiece, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 37, Petrazzini as modified
the machine tool according to claim 10, wherein tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) is pivotable about a swivel axis ([0026]: rotational movement A relative to the slide 22; see fig. 1) relative to the axial slide (at least slide 22 and oscillating board 24, fig. 1-2; [0024], [0026], [0030]),
and wherein the swivel axis ([0026]: rotational movement A relative to the slide 22; see fig. 1) extends in a common plane with the workpiece axis (axis of rotation C, fig. 1-2; [0028]) and the radial infeed direction (see fig. 1- ann. 2).
Petrazzini fails to explicitly disclose “an angle to the radial infeed direction that has an absolute value between 0° and 30°.”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
page 4: In advantageous embodiments, the tool spindle is configured to be swiveled around a swivel axis relative to the axial slide. For this purpose, the machine tool can comprise a swivel body. In particular, the swivel body can be arranged on the axial slide. If the tool is a grinding tool, the swivel body is also called a grinding head. The swivel axis preferably runs parallel to the radial infeed direction or perpendicular to the workpiece axis. However, it can also run at an angle to the radial infeed direction that deviates from 0 °, wherein this angle preferably has an absolute value between 0 ° and 30 °. The swivel axis can also run at an angle to the workpiece axis that deviates from 90 °, wherein this angle is preferably in the range of 60 ° to 120 °. In particular, the swivel axis can run perpendicular to the axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the angle of the grinding tool would need to be adjusted in order to accommodate the desired resulting profile of the workpiece, addressing design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 38, Petrazzini as modified teaches
the machine tool according to claim 37, wherein the swivel axis is parallel to the radial infeed direction (see Fig. 1 – ann. 2).
In regards to claim 39, Petrazzini as modified teaches
the machine tool according to claim 37, wherein the tool spindle (tool-holder unit 26, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]) is displaceable relative to the axial slide (at least slide 22 and oscillating board 24, fig. 1-2; [0024], [0026], [0030]) along a shift direction ([0026]:… The frame 20 carries a slide 22 equipped with a movement along a vertical direction Z) running parallel to the tool axis (axis B, fig. 1-4; [0026], [0028], [0030]; when tool is vertically oriented), the shift direction running perpendicular to the swivel axis (see fig. 1 – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
699
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 40, Petrazzini as modified teaches
the machine tool according to claim 10, wherein the control device (the control device as taught by Yamada) is configured to carry out at least one of the following transformations:
a first transformation by which position variables measured along the radial infeed direction and the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) are transformed into transformed position variables along the radial infeed direction and an axial feed direction parallel to the workpiece axis; and
a second transformation by which control commands for a movement of the tool spindle relative to the workpiece spindle along an axial feed direction parallel to the workpiece axis are transofmred into transformed control commands for a simultaneous movement of the tool spindle along the inclined axial guide direction (movement along vertical direction Z; [0026]) and the radial infeed direction.
The controller comprises a detecting member 102 detecting a machining position where a pivoting axis is reversed in machining by the machine tool 1 based on the control data, an allowable position error setting member 103 setting an allowable position error .DELTA. between a commanded machining position P1 and an actual machining position P2… based on the allowable position error .DELTA. being set, and a controlling member 108 controlling a velocity about the driving axis based on the allowable acceleration.
[0003] The present invention relates to a controller for a machine tool and a five-axis simultaneous control machine tool controlled thereby. The controller for the machine tool controls a driving motor for a driving axis of the five-axis simultaneous control machine tool having at least a linear axis and a rotational axis.
[0014] The controller for the machine tool detects the position commanding value commanding the machining position of the reversed axis from the control data. In other example, the driving axis of the axis reversing is the pivoting axis and the position commanding value for each of driving axes included in the NC program in the workpiece coordinate coincides with the position commanding value from the construction of the machine tool. In this case, the controller may detect the machining position of the reversed axis from the NC program. Therefore, the detecting member detects the machining position of the reversed axis and detects the position commanding value commanding the machining position from the control data or the NC program. The controller may have same effects to the above-identified one by the way of controlling the velocity by the controlling member for machining by the detected position commanding value.
