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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a risk level storage unit” in independent claim 1, “setting items” in independent claim 1, “a first determination unit” in independent claim 1, “a setting change time display control unit” in independent claim 1, “a second determination unit” in independent claim 1, “a post setting change display control unit” in independent claim 1, “a setting change unit” in claim 2, “a time interval storage unit” in claim 3, “a time interval determination unit” in claim 4, “a list screen display control unit” in claim 5, “a changed information storage unit” in claim 8, “a communication unit” in claims 9 and 10, and “information management device” in claims 9 and 10.
Regarding the limitation “a risk level storage unit” in independent claim 1, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of storage unit (para. 59) and thus, a nonvolatile memory (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “setting items” in independent claim 1, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of parameters of the process (Figure 3 para. 44).
Regarding the limitation “a first determination unit” in independent claim 1, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of computation unit (Figure 2 para. 36), and thus a processor (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a setting change time display control unit” in independent claim 1, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of a display control unit (para. 42), and thus a computation unit (para. 36), and thus a processor (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a second determination unit” in independent claim 1, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of computation unit (Figure 2 para. 36), and thus a processor (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a post setting change display control unit” in independent claim 1, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of a display control unit (para. 42), and thus a computation unit (para. 36), and thus a processor (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a setting change unit” in claim 2, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of computation unit (Figure 2 para. 36), and thus a processor (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a time interval storage unit” in claim 3, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of storage unit (para. 59) and thus, a nonvolatile memory (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a time interval determination unit” in claim 4, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the applicant’s filed specifications and drawings found no structure. For purposes of examination, the unit will be interpreted as part of the controller.
Regarding the limitation “a list screen display control unit” in claim 5, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of a display control unit (para. 42), and thus a computation unit (para. 36), and thus a processor (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a changed information storage unit” in claim 8, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the structure of storage unit (para. 59) and thus, a nonvolatile memory (para. 35).
Regarding the limitation “a communication unit” in claims 9 and 10, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the applicant’s filed specifications and drawings found no structure. For purposes of examination, the unit will be interpreted as a device capable of remote communication.
Regarding the limitation “information management device” in claims 9 and 10, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the applicant’s filed specifications and drawings found no structure. For purposes of examination, the unit will be interpreted as a device capable of remote communication.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 9-10, and the claims depending from this claim are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, as described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “a time interval determination unit”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “a time interval determination unit”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “a time interval determination unit” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “a communication unit”.
Regarding claims 9-10, as described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “a communication unit”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “a communication unit”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “a communication unit” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “a communication unit”.
Regarding claims 9-10, as described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “information management device”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “information management device”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the term “information management device” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “information management device”.
Claim 11 is rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4 includes the limitations “a time interval determination unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to determine a time interval. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a time interval determination unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 9 and 10 includes the limitations “a communication unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to communicate with other devices. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “a communication unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 9 and 10 includes the limitations “information management device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to communicate with other devices. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “information management device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 11 is rejected for dependence from claim 9.
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) 1-7 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:
a setting change time display control unit configured to 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:
a risk level storage unit configured to store risk levels corresponding to setting contents of various setting items of the controller;
a first determination unit configured to determine, in a case that an instruction is given by a user to change a setting content of any one of a plurality of the setting items 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 storage unit;
a setting change time display control unit configured to 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 the first determination unit has determined that the risk level corresponding to the setting content instructed by the user is greater than or equal to the warning threshold;
a second determination unit configured to determine, after the setting change time warning display is displayed, whether or not a state in which the risk level is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing; and
a post setting change display control unit configured to 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 the second determination unit has determined that the state in which the risk level 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:
a risk level storage unit configured to store risk levels corresponding to setting contents of various setting items of the controller (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);
a first determination unit configured to determine, in a case that an instruction is given by a user to change a setting content of any one of a plurality of the setting items 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 storage unit (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);
a setting change time display control unit configured to 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 the first determination unit has 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);
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 explicitly teach:
a second determination unit configured to determine, after the setting change time warning display is displayed, whether or not a state in which the risk level is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing; and
a post setting change display control unit configured to 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 the second determination unit has determined that the state in which the risk level is greater than or equal to the warning threshold is continuing.
Kiani (US 8547209 B2) teaches an alarm suspension system, wherein:
a risk level storage unit configured to store risk levels corresponding to setting contents of various setting items of the controller (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)
a second determination unit configured to determine, after the setting change time warning display is displayed, whether or not a state in which the risk level 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); and
a post setting change display control unit configured to 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 the second determination unit has determined that the state in which the risk level 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 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).
Regarding claim 2, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
Kalgren further teaches:
a setting change unit configured to change the setting content of the setting item in a case that an operation to change the setting content of the setting item is performed by the user (Column 6 Lines 28-37, the processor 320 programs the operating parameter values associated with the second warning only after receiving an acknowledgement of the second warning),
wherein, before the setting content is changed by the setting change unit, the setting change time display control unit displays 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 storage unit 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),
wherein, each time that the time interval corresponding to the risk level elapses, the post setting change display control unit displays 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 4, Sodick as modified teaches the electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
Kiani further teaches:
a time interval determination unit configured to determine the time interval in accordance with 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 and relates to the treatment time for the alarm-trigger),
wherein, each time that the time interval determined by the time interval determination unit in accordance with the risk level elapses, the post setting change display control unit displays 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, further comprising:
a list screen display control unit (78) configured to display a list screen (106, 106A) of the plurality of setting items (Pages 100 and 102, user screen includes a plurality of setting elements for the electric discharge machine).
Kalgren further teaches:
a list screen display control unit (78) configured to display a list screen (106, 106A) of the plurality of setting items (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:
a list screen display control unit (78) configured to display a list screen (106, 106A) of the plurality of setting items (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 list screen display control unit displays the list screen of the setting items 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 list screen display control unit displays the list screen of the setting items 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.
Kiani further teaches:
the list screen display control unit causes the setting contents of the setting items 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:
a communication unit configured to communicate with an information management device (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),
wherein the post setting change display control unit supplies information for displaying the post setting change warning display on external equipment, to the external equipment via the communication unit and the information management device (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; thus the external device must communicate with the IMD through a communication unit).
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 1.
Kalgren further teaches:
a communication unit configured to communicate with an information management device (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),
wherein the list screen display control unit supplies information for displaying the list screen on external equipment, to the external equipment via the communication unit and the information management device (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.
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) 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:
a changed information storage unit configured to store information indicative of a time of the setting change, the setting items for which the setting change has been made, and a content of the setting change.
Nakanishi (US 11493902 B2) teaches an industrial machine management system, comprising:
a changed information storage unit configured to store information indicative of a time of the setting change, the setting items for which the setting change has been made, and a content of the setting change (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:
wherein 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 (Paragraph 76, terminal such as a personal computer or telephone connected via a wireless network).
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 items determined in advance include any one from among:
a setting item 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 item 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 item 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 item 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 item related to confirming whether or not the electrode is positioned in a vertical position registered in advance as an initial position; and
a setting item 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 items 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 item 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 item 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 item 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 item 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 item 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 item 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
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