DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-8 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
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 Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter." Here Applicant argues “an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology,” which may have integrated the exception into a practical application where independent claims 1 and 8 are directed to an improvement in the technology of a numerical control (NC) cutting machine such as a machining center that machines an object to be machined (hereinafter, referred to as a workpiece) into a predetermined shape based on a program for numerical control (NC) (see spec. para. [0007] and [0070]). Additionally, Applicant notes that “the conversion program 141 determines whether a tool number is included in one block of the conversion source NC program 146 read in step S3 (step S4). In order to determine whether the tool number is included, for example, an M code "TxxM06 (xx is a tool number}" instructing tool change may be detected from a character string of the conversion source NC program 146. As long as it is possible to determine whether the tool number is included, a determination method thereof is optional, and is not limited to the example described above.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II), improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology.” Here, Applicant’s improvement occurs when the conversion program 141 does a determination step of assessing whether a tool number is included in one block of the conversion source NC program 146 read in step S3 (step S4), which is an abstract idea. The conversion program carries out determining steps requiring an assessment, which is an improvement of an abstract idea. The conversion program executing two-direction correction to rewrite a tool route in the conversion source NC program 146 using the tool deflection in the X direction and the Y direction during the machining calculated in steps S8 (stepS9) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer processor in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer processor as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery (computer processor) in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s argument: Application also argues that even if Applicant’s independent claims 1 and 8 do include the alleged abstract idea, Applicants claims considered as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and that the claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant further emphasizes the new claim limitations as representing significantly more: “a decision step of deciding a correction method of a path of a tool mounted on the second machininq center used for processinq the workpiece to be a one-direction correction in which the correction is made in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the workpiece or a two-direction correction in which the correction is made in the direction perpendicular to the travelinq direction of the workpiece, according to the determined machining form of the workpiece”
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II), improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology.” The claim limitations emphasized by Applicant and described by Applicant as “significant” and including “a specific technique for improving the technology” are an abstract idea and therefore can not be considered as significantly more or an improvement. See also, the 101 rejections below for further details.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejections are based on newly amended subject matter. Here, Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite a “determination step of determining a machining form of a workpiece by the conversion source numerical control (NC) program, and a decision step of deciding a correction method of a path of tool…” and that the prior art cited references HITACHI and KAKINO are no longer relevant and such disclosure does not disclose or suggest the newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments are moot, in view of the new prior art rejections necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claims 8 is directed to a computing device, which is a system and is a statutory category invention. Claim 9 is directed to a conversion program, which is a system and is a statutory category invention. Therefore, claims 1-9 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 8, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a conversion computer” and “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 similarly recite converting a conversion source NC program that controls a first machining center into a conversion destination NC program that controls a second machining center, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing a first machining center into a conversion destination, as described in [0009] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claims 1 and 8 similarly recite a determination step of determining a machining form of a workpiece by the conversion source NC program, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing a workpiece machining form, as described in [0009] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claims 1 and 8 similarly recite a decision step of deciding a correction method of a path of a tool mounted on the second machining center used for processing the workpiece to be a one-direction correction in which the correction is made in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the workpiece or a two-direction correction in which the correction is made in the direction perpendicular to the traveling direction of the workpiece according to the determined machining form of the workpiece, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing a correction method based on either one or two correction directions, as described in [0009] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claims 1 and 8 similarly recite a conversion step of converting the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program using the decided correction method, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing the conversion source of the NC program and assessing the associated conversion destination, as described in [0009] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites the additional limitation “conversion computer”, as in independent claim 8, and “processor” as in independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional claim 9 limitation of wherein a processor is caused to execute the NC program conversion processing method according to claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 8 recites the additional limitation “conversion computer”, as in independent claim 8, and “processor” as in independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional claim 9 limitation of wherein a processor is caused to execute the NC program conversion processing method according to claim 1, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the determination step determines the machining form based on a type of a tool that is mounted on the first machining center when used for machining the workpiece and is also commonly mounted on the second machining used for machining the workpiece,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the determination step determines, in a case in which the tool used for machining the workpiece is a ball end mill, the machining form to be curved surface machining, and determines, in a case in which the tool is a square end mill, the machining form to be side surface machining or groove machining,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the decision step decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be curved surface machining, the correction method to be the two-direction correction, and decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be side surface machining or groove machining, the correction method to be the one direction correction,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the conversion step converts, in a case in which the correction method is the one-direction correction, the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by tool diameter correction, and converts, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction, the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by adding a correction amount to a command coordinate point in the conversion source NC program,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the conversion step converts, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction, the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by adding the correction amount to be added to the command coordinate point in the conversion source NC program,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the conversion step provides, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction, and an interval between command coordinate points in the conversion source NC program is wider than a predetermined threshold value and a difference between correction amounts of the command coordinate points is larger than a predetermined threshold value, an interpolation point between command coordinate points after correction” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HITACHI (JP 6629470 B1), herein HITACHI, in view of ASADA (JP H1142534 A), herein ASADA and in view of CHEN (Computer Aided Accuracy Enhancement for Multi Access CNC Machine Tool), herein CHEN.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected because HITACHI teaches NC program conversion processing method HITACHI ([Abstract] “An NC program conversion processing method for converting a conversion source NC program to generate a conversion destination NC program based on a plurality of blocks in the conversion source NC program.”)