[0069] The controlling section 108 is constructed to control the velocity about the driving axis by amending the velocity commanding value at machining by the machine tool 1 on a basis of the control datum. Therefore, the controlling section 108 calculates the reduction rate of the velocity from the ratio of the commanded velocity and the actual velocity about the driving axis, and controls the velocity by switching the override according to the reduction rate of the velocity. Thereby, the driving axis is reduced sufficiently its velocity at the beginning of the machining by each of the position commanding values included in the target controlled the velocity so that the acceleration in controlling the velocity until the position of the reversed axis is within the allowable acceleration. Therefore, it can refer the allowable acceleration firmly and easily so that it can control the velocity about the driving axis with restraining the machining error by the axis reversing steadily.
[0074] The controlling section 108 may be constructed to control the velocity of the driving axis by combining adequately of rewriting the velocity commanding value and switching the override. By this construction, it can rewrite the velocity commanding value to the adequate value previously, and further switch the override when the machine tool machines based on the control datum, thereby to control the velocity more correctly…
[0075] For example, while the tool 60 is pivoted along the A-axis and the workpiece W is pivoted along the B-axis in the machine tool 1 of the five-axis simultaneous control machining center, however it may be constructed that the tool 60 is pivoted along the A-axis and the B-axis as a vertical machining center. The five-axis simultaneous control machining center may have a tilting table with the rotational table to pivot the workpiece along the A-axis and the B-axis. In each of these machining centers, it calculates the allowable angular errors .theta.1, .theta.2 on a basis of the distances L1, L2 and the allowable position error .DELTA.. The present invention is applied to each of the different types of the machining center by using a different machine character according to each type of the machining center in order to decide the adequate allowable acceleration of the driving axis in each type of machining centers, thereby to control the velocity based on the decided acceleration, restraining the generation of the machining error at the position of the reversed axis.
Yamada provides the aforementioned controller to perform simultaneous movements of at least the tool spindle and workpiece spindle, as described by its five simultaneous axis capacity, as well as performing at least actions found in the second transformation, affecting and transforming command functions in the controller by adjusting the acceleration and velocity of the machine spindle ([0016]… Thereby, it can decide the more corrective allowable acceleration reflecting the machine character so that it can restrain the machining error by the axis reversing steadily in controlling the velocity for the driving axis.)
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, Petrazzini (US PG Pub No. 20130034398) in view of Kreh (US PG Pub No. 20040105731) and Yamada et al. (US PG Pub No. 20110044778) fail to disclose or make obvious all the limitations of the claims. So while teaching a machine tool for the machining of gears, including a workpiece spindle, tool spindle, axial slide, and control device, the control device fails to disclose parameters for a non-zero threshold value.
In regards to claim 5, Petrazzini (US PG Pub No. 20130034398) in view of Kreh (US PG Pub No. 20040105731) fail to disclose or make obvious all the limitations of the claims. So while teaching a machine tool for the machining of gears, including a workpiece spindle, tool spindle, and axial slide, they fail to make obvious a linear relative motion between the tool spindle and axial slide, as the spindle of Petrazzini is mounted on the slide.
In regards to claim 12, over Petrazzini (US PG Pub No. 20130034398) in view of Kreh (US PG Pub No. 20040105731), Yanase et al. (US PG Pub No. 20070202774) and Fitzgerald et al. (US PG Pub No. 20090060672) fail to disclose or make obvious all the limitations of the claims. So while teaching a machine tool for the machining of gears, including a workpiece spindle, tool spindle, dressing tool and axial slide, they fail to make obvious that relative motion between the dressing tool and tool spindle is accomplished by moving the dressing tool on the tool spindle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights