DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendments with regard to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections has been accepted and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘what Kiani teaches is to determine whether the measured parameter is within the limits. This is different from "the risk level corresponding to a current setting content of the setting parameter is greater than or equal to the warning threshold" recited in amended claim 1’ (Page 10 of applicant’s remarks filed 06/10/2026). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Kalgren teaches checking set parameter values against constraints to ensure that user-specified set parameter values are accepted and inside the rule of the processor wherein a warning is displayed when an allowable but not recommended combination of operating parameters is entered. Kiani teaches of continuing to inform the user if a risk continues to exist, such as to continue to advise a user if a constraint violation exists or not. It would thus have been obvious to have modified Sodick with Kalgren and Kiani, and have the system continue to inform the user when a risk resulting from a user-specified set parameter which is not recommended continues to exist. This would have been done to inform the user when the parameters values are set to values which are not recommended which could cause a reduction of efficiency (Kalgren Column 5 Lines 54-61) or higher risk (Kalgren Column 3 Lines 22-29). Furthermore, checking set parameters values against constraints and having the system inform the user when the set parameters are out of range of those recommended is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 5 Paragraph 76 S15 of GOYA (US 20200361029 A1) and Paragraph 111 of Shapiro (US 20180150055 A1). Performing a second determination to see if said input parameters are still out of the recommended range and informing the user again is a simple repetition of a well-known and established process, and thus has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodick (LN1W / LN2W CONTROL) in view of Kalgren (US 8121689 B2) and Kiani (US 8547209 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sodick (LN1W / LN2W CONTROL) teaches an electrical discharge machine (Page 3) including a controller (Page 17 Chapter 2, the EDM machine consists of a control; Page 21, control is capable of automatic control of the program’s operation) configured to carry out electrical discharge machining on an object to be machined by generating an electrical discharge in a machining gap formed between the object to be machined and an electrode (Page 12 Chapter 1, EDM process involves a wire electrode coming close to a material but not actually touching it as to form a gap, with an intermittent voltage applied to the wire, wherein this is all done to machine the workpiece), the electrical discharge machine comprising:
one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in one or more memories (Page 9, switches are used to execute program files which are stored in the NC unit; Page 10, control executes and stops the program operation),
display, on a display unit, a setting change time warning display that is a warning display at a time of setting change (Page 101 checking interference G136, control will stop when detecting an error outside of parameters and make the user aware of said error; Page 103 auto short escape range, control stops the machine and displays a yellow bar message about a short circuit)
Sodick fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more memories includes a risk level memory configured to store a plurality of setting parameters corresponding to various setting items of the controller and to store risk levels corresponding to setting contents of the plurality of setting parameters;
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to:
perform a first determination to determine, in a case that an instruction is given by a user to change a setting content of any one setting parameter of the plurality of setting parameters determined in advance to a setting content other than a recommended setting content, whether or not the risk level corresponding to the setting content instructed by the user is greater than or equal to a warning threshold based on the risk levels stored in the risk level memory;
display, on a display unit, a setting change time warning display that is a warning display at a time of setting change, in a case that in the first determination, it is determined that the risk level corresponding to the setting content instructed by the user is greater than or equal to the warning threshold;
change the setting content of the setting parameter in a case that an operation to change the setting content of the setting parameter is performed by the user;
perform a second determination to determine, after the setting change time warning display is displayed, whether or not a state in which the risk level corresponding to a current setting content of the setting parameter is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing; and
display, on the display unit and each time that a time interval determined in advance elapses, a post setting change warning display that is a warning display after the setting change has been made, in a case that in the second determination, it is unit has determined that the state in which the risk level corresponding to the current setting content of the setting parameter is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing.