HITACHI also teaches converting a conversion source NC program that controls a first machining center into a conversion destination NC program that controls a second machining center HITACHI ([Description | pdf page 3 of 15] “The NC cutting machine 20 is, for example, a machining center, and includes a main body 22 that executes a processing, an NC controller 21 that controls the processing of the main body 22, and one or more tool sets used in the main body 22. A tool magazine 25 is provided as an example of a storage unit that can store the tool TL.”)
HITACHI also teaches NC program conversion processing method HITACHI ([Abstract] “An NC program conversion processing method for converting a conversion source NC program to generate a conversion destination NC program based on a plurality of blocks in the conversion source NC program.”)
HITACHI also teaches a determination step of determining a machining form of a workpiece by the conversion source NC program HITACHI ([Description | pdf page 2 of 15] “When the correction block is executed by the processing machine, the correction block changes a parameter value on the memory which is a parameter different from a tool shape parameter on a memory of the processing machine and affects a tool diameter correction address. NC program conversion processing (conversion source NC program) method which is a block to be executed…For example, Patent Document 1 discloses that "the NC program device 1 determines in advance a machining shape required for the workpiece (determining a machining form of a workpiece) 5 in accordance with designation of machining conditions including a machining start point, a machining end point.”)
HITACHI also teaches a conversion step of converting the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program using the decided correction method HITACHI ([Abstract] “An NC program conversion processing method for converting a conversion source NC program to generate a conversion destination NC program based on a plurality of blocks in the conversion source NC program. Identify the non-contact partial tool path, which is a path that does not contact the workpiece during the processing corresponding to the block, and identify the non-contact block, which is a block that uses only the non-contact partial tool p.”)
HITACHI does not explicitly teach a decision step of deciding a correction method of a path of a tool mounted on the second machining center used for processing the workpiece to be a one-direction correction
However, ASADA teaches a decision step of deciding a correction method of a path of a tool mounted on the second machining center used for processing the workpiece to be a one-direction correction ASADA ([Abstract] “To prevent damage by a tool interfering with a work piece and a device by a wrong input of a tool data, in a machine tool like a machining center. SOLUTION: In a first memory means, a data of each tool T mounted to be stored at present in each pot P of a tool magazine 13 in an automatic tool changer 12 is stored, and in a second memory means, a permissible value in a fluctuation range of a data of each tool T is stored. In a decision means (decision step), when a data of the tool T is input, the input data is compared (deciding a correction method) with a data of the tool stored in the first memory means relating to the pot P mounting this tool stored and a Difference thereof is decided for whether it is provided in a permissible value or not stored in the second memory means. When the difference is decided not in the permissible value, in an alarm means, an output of an alarm signal or its re-input is indicated. In the first memory means, a standard value of dimensional data of each tool mounted to be stored in each pot may be stored.”) See also ASADA ([0010] “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the overall configuration of a machine tool having a tool management function according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, a machine tool 10 such as a machining center (on the second machining center) includes a tool magazine 13 having a large number of pots P for mounting and storing tools T, and an automatic tool changer 12 having a change arm 14 as a main component. ing. A CNC device (numerical control device) 15 for controlling the machine tool 10 determines a tool T to be used, which is mounted and stored in the pot P, at a tool change position (a path of a tool mounted)) Pa based on an NC processing program stored therein, and sets a change arm 14. Thus, automatic processing is performed by repeating the process of processing the workpiece W by exchanging the tool T mounted on the main shaft 11. A tool management device 20 that manages tools used for such automatic machining is connected to the CNC device 15.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ASADA with HITACHI as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. ASADA would modify HITACHI wherein a decision step of deciding a correction method of a path of a tool mounted on the second machining center used for processing the workpiece to be a one-direction correction. The benefits of doing solves such a problem by determining whether or not tool data such as an input correction value is incorrect, and issuing a warning or prompting re-input when determining that the tool data is incorrect. ASADA ([0003].)
The combination of HITACHI and ASADA does not explicitly teach teaches in which the correction is made in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the workpiece or a two-direction correction in which the correction is made in the direction perpendicular to the traveling direction of the workpiece a path of a tool mounted on the second machining center
However, CHEN teaches in which the correction is made in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the workpiece or a two-direction correction in which the correction is made in the direction perpendicular to the traveling direction of the workpiece a path of a tool mounted on the second machining center CHEN ([Introduction] “In response to the increasing demand of higher machine accuracy, compensations of the straightness errors of a feed axis and the perpendicular errors (decision step of correction is made in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the workpiece) among feed axes have recently become available at some CNC controllers. However, very few CNC controllers are able to compensate for two of the most important error sources: the angular error and thermal error. Compensations of the angular errors and thermal errors need real-time error compensation capability. The Abbe offset induced error caused by angular errors is spatial-variant across the machine working zone because the Abbe offset length is variant with the travel of feed axes. Besides the spatial variant characteristic, the positioning error of a machine tool is also time-variant due to the dynamic effect of thermal errors. Recently, with the aid of an external PC, compensation of the angular errors and thermal errors on CNC machine tools have been achieved [2-8]. The external computer calculates the spatial-variant and time-variant positioning error at the cutting edge during machining and sends a correspondent compensation signal to the CNC machines.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of CHEN with HITACHI and ASADA as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. CHEN would modify HITACHI and ASADA wherein in which the correction is made in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the workpiece or a two-direction correction in which the correction is made in the direction perpendicular to the traveling direction of the workpiece a path of a tool mounted on the second machining center. The benefits of doing so shows that the accuracy of a horizontal machining center has been improved by one order of magnitude after compensation. (CHEN [Conclusions]). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected because the combination of HITACHI, ASADA and CHEN teaches the claim 1 limitations.
HITACHI teaches wherein the determination step determines the machining form based on a type of a tool HITACHI ([Description | pdf page 2 of 15] “For example, Patent Document 1 discloses that "the NC program device 1 determines in advance a machining shape required for the workpiece 5 in accordance with designation of machining conditions including a machining start point, a machining end point, and a size of an end mill E to be used.”)
However, HITACHI does not explicitly teach that is mounted on the first machining center when used for machining the workpiece and is also commonly mounted on the second machining center.
ASADA teaches that is mounted on the first machining center when used for machining the workpiece and is also commonly mounted on the second machining center ASADA ([0010] “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the overall configuration of a machine tool having a tool management function according to the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, a machine tool 10 such as a machining center includes a tool magazine 13 having a large number of pots P for mounting and storing tools T, and an automatic tool changer 12 having a change arm 14 as a main component. ing. A CNC device (numerical control device) 15 for controlling the machine tool 10 determines a tool T to be used, which is mounted and stored in the pot P, at a tool change position Pa based on an NC processing program stored therein, and sets a change arm 14. Thus, automatic processing is performed by repeating the process of processing the workpiece W by exchanging the tool T mounted on the main shaft 11. A tool management device 20 that manages tools used for such automatic machining is connected to the CNC device 15.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of ASADA with HITACHI as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. ASADA would modify HITACHI wherein is mounted on the first machining center when used for machining the workpiece and is also commonly mounted on the second machining center. The benefits of doing solves such a problem by determining whether or not tool data such as an input correction value is incorrect, and issuing a warning or prompting re-input when determining that the tool data is incorrect. ASADA ([0003].)
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected because it is the system embodiment of claim 1, with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
See also HITACHI ([Description | pdf page 3-4] as HITACHI teaches a conversion computer that includes a processor “The conversion computer 10 is, for example, a personal computer or a general-purpose computer. The conversion computer 1 0 includes a CPU 11 as an example of a processor, a network interface 12 (abbreviated as Net I/Fin the figure), a user interface 13 (User I/Fin the figure), a storage resource 14 as an example of a storage unit, and Includes an internal network connecting these components.”)
HITACHI also teaches a conversion program, wherein the processor executes a program that configures… HITACHI ([Description | pdf page 4 of 15] “The CPU 11 can execute a program stored in the storage resource 14. The storage resource 14 stores a program to be executed by the CPU 11, various information used in the program, an NC program used in the NC cutting machine 20, and the like. The storage resource 14 may be, for example, a semiconductor memory, a flash memory, a hard disk drive (HOD}, a solid state drive (SSD}, or the like, and may be a volatile memory or a nonvolatile memory. See also HITACHI ([Description | pdf page 3 of 15] “The NC cutting machine 20 is, for example, a machining center, and includes a main body 22 that executes a processing, an NC controller 21 that controls the processing of the main body 22, and one or more tool sets used in the main body 22. A tool magazine 25 is provided as an example of a storage unit that can store the tool TL.”)
Claim(s) 5-6 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HITACHI in view of ASADA, in view of CHEN, and in further view of KAKINO (JP2003263208 A), herein KAKINO.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected because the combination of HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN teaches the claim 1 limitations.
HITACHI teaches the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by tool diameter correction HITACHI ([pdf page 2 of 15] “When the correction block (tool diameter correction) is executed by the processing machine, the correction block changes a parameter value (diameter) on the memory which is a parameter different from a tool shape parameter on a memory of the processing machine and affects a tool diameter correction address (conversion destination). NC program conversion processing method (conversion source NC program) which is a block to be executed.”)
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA and CHEN does not explicitly teach wherein the conversion step converts, in a case in which the correction method is the one-direction correction, converts, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction, or the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by adding a correction amount to a command coordinate point in the conversion source NC program.
However, KAKINO teaches wherein the conversion step converts, in a case in which the correction method is the one-direction correction KAKINO ([0013] “The NC machine tool 2 is configured to perform a predetermined machining on the workpiece (conversion step) 5 on the machining table 20 by means of a (straight) end mill E that rotates around its axis and moves along a predetermined feed pathing (programmed course in one-direction correction).
KAKINO also teaches converts, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction KAKINO ([Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention | pdf page 3 of 11] “The NC machine tool 2 is configured to perform a predetermined machining on the workpiece (converts in a case) 5 on the machining table 20 by means of a (straight) end mill E that rotates around its axis and moves along a predetermined feed pathing (programmed course in two-direction correction). The processing table 20 is an end mill E as a machining tool is supported on a bed 21 as a base so as to be movable in two directions (X direction and Y direction) (programmed course in two-direction correction) orthogonal to each other in a horizontal plane. 21 is attached to the lower end of a main shaft 24 suspended from a processing head 23 that is movably supported in a vertical direction (Z direction) on a column 22 that is erected on one side, through an appropriate attachment means.”)
KAKINO also teaches the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by adding a correction amount to a command coordinate point in the conversion source NC program KAKINO ([0057] , [Equation 1], [pdf page 6 of 11] “FIG. 10 is a flow chart showing an example of the procedure of the method (conversion source NC program) of the present invention carried out in the NC apparatus 1 for the groove machining (conversion destination NC program) using the trochoidal curve as described above. First, the allowable value F max (adding a correction amount) of the cutting resistance is set. And feed pitch p is set to the initial value PO, and the position coordinate X (command coordinate point), the moving lengths I in the Y and X directions are respectively set to initial values XO , YO , Set to IO (step 11).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KAKINO with HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. KAKINO would modify HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN wherein the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by adding a correction amount to a command coordinate point in the conversion source NC program. The benefits of doing reduces damage and wear of an end mill when a relatively simple shape is machined by an NC machine tool using the end mill as a tool. (KAKINO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected because the combination of HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO teaches the claim 5 limitations.
HITACHI teaches wherein the conversion step converts, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction, the conversion source NC program into the conversion destination NC program by adding the correction amount to be added to the command coordinate point in the conversion source NC program HITACHI ([Description | pdf page 5 of 15] “Note that there may be a case where the conversion processing (conversion step) by the conversion program 1411 is performed (converts) in a multiplex manner (adding the correction amount). For example, there is a case where it is desired to convert the first conversion destination NC program (conversion destination NC program)1425 for another NC cutting machine (to the command coordinate point) 20 or tool set. In such a case, the "conversion destination device or tool comment" and the "history comment" may exist in the conversion destination NC program 1425 by the conversion multiplicity. However, it is preferable to leave only those comments generated by the last transformation and delete those comments before that. In particular, in the "conversion destination device or tool comment", what the operator should see is only the comment given in the last conversion.”) See also HITACHI ([pdf page 8 of 15] “In the processing of the loop 2, first, the conversion program 1411 performs processing on the post-delimitation block group [ii (i-th block group of the specified post delimitation block group) for the processing target NC cutting machine 20. The tool path correction amount (adding a correction amount) in the tool radial direction (command coordinate point) of the tool (in the conversion source NC program) to be used is determined based on the main shaft rigidity and the tool rigidity {S20). Here, the method of determining the tool path correction amount in the tool radial direction (X-axis and moves the cutting tool toward or away from the center of the spinning workpiece) may be calculated in this step based on the spindle rigidity and the tool rigidity of the destination NC cutting machine 20, or the destination NC may be calculated. The tool path correction amount calculated in advance may be specified based on the spindle rigidity of the cutting machine 20 and the tool rigidity. Further, when the amount of deflection of the tool at the time of cutting in the group of blocks after separation changes, the tool path correction amount may be the tool path correction amount corresponding to the maximum deflection amount, and may correspond to the minimum deflection amount. The tool path correction amount may be used, or the tool path correction amount corresponding to the average deflection amount may be used.)
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HITACHI in view of ASADA, in view of CHEN, and in further view of KAKINO (JP2003263208 A), herein KAKINO, and in further view of WANG (US 9696707 B2), herein WANG.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected because the combination of HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN teaches the claim 2 limitations.
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN does not explicitly teach wherein the determination step determines, in a case in which the tool used for machining the workpiece is a ball end mill, determines, in a case in which the tool is a square end mill or the machining form to be side surface machining or groove machining.
However, KAKINO teaches wherein the determination step determines, in a case in which the tool used for machining the workpiece is a ball end mill KAKINO ([Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention] “In the NC device 1 configured as described above, the method of the present invention is carried out according to the following procedure and the feed path of the end mill E for processing the workpiece 5 is set (determination step) to the feed speed at each part of the feed path. The calculation including the above is performed, and an NC program is created by the combination of the feed speed obtained by this calculation and the feed path…Also, the end mill E (the tool used for machining the workpiece) shown in FIG. 3 is a ball end mill (is a ball end mill) having a cylindrical shape whose tip is formed in a hemispherical shape, and provided with a cutting edge radially extending from the central portion on the entire surface of the hemispherical surface is there.”)
KAKINO also teaches determines, in a case in which the tool is a square end mill, the machining form to be side surface machining or groove machining KAKINO ([Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention | pdf page 3 of 11] “A straight end mill having a cylindrical shape with a flattened tip (a square end mill with a flat, square-shaped end), radially extending from the center of the tip surface, and provided with a plurality of cutting blades (that creates sharp internal corners) spirally provided around the outer peripheral surface (machining form to be side surface machining or groove machining) near the end surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KAKINO with HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. KAKINO would modify HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN wherein determines, in a case in which the tool is a square end mill, the machining form to be side surface machining or groove machining. The benefits of doing reduces damage and wear of an end mill when a relatively simple shape is machined by an NC machine tool using the end mill as a tool. (KAKINO [Abstract]).
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO does not explicitly teach the machining form to be curved surface machining.
However, WANG teaches the machining form to be curved surface machining WANG ([Column 3 | Lines 45-53] “Position of the milling cutter 120 in relation to the workpiece 110 contributes to the surface quality and productivity of the milling process. The positioning ability resulting from the combination of degrees of motion allows the cutter to follow curved or complex surfaces (the machining form to be curved surface machining) while maintaining surface quality and productivity. Though shown as a curved surface in FIG. 2, the geometry of the machined workpiece surface 111 can be a compilation of geometric designs and features.”) See also WANG ([Figure 2] and [Figure 3A], and [Figure 3B].)
PNG
media_image1.png
612
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WANG Figure 2 Reference
PNG
media_image2.png
634
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WANG Figure 3A and Figure 3B
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of WANG with HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. WANG would modify HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO wherein the machining form to be curved surface machining. The benefits of doing so provides an optimization of the conflicting parameters where the speed at which the cutter 120 advances along a workpiece 110 is the feed rate and is in relation to 10 cutter geometry and cutter advancement distance (WANG [Column 4 | Lines 7-10]). Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HITACHI in view of ASADA, in view of CHEN, in view of KAKINO, in view of WANG, and in further view of KONO (US 20210356932 A1), herein KONO.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected because the combination of HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN teaches the claim 1 limitations.
