DETAILED ACTION
Final 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 .
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-15 are pending.
Claims 5-9 and 12 are rejected below.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11 and 14-15 are allowed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuo (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0108481).
As to claim 5, Matsuo teaches a tool arm comprises: an upper arm configured to be connected to the drive unit(element 4); a lower arm (element 5)[0026] mechanically connected to the upper arm (fig. 1) and configured to be connected with the tool holder; and a force transducer disposed between in contact with both the upper arm and the lower arm in a main path of the transmission of a tool force (element 9) from the workpiece through the tool during chip-removing machining of the workpiece[0047].
As to claim 5, Matsuo teaches a process for operating a cutting machine f including the following steps: using the tool holder to hold the required tool[0026]; using the drive unit to move the tool arm so that the required tool held in the tool holder is aligned with the workpiece[0029];using the required tool in performing chip-removing machining of the workpiece[0045]; and using the force transducer to measure a tool force exerted by the required tool during chip-removing machining of the workpiece[0045], wherein the measurement eliminates an inaccuracy attributable to a dampinq effect of a structure interposed between the force transducer and one or both of the upper arm and the lower arm (this is intended use and does not actually occur and therefore isn’t given weight).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0108481) in view of Hwa (U.S. KR20030061076A).
Matsuo teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not teach all of the claimed invention, however, some of this is taught by Hwa as follows:
As to claims 7 and 8, Hwa teaches the force sensor portion 14 detects the voltage of each of the main component force, for component force and feed component force generated at the front end of the diamond tool 10 during the machining of the workpiece. Here, the main component force represents the force generated in the Y-axis direction of the workpiece (which is equivalent to the transverse shear component (Kwx) of the present application), for component force represents the force generated in the Z-axis direction which is equivalent to the vertical shear component (Kwz) of the present application), a transfer component force represents the force generated in the X-axis direction (which is equivalent to the horizontal force component Kwy) of the present application). The detected analog voltage signal is applied to the charge amplifier via cables connected to the first cable jack 52a, the second cable jack S2b and the third cable jack 52c respectively[32-33].
As to claim 9, Hwa teaches wherein the cutting machine includes a converter unit and wherein for each chip-removing machining step performed with a required tool said converter unit converts analog measurement signals into digital measurement signals[0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Hwa into the system and methods of Matsuo. The motivation to combine is that Hwa teaches that dynamic errors can be compensated for using the force sensor readings[46].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0108481) in view of Hwa (U.S. KR20030061076A) in view Sonderegger (U.S. PG Pub. 2019/0242768).
Matsuo in view of Hwa teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not teach all of the claimed invention, however, some of this is taught by Sonderegger as follows:
As to claim 12, Sonderegger teaches wherein the force transducer includes a first piezoelectric element that is oriented to generate electrical polarization charges with maximum sensitivity to the transverse shear component; wherein the force transducer includes a second piezoelectric element that is oriented to generate electrical polarization charges with maximum sensitivity to the vertical shear component; and wherein the force transducer includes a third piezoelectric element that is oriented to generate electrical polarization charges with maximum sensitivity to the horizontal force component[0049 and claim 8].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Sonderegger into the system and methods of Matsuo in view of Hwa. The motivation to combine is that Sonderegger teaches using piezoelectric transducing elements for the force sensor high sensitivity can be detected [0036].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 14 and 15 are allowed
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-19-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments seem to state that the transducer is not in contact with both the upper and lower arm. Examiner disagrees as seen above the force transducer (element 9) is in contact with element 4 and 5. See fig. 1 and paragraphs 0045, 0047 Examiner would also like to not that the claims don’t state they transducer is in direct contact with the arms. Also, there is a large portion of the claim that is in the preamble and cannot be given weight.
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 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 NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119