Kalgren (US 8121689 B2) teaches of a proactive interactive limits override for medical devices, wherein:
wherein the one or more memories includes a risk level memory configured to store a plurality of setting parameters corresponding to various setting items of the controller and to store risk levels corresponding to setting contents of the plurality of setting parameters (Column 5 Lines 12-32, processor 320 includes a parameter analyzer to apply a rule to a combination of operating parameter values wherein said rule creates one or more interdependencies between different programmable parameters using a set of parameter interaction constraints wherein restrict which values are acceptable for the user specified first set of parameter values; Column 9 Line 58 – Column 10 Line 8, storing the code of said method within the processor; Sodick Page 16, parameters ranges are stored and visible in the display);
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions (Column 5 Lines 5-10, processor includes a processor for executing instructions in hardware or software) to:
perform a first determination to determine, in a case that an instruction is given by a user to change a setting content of any one setting parameter of the plurality of setting parameters determined in advance to a setting content other than a recommended setting content, whether or not the risk level corresponding to the setting content instructed by the user is greater than or equal to a warning threshold based on the risk levels stored in the risk level memory (Column 5 Lines 12-32, the user specified first set of parameter values are automatically checked against such constraints to ensure that the user-specified set of parameter values are acceptable and inside the rule of the processor; Column 5 Lines 12-32, said rule creates one or more interdependencies between different programmable parameters and restricts which values are acceptable for the user-specified first set of parameter values);
display, on a display unit, a setting change time warning display that is a warning display at a time of setting change, in a case that in the first determination, it is determined that the risk level corresponding to the setting content instructed by the user is greater than or equal to the warning threshold (Column 5 Line 54 – Column 6 Line 10, display 315 includes a second warning 335 that is displayed on a display 315 when an allowable but not recommended combination of operating parameter value is entered via the programming interface wherein said warning is displayed as a word attention and uses a yellow color; Column 6 Line 11 – Column 6 Line 26, second warning 335 can be overridden by the user after an acknowledgement of the second warning);
change the setting content of the setting parameter in a case that an operation to change the setting content of the setting parameter is performed by the user (Column 7 Lines 9-24, enabling the combination of operating parameter values associated with the second level warning to be programmed only after receiving from the user acknowledgement of the second warning);
While Kalgren fails to teach an electric discharge machine, it teaches a verification program for determining whether a user adjusted combination of operating parameter values is outside of recommended parameters to inform the user that said parameters are not recommended such as to avoid adverse effects (Kalgren Column 3 Lines 15-29). This is the same motivation as the applicant which teaches of preventing adverse effects by informing the user that a plurality of settings is set to those other than recommended settings (Paragraphs 3-5 of applicant’s specifications filed 11/29/2022). Sodick also teaches that users can fine tune parameters for creating their own cutting conditions (Sodick Page 54). Sodick further teaches of at least one parameter, the ON time factor that adds power to the wire and which causes the machine to cut faster but which makes the wire prone the breaking when too high, that can cause errors when set to values which are too high (Sodick Page 55). Thus, Kalgren is relevant prior art as it solves the same issue as the applicant. The Office further notes that having a machining tool provide an error to the user when inputted variables are outside recommended parameters is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 5 Paragraph 76 S15 of GOYA (US 20200361029 A1) and Paragraph 111 of Shapiro (US 20180150055 A1).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sodick with Kalgren and had the control consist of a program for determining whether a user adjusted combination of operating parameter values is outside of recommended parameters. This would have been done to inform the user when the parameter values are set to values which are not recommended which could cause a reduction of efficiency (Kalgren Column 5 Lines 54-61) or risk (Kalgren Column 3 Lines 22-29).
Sodick modified with Kalgren fails to teach:
perform a second determination to determine, after the setting change time warning display is displayed, whether or not a state in which the risk level corresponding to a current setting content of the setting parameter is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing; and
display, on the display unit and each time that a time interval determined in advance elapses, a post setting change warning display that is a warning display after the setting change has been made, in a case that in the second determination, it is determined that the state in which the risk level corresponding to the current setting content of the setting parameter is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing.
Kiani (US 8547209 B2) teaches an alarm suspension system, wherein:
wherein the one or more memories includes a risk level memory configured to store a plurality of setting parameters corresponding to various setting items of the controller and to store risk levels corresponding to setting contents of the plurality of setting parameters (Column 5 Lines 22-23, parameters are compared to default or user-specified limits which would be stored in the processor; Sodick Page 16, resistivity range is stored and visible in the display);
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions (Column 4 Lines 64 – Column 5 Line 12, instrument manager executes stored firmware) to:
perform a second determination to determine, after the setting change time warning display is displayed, whether or not a state in which the risk level corresponding to a current setting content of the setting parameter is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing (Figure 4 Column 5 Lines 36-57, an alarm is triggered when the parameter is outside of its set limits and when the suspend duration has passed the audible alarms are once again activated wherein the alarm suspend only deactivates if the parameter becomes within limits; while Kiani teaches at the alarm being reactivated after a predetermined duration of based on detected parameters not being within limits, it would have been obvious to have the alarm reactivate after a predetermined duration of based on input parameters not being within limits based on Sodick and Kalgren teaching that warning the user when input parameters are not within limits is beneficial); and
display, on the display unit and each time that a time interval determined in advance elapses, a post setting change warning display that is a warning display after the setting change has been made, in a case that in the second determination, it is determined that the state in which the risk level corresponding to the current setting content of the setting parameter is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing (Figure 4 Column 5 Lines 36-57, alarm is reactivated after a predetermined duration of time as long as the parameters does not become within limits; Column 5 Lines 27-35, alarm suspend modified the display of visual alarms which indicates that when the alarm is reactivated the display of visual alarm changes to that when not suspended; while Kiani teaches at the alarm being reactivated after a predetermined duration of based on detected parameters not being within limits, it would have been obvious to have the alarm reactivate after a predetermined duration of based on input parameters not being within limits based on Sodick and Kalgren teaching that warning the user when input parameters are not within limits is beneficial).
While Kiani fails to teach an electric discharge machine, it teaches a device for alerting a user when parameters are out-of-limits to avoid adverse effects while avoiding nuisance alarms (Kiani Column 5 Lines 22-35). This is the same motivation as the applicant which teaches of preventing adverse effects by informing the user that a plurality of settings is set to those other than recommended settings (Paragraphs 3-5 of applicant’s specifications filed 11/29/2022). Sodick also teaches that users can fine tune parameters for creating their own cutting conditions (Sodick Page 54). Sodick further teaches of at least one parameter, the ON time factor that adds power to the wire and which causes the machine to cut faster but which makes the wire prone the breaking when too high, that can cause errors when set to values which are too high (Sodick Page 55). Thus, Kiani is relevant prior art as it solves the same issue as the applicant. The Office further notes that having a machining tool provide an error to the user when inputted variables are outside recommended parameters is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 5 Paragraph 76 S15 of GOYA (US 20200361029 A1) and Paragraph 111 of Shapiro (US 20180150055 A1).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sodick modified with Kiani and had the control determine whether the risk is continuing and display a warning display after a set amount of time if the risk is continuing. This would have been done to continue to advise the user if a constraint violation exists or not (Kiani Column 3 Lines 15-21).
The Office further notes performing a second determination and displaying another warning is a merely duplication of a well-known process and thus has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 2, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
Kalgren further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to display, before the setting content is changed the setting change time warning display on the display unit (Column 5 Line 54 – Column 6 Line 10, display 315 includes a second warning 335 that is displayed on a display 315 when an allowable but not recommended combination of operating parameter value is entered via the programming interface wherein said warning is displayed as a word attention and uses a yellow color; Column 6 Line 11 – Column 6 Line 26, second warning 335 can be overridden by the user after an acknowledgement of the second warning).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
Kiani further teaches:
a time interval memory configured to store the time interval corresponding to the risk level (Column 5 Lines 29-35, the alarm suspend is based on a timer wherein the duration is a function of the out-of-limit parameter for the alarm-trigger; Column 5 Lines 2-5, instrument manager 260 stores and displays data related to one or more of the parameters or combination of the parameter; it would have been obvious to additionally store the predetermined duration of the suspend alarm along with the parameter in the instrument manager as said duration is a predetermined value; Sodick Page 16, resistivity range is stored and visible in the display), and
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to display, each time that the time interval corresponding to the risk level elapses, the post setting change warning display on the display unit (Figure 4 Column 5 Lines 36-57, alarm is reactivated after a predetermined duration of time as long as the parameters does not become within limits; Column 5 Lines 27-35, alarm suspend modified the display of visual alarms which indicates that when the alarm is reactivated the display of visual alarm changes to that when not suspended).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to display a list screen of the plurality of setting parameters (Pages 100 and 102, user screen includes a plurality of setting elements for the electric discharge machine).
Kalgren further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to display a list screen of the plurality of setting parameters (Figure 4 Column 6 Lines 38-52, display screen 400 displays educational texts concerning the IMD parameter)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Kiani further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to display a list screen of the plurality of setting parameters (Figure 5 Column 4 Lines 18-25, alarm 120 includes visual alarms which indicate that parameters are out of limit as well as other parameters)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 5.
Kalgren further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to display the list screen of the setting items parameters for which the risk level is greater than or equal to the warning threshold (Figure 4 Column 6 Lines 53-64, display screen 500 displays items for which the user has selected items which are allowable but not recommended)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Kiani further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to display the list screen of the setting items parameters for which the risk level is greater than or equal to the warning threshold (Figure 5 Column 4 Lines 18-25, alarm 120 includes visual alarms which indicate that parameters are out of limit as well as other parameters)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 5.
Kalgren further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to cause the setting contents of the setting parameters for which the risk level is greater than or equal to the warning threshold to be displayed in a flashing manner (Column 4 Lines 18-25, alarm 120 includes visual alarms which indicate that parameters are out of limit by flashing them; Column 5 Lines 13-21, various alarm types can be used as a result of out-of-limit parameters including visual ones which flash and vary in color)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
Kalgren further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to supply information for displaying the post setting change warning display on external equipment, to the external equipment (Figure 4 Column 6 Lines 53-64, display screen 500 displays items for which the user has selected items which are allowable but not recommended; Column 3 Lines 43-47, system 100 includes an IMD programmer or other external system that communicates one or more wireless signals with the IMD; Figure 4 Column 6 Lines 53-64, display screen 500 for the external device displays items for which the user has selected items which are allowable but not recommended).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
The Office further notes that having a wireless connection between the electric discharge machine cutting device and a remote location for monitoring and modifying said electric discharge machine is known in the art as evidenced by Column 6 Lines 32-49 of Reed (US 8476547 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 5.
Kalgren further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to supply information for displaying the list screen on external equipment, to the external equipment (Figure 4 Column 6 Lines 53-64, display screen 500 displays items for which the user has selected items which are allowable but not recommended; Column 3 Lines 43-47, system 100 includes an IMD programmer or other external system that communicates one or more wireless signals with the IMD; Figure 4 Column 6 Lines 53-64, display screen 500 for the external device displays items for which the user has selected items which are allowable but not recommended).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
The Office further notes that having a wireless connection between the electric discharge machine cutting device and a remote location for monitoring and modifying said electric discharge machine is known in the art as evidenced by Column 6 Lines 32-49 of Reed (US 8476547 B1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodick (LN1W / LN2W CONTROL) in view of Kalgren (US 8121689 B2) and Kiani (US 8547209 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burnette (US 20170181628 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
Kiani further teaches:
the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the electrical discharge machine to:
determine the time interval (Column 5 Lines 29-35, the alarm suspend is based on a timer wherein the duration is a function of the out-of-limit parameter and relates to the treatment time for the alarm-trigger); and
display, each time that the time interval determined in accordance with the risk level elapses, the post setting change warning display on the display unit (Figure 4 Column 5 Lines 36-57, alarm is reactivated after a predetermined duration of time as long as the parameters does not become within limits; Column 5 Lines 27-35, alarm suspend modified the display of visual alarms which indicates that when the alarm is reactivated the display of visual alarm changes to that when not suspended).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Sodick as modified fails to explicitly teach:
determine the time interval in a manner so that the time interval becomes shorter as the risk level becomes greater
Burnette (US 20170181628 A1) teaches intelligent wireless communication for monitoring, wherein:
determine the time interval in a manner so that the time interval becomes shorter as the risk level becomes greater (Paragraph 72, duration of the time interval between transmitting to the user can be varied instead of at fixed intervals wherein the length of each interval can be based on the sensor information or other criteria; Paragraph 72, a higher risk event such as low glucose or hypoglycemic reaction can result in a shorter interval value)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sodick modified with Burnette and have the duration of the time intervals between transmitting the user be varied such that a larger risk results in a shorter time interval. This would have been done such as to more frequency transmissions are made in higher risk situations (Burnette Paragraph 72).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodick (LN1W / LN2W CONTROL) in view of Kalgren (US 8121689 B2) and Kiani (US 8547209 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakanishi (US 11493902 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
Sodick as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the memory further includes a changed information memory configured to store information indicative of a time of the setting change, the setting parameters for which the setting change has been made, and a content of the setting parameters.