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN does not explicitly teach the correction method to be the two-direction correction, decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be side surface machining or groove machining, or the correction method to be the one- direction correction.
However, KAKINO teaches the correction method to be the two-direction correction KAKINO ([0013] “The NC machine tool 2 is configured to perform a predetermined machining on the workpiece (decision step of deciding a correction method) 5 on the machining table 20 by means of a (straight) end mill E that rotates around its axis and moves along a predetermined feed pathing (two-direction correction). The processing table 20 is an end mill E as a machining tool is supported on a bed 21 as a base so as to be movable in two directions (X direction and Y direction) (method to be two-direction) orthogonal to each other in a horizontal plane. 21 is attached to the lower end of a main shaft 24 suspended from a processing head 23 that is movably supported in a vertical direction (Z direction) on a column 22 that is erected on one side, through an appropriate attachment means.”) See also KAKINO ([Description | pdf page 6 of 11] “If it is determined in step 13 that the feed cannot be realized, the current feed pitch p is multiplied by the correction coefficient p to obtain a new feed pitch p (step 14} (correction method), and the process returns to step 12 to calculate the feed speed f (8).”)
KAKINO also teaches decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be side surface machining or groove machining KAKINO ([Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention | pdf page 3 of 11] “A straight end mill having a cylindrical shape with a flattened tip, radially extending from the center of the tip surface, and provided with a plurality of cutting blades spirally provided around the outer peripheral surface (machining form to be side surface machining or groove machining) near the end surface.
KAKINO also teaches the correction method to be the one- direction correction KAKINO ([0013] “The NC machine tool 2 is configured to perform a predetermined machining on the workpiece (decision step of deciding a correction method) 5 on the machining table 20 by means of a (straight) end mill E that rotates around its axis and moves along a predetermined feed pathing (be one-direction correction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KAKINO with HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. KAKINO would modify HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN wherein the correction method to be the one- direction correction. The benefits of doing reduces damage and wear of an end mill when a relatively simple shape is machined by an NC machine tool using the end mill as a tool. (KAKINO [Abstract]).
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO does not explicitly teach wherein the decision step decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be curved surface machining or decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be side surface machining or groove machining.
However, WANG teaches wherein the decision step decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be curved surface machining WANG ([Column 3 | Lines 45-57] “Position of the milling cutter 120 in relation to the workpiece 110 contributes to the surface quality and productivity of the milling process. The positioning ability resulting from the combination of degrees of motion allows the cutter to follow (decision step decides) curved or complex surfaces (form is determined to be curved surface machining) while maintaining surface quality and productivity. Though shown as a curved surface in FIG. 2, the geometry of the machined workpiece surface 111 can be a compilation of geometric designs and features. The machined workpiece surface 111can include various geometric profiles. The workpiece surface 111 can also include a surface which has been subject 55 to a machining process but still requires machining in reaching a final machined surface.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of WANG with HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. WANG would modify HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO wherein the decision step decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be curved surface machining. The benefits of doing so provides an optimization of the conflicting parameters where the speed at which the cutter 120 advances along a workpiece 110 is the feed rate and is in relation to 10 cutter geometry and cutter advancement distance (WANG [Column 4 | Lines 7-10]).
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, KAKINO, and WANG does not explicitly teach decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be side surface machining or groove machining.
However, KONO teaches decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be side surface machining or groove machining KONO ([0155-0156] “FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a shape of a workpiece before the cutting according to an embodiment. FIG. 6A shows a top view (XY plan view), FIG. 6B shows a side view (YZ plan view), and FIG. 6C shows a side view (XZ plan view). Before cutting, the workpiece 300 has a notch 302 partially formed (decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined) and has a substantially rectangular shape when viewed from above. An opening 301 having a columnar hole extending in the Z-axis direction is formed on the negative direction (right direction in FIG. 6A) side of the workpiece 300 on the Y-axis. The height of the workpiece 300 increases along the positive direction of the X-axis.”) See also KONO ([Figure 6A], [Figure 6B], and [Figure 6C].)
PNG
media_image3.png
629
941
media_image3.png
Greyscale
KONO Figure 6A, Figure 6B, and Figure 6C Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KONO with HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, KAKINO, and WANG as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. KONO would modify HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, KAKINO, and WANG wherein decides, in a case in which the machining form is determined to be side surface machining or groove machining. The benefits of doing so provides a technique for converting an NC program into an NC program capable of ensuring appropriate precision in working while avoiding the occurrence of differences in levels caused by correction during the cutting of a cut surface of a workpiece. (KONO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HITACHI, in view of ASADA, in view of CHEN, in view of KAKINO, and in further view of KONO.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected because the combination of HITACHI and KAKINO teaches the claim 5 limitations.
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN does not explicitly teach wherein the conversion step provides, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction, an interval between command coordinate points in the conversion source NC program is wider than a predetermined threshold value.
However, KAKINO teaches wherein the conversion step provides, in a case in which the correction method is the two-direction correction KAKINO ([0013] “The NC machine tool 2 is configured to perform a predetermined machining on the workpiece (decision step of deciding a correction method) 5 on the machining table 20 by means of a (straight) end mill E that rotates around its axis and moves along a predetermined feed pathing (programmed course in one-direction correction or two-direction correction). The processing table 20 is an end mill E as a machining tool is supported on a bed 21 as a base so as to be movable in two directions (X direction and Y direction) (method to be one-direction correction or two-direction) orthogonal to each other in a horizontal plane. 21 is attached to the lower end of a main shaft 24 suspended from a processing head 23 that is movably supported in a vertical direction (Z direction) on a column 22 that is erected on one side, through an appropriate attachment means.”)
KAKINO also teaches an interval between command coordinate points in the conversion source NC program is wider than a predetermined threshold value KAKINO ([0060], [pdf page 6 of 11] “On the other hand, if it is determined in step 13 that it can be realized, the command data (in the conversion source NC program) with the current feed speed f (B} added is output (step 15}, and then it is determined whether or not the preset end point has been reached (interval between command coordinate points). Is determined (step 16), and if the end point is not reached (wider than a predetermined threshold value), the feed pitch p is added to the coordinate values X and Y (step 17), the same calculation is performed for the next pass, and the end point is reached. In this case, the series of operations ends.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KAKINO with HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. KAKINO would modify HITACHI, ASADA, and CHEN wherein an interval between command coordinate points in the conversion source NC program is wider than a predetermined threshold value. The benefits of doing reduces damage and wear of an end mill when a relatively simple shape is machined by an NC machine tool using the end mill as a tool. (KAKINO [Abstract]).
The combination of HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO does not explicitly teach a difference between correction amounts of the command coordinate points is larger than a predetermined threshold value.
However, KONO teaches a difference between correction amounts of the command coordinate points is larger than a predetermined threshold value KONO ([0005-0006] “In the technique disclosed in PTL 1, high precision in working is achieved by changing the feed rate and the depth of cut while the tool is in contact with the workpiece (referred to as a workpiece herein). As a result, however, differences in levels caused by the correction (difference between correction amounts) during the cutting of a cut surface of a workpiece are generated. The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances and an object thereof is to provide a technique for converting an NC program to an NC program capable of ensuring appropriate precision in working while avoiding the occurrence of differences in levels caused by the correction (larger than a predetermined threshold value) during the cutting of a cut surface (command coordinate points) of a workpiece.”) See also KONO ([0176].)
KONO also teaches an interpolation point between command coordinate points after correction KONO ([0162] “FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating a description of the pre-correction NC program and a tool path in the cutting process of the corresponding workpiece according to an embodiment. FIG. 9A shows a tool path in the final cutting process, and FIG. 9B shows a description of a portion corresponding to the final cutting process of the pre-correction NC program.”) See also KONO ([Figure 9A] and [Figure 9B].)
PNG
media_image4.png
608
773
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KONO Figure 9A and Figure 9B Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KONO with HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO as the references deal with relates to an NC program conversion processing method, a conversion computer, and a conversion program. KONO would modify HITACHI, ASADA, CHEN, and KAKINO wherein a difference between correction amounts of the command coordinate points is larger than a predetermined threshold value. The benefits of doing so provides a technique for converting an NC program into an NC program capable of ensuring appropriate precision in working while avoiding the occurrence of differences in levels caused by correction during the cutting of a cut surface of a workpiece. (KONO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
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 MARTIN K VU whose telephone number is (703)756-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186