Nakanishi (US 11493902 B2) teaches an industrial machine management system, comprising:
the memory further includes a changed information memory configured to store information indicative of a time of the setting change, the setting parameters for which the setting change has been made, and a content of the setting parameters (Figure 3 Column 6, list of changes made to the setting data along with dates are stored combined with which program the changes were made to; Column 8 Lines 7-16, setting data is stored in the data storage 200).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sodick modified with Nakanishi and have a storage unit store information of the time, what is being changed, and the content of the changes. This would have been done to provide to provide a log of changes to users in charge of management which may be unaware of changes being made (Nakanishi Column 2 Lines 38-54).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodick (LN1W / LN2W CONTROL) in view of Kalgren (US 8121689 B2) and Kiani (US 8547209 B2) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ogata (US 20040251238 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 9.
Sodick as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the external equipment is a mobile terminal or a personal computer.
Ogata (US 20040251238 A1) teaches a machining monitor, wherein:
the external equipment is a mobile terminal or a personal computer.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sodick modified with Ogata and have the external equipment be a computer or telephone which is connected via a wireless network. This would have been done to allow the user to check and monitor the electric discharge machine from a remote site (Ogata Paragraph 77).
The Office further notes that having a wireless connection between the electric discharge machine cutting device and a remote location for monitoring and modifying said electric discharge machine is known in the art as evidenced by Column 6 Lines 32-49 of Reed (US 8476547 B1).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodick (LN1W / LN2W CONTROL) in view of Kalgren (US 8121689 B2) and Kiani (US 8547209 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duffin (US 6417475 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1, wherein:
electrode is positioned in a vertical position (Page 39, the wire of the electric discharge machine is intended to be positioned vertically)
Sodick as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the plurality of setting parameters determined in advance include any one from among:
a setting parameter related to an operation when a resistivity alarm is issued, the resistivity alarm being an alarm issued when a resistivity of a dielectric working fluid lies outside of a recommended range;
a setting parameter related to an operation when a resistivity detection electrode alarm is issued, the resistivity detection electrode alarm being an alarm issued when a maintenance deadline for a resistivity detection electrode, which is an electrode configured to detect the resistivity of the dielectric working fluid, has expired;
a setting parameter related to an operation when a start key is pressed in a state in which a cursor is positioned at a position other than a beginning of a program;
a setting parameter related to restarting of the electrical discharge machining in a case that the start key is pressed in a state in which a position other than a machining interrupted position is a machining restarting position;
a setting parameter related to confirming whether or not the electrode is positioned in a vertical position registered in advance as an initial position; and
a setting parameter related to an operation when a cooler alarm is issued, the cooler alarm being an alarm issued when a malfunction has occurred in a cooler configured to cool the dielectric working fluid.
Duffin (US 6417475 B1) teaches an EDM electrode position detection system, wherein:
the plurality of setting parameters determined in advance (Column 2 Lines 19-20, invention provides a method for detecting an out-of-line electrode prior to the start of an EDM process) include any one from among (interpreted as “at least one of”):
a setting parameter related to an operation when a resistivity alarm is issued, the resistivity alarm being an alarm issued when a resistivity of a dielectric working fluid lies outside of a recommended range;
a setting parameter related to an operation when a resistivity detection electrode alarm is issued, the resistivity detection electrode alarm being an alarm issued when a maintenance deadline for a resistivity detection electrode, which is an electrode configured to detect the resistivity of the dielectric working fluid, has expired;
a setting parameter related to an operation when a start key is pressed in a state in which a cursor is positioned at a position other than a beginning of a program;
a setting parameter related to restarting of the electrical discharge machining in a case that the start key is pressed in a state in which a position other than a machining interrupted position is a machining restarting position;
a setting parameter related to confirming whether or not the electrode is positioned in a vertical position registered in advance as an initial position (Column 2 Lines 20-39, the electrode of an electric discharge machine is tested by advancing the EDM machine head to insert the electrode into a reference hole and monitoring the creation of an electrically conductive path wherein the EDM process may be stopped to permit electrode realignment or replacement); and
a setting parameter related to an operation when a cooler alarm is issued, the cooler alarm being an alarm issued when a malfunction has occurred in a cooler configured to cool the dielectric working fluid.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sodick modified with Duffin and have one of the setting items be a confirmation of whether the electrode is properly aligned vertically or not. This would have been done to avoid drilling inaccuracies caused by deformation of the EDM electrode (Duffin Column 1 Lines 53-57).
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights