Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
This is Non final rejection.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No 2020-115870, filed on 07/03/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement which is filed on 11/30/2022 are reviewed. Some of the applications are used as a prior art. See the attached file. Applications which are not strike out line are used as a prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3,6,and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 6 and 9 recite the limitation "a machining program " in line 9, 7 and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
A machining command input unit, CNC information acquisition unit, machining target input unit, an available function determination unit, a machining program generation unit, a machining simulation unit, a machining simulation result evaluation unit, a machining program output unit in claim 1.
A CNC parameter information output unit in claim 4 .
A target shape information input unit in claim 5.
A material shape information input unit in claim 7.
A tool shape information input 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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner note: For the rest of the claims those units are considered as any system, method, or machine that is capable to perform the specified actions under their broadest interpretation.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four
categories of patent eligible subject matter because only if at least one of the claimed
elements of the system are a physical part of a device can the system as claimed
constitute part of a device or combination of devices to be a machine within the
meaning of 101. Since a machining program consists merely instruction and its function on a computer, so the claim can be reasonably implemented as software routines, the claim is at best a system of software, failing to fall within a statutory category of invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO KYOKU (JP 2019082852), the view of SCHNEIDER ROLAND (JP 2009123209), further in the view of Hu Xiaoping (CN110244656A).
As of claim 1 Saito teaches A post-processor, comprising: a machining command input unit configured to receive input of a machining command that is independent of a type of machine (para 12, In the post processor device according to any one of (1) to (5), the CL data may be a general-purpose command independent of the machine, which describes information relating to the machining shape or the tool path of the workpiece and the machining content information in a format conforming to the data model of the hierarchical structure).
a CNC information acquisition unit configured to communicate with a CNC device and acquire option information regarding the CNC device or information pertaining to a specification for the CNC device;( para 32 – 34, 32 The CL data input to the post-processor 22 is configured to include information relating to a feature shape such as an edge or a smooth surface, for example. More specifically, the CL data may include information Inf 1 from the next information Inf 5…… Information Inf 3 (= information on a tool used for machining) includes, for example, information on a type of a tool, a dimension of a tool, and the like. Information Inf 4 ( = Information concerning processing conditions) includes, for example, information on a feed speed on a tool path, a spindle rotation speed on a tool path, and a use of a cutting fluid…).
an available function determination unit configured to determine, based on the option information regarding the CNC device or the information pertaining to the specification for the CNC device acquired by the CNC information acquisition unit, a function available for machining;(para 40, Many CNC machining machines typically have a function of selecting either a 1 machining mode that is faithful to the command and a 2-machining mode that prioritizes the smoothness of the smoothness as a mode of movement of the tool…. There is a CNC machining machine which can select the 1 machining mode and the 2-machining mode in several stages depending on the degree of smoothing of the tool path,)
a machining program generation unit configured to, based on the machining command, generate at least one machining program that uses, or does not use, at least one function determined to be available by the available function determination unit ( para 14, A machining program generation method comprising : generating a machining program including instructions for changing at least one parameter used for controlling at least one axis of the CNC machining machine within and outside of the set interval.)
a machining program output unit configured to, based on an evaluation regarding the machining simulation result, select and output a machining program to be used in machining( para 58, In step s 101, the machining program output unit 226 generates and outputs a machining program (NC data), and outputs the machining program (NC data) to the machining program output unit 6).
While Saito does not explicitly teach a machining target input unit configured to receive input of machining-target information pertaining to a machining target; but Schneider teaches machining target input unit configured to receive input of machining-target information pertaining to a machining target (para 28,
Simulation unit 7, which includes a simulation that is faithful to some detail of the machine tool, simulates a tater actual processing process, and in this way, a partial program created by the postprocessor 5. For example, it is checked whether a collision occurs between the machine element and the machine element during the machining process and / or whether a predetermined machining time and machining accuracy are ensured).
Schneider is considered analogous to Saito and the claim invention, since they focus on generating machining process. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to set a machining target information in the post processor in order to have a post processors with different units as Saito teaches.
The motivation would have been by setting a machining target it helps to analyze if the machining process ends with a desired result without error, then the partial program thus tested is transmitted to the control unit 9, which is indicated in FIG. 1 by an arrow 8 and in which an actual machining process of the machine tool can be started (Schneider, para 28).
The combined model of Saito and Schneider do not explicitly teach a machining simulation unit configured to simulate a machining result based on the at least one machining program generated by the machining program generation unit; and a machining simulation result evaluation unit configured to, in accordance with the machining target, evaluate a machining simulation result outputted from the machining simulation unit;
While Hu teaches a machining simulation unit configured to simulate a machining result based on the at least one machining program generated by the machining program generation unit ( para 35 -40, S31: Import a six-axis gantry machine tool assembly containing an ultrasonic spindle; S32: selecting a post-processor for the control system to match the CAM software; S33: set the absolute rotation direction, and optimize the rotation direction of the rotation axis; S34: Selecting the NC code file generated in step S214 as a numerical control program to perform machine tool motion simulation).
a machining simulation result evaluation unit configured to, in accordance with the machining target, evaluate a machining simulation result outputted from the machining simulation unit; (Para 38 – 40, 101 S34: Selecting the NC code file generated in step S214 as a numerical control program to perform machine tool motion simulation; S35: check overcut and residual height, check whether the NC code simulation program is feasible. Overcut and residual height inspection. Add the part model in "Design", after cutting, open "Auto Compare" to check overcut and residual height. After inspection, the residual height meets the requirements of finishing after the simulation processing by using the NC code generated in step S20, and there is no overcut phenomenon).
Hu is considered to be analogous to the combined model of Saito, Schneider, and the claim invention since they focus on generating of a machining program. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform simulation and evaluation based on the machining target to output a machining program to be used in machining.
The motivation would have been by Appling simulation using NC code has high cutting efficiency, meets the requirements of finishing, and does not require manual modification of NC codes, which reduces programming time and ultimately improves production efficiency and quality( Hu, abstract).
As of claim 10 is in the same scope as claim 1 so it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
While claim 11 is also in the same scope with claim 1 with additional element which Saito teaches A machining program generation program for causing a computer that corresponds to a post-processor to execute (para 59, the function of the post-processor 22 can be implemented by hardware or a combination of software and hardware, Here, "implemented by software" means realized by the computer reading and executing a program)
As of claim 2 the combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Saito also teaches wherein the CNC information acquisition unit acquires parameter information regarding the CNC device (para 11, In the post processor device according to any one of (1) to (4), the parameter may include a feed speed of the feed shaft and a rotation speed of the spindle, and the operation generation unit may generate a machining program including an instruction for changing the rotation speed of the spindle in synchronization with a change in a feed speed of the feed shaft)
the machining program generation unit generates the machining program that includes a command for changing one or more values for parameters for the CNC device that are included in the parameter information for the CNC device (section , solution, operation generation part for generating the processing program including an instruction for changing at least one parameter used for controlling at least one axis of the CNC processing machine outside and inside a set section).
As of claim 7, the combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Saito wherein the post-processor is incorporated in the CNC device ( Fig 1,element 22 and 30, connected by a machining program and para 21 The CNC machining machine 30 is, for example, a 3-axis machining machine, and the machining portion of the 3-axis machining machine shows only the spindle motor 330 and the feed shaft motor 340 in FIG. 1.)
As of claim 9, the combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Saito also teaches a CNC machine that has a CNC device connected to the post-processor and, based on a machining program outputted from the post-processor, performs CNC machining of a workpiece (Fig 1. element 30 CNC machine , 22 post processor and on claim 7, a CNC machine for performing CNC processing of the work piece on the basis of a machining program generated by the post processor device, para 21 The CNC machining machine 30 is for example, a 3-axis machining machine, and the machining portion of the 3-axis machining machine shows only the spindle motor 330 and the feed shaft motor 340 in FIG. 1.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO KYOKU (JP 2019082852), in the view of SCHNEIDER ROLAND (JP 2009123209), in the view of Hu Xiaoping (CN110244656A), further in the view of Noguchi Yoshiaki (CN107957912A).
As of claim 3 the combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Schneider also teaches based on the evaluation for the machining simulation result, the machining program output unit selects a machining program to use in machining, and outputs the machining program after inserting, into the machining program (para 28, Simulation unit 7, which includes a simulation that is faithful to some detail of the machine tool, simulates a tater actual processing process, and in this way, a partial program created by the postprocessor 5. For example, it is checked whether a collision occurs between the machine element and the machine element during the machining process and / or whether a predetermined machining time and machining accuracy are ensured. If the simulation succeeds, L e., if the machining process ends with a desired result without error, then the partial program thus tested is transmitted to the control unit 9, which is indicated in FIG. 1 by an arrow 8 and in which an actual machining process of the machine tool can be started). a command for changing one or more parameter values for the CNC device (para 50, 72, c, the cutting feed speed in change cutting section .CNC simulators 121 make the cutting feed speed in cutting section Degree periodically changes and performs operating simulation repeatedly…
The command value for cutting the cutting speed of program block N100 is " F3000 ", " F2000)
The combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu do not explicitly teach the machining simulation unit performs machining simulation under a plurality of conditions in which one or more parameters for the CNC device included in the parameter information for the CNC device are different.
While Noguchi teaches the machining simulation unit performs machining simulation under a plurality of conditions in which one or more parameters for the CNC device included in the parameter information for the CNC device are different (para 11 -14, The program optimization system of the present invention has, CNC simulators, it sequential reads out processing program and is processed mould Intend Processing program storage part, it transmits the processing program successively to the CNC simulators Transmission speed control unit, it is controlled Become the lower limit predefined into the transmission speed between the processing program storage part and the CNC simulator … Can also be that the CNC simulators are described to carry out by changing the cutting feed speed in the cutting section Optimize).
Noguchi is considered to be analogous to the combined model and the claim invention, since they focus on generating a machining system. Therefore it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform machining simulation on a plurality of conditions like by varying feed speed on the different CNC device.
The motivation would have been to optimize the simulation and When in the case of the buffering deficiency that the processing program deficiency that read is detected in cutting section, CNC simulators optimize processing program, generation does not produce the optimization processing program of buffering deficiency ( Noguchi, abstract).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO KYOKU (JP 2019082852), in the view of SCHNEIDER ROLAND (JP 2009123209), in the view of Hu Xiaoping (CN110244656A), in the view of Noguchi Yoshiaki (CN107957912A), further in the view of Shivasheshadri, M., M. Arunadevi, and P. S. Prakash. "Simulation approach and optimization of machining parameters in CNC milling machine using genetic algorithm." International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 1.10 (2012).
As of claim 4, the combined model of model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1,but they do not explicitly teach the machining simulation unit performs machining simulation under a plurality of conditions in which one or more parameters for the CNC device included in the parameter information for the CNC device are different and based on the evaluation for the machining simulation result, output CNC parameter information that includes a group of a number for one or more parameters for the CNC device and values for the parameters.
While Noguchi teaches the machining simulation unit performs machining simulation under a plurality of conditions in which one or more parameters for the CNC device included in the parameter information for the CNC device are different (para 11 -14, The program optimization system of the present invention has, CNC simulators, it sequential reads out processing program and is processed mould Intend Processing program storage part, it transmits the processing program successively to the CNC simulators Transmission speed control unit, it is controlled Become the lower limit predefined into the transmission speed between the processing program storage part and the CNC simulator … Can also be that the CNC simulators are described to carry out by changing the cutting feed speed in the cutting section Optimize).
Noguchi is considered to be analogous to the combined model and the claim invention, since they focus on generating a machining system. Therefore it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform machining simulation on a plurality of conditions like by varying feed speed on the different CNC device.
The motivation would have been to optimize the simulation and When in the case of the buffering deficiency that the processing program deficiency that read is detected in cutting section, CNC simulators optimize processing program, generation does not produce the optimization processing program of buffering deficiency (Noguchi, abstract).
The combined model of Saito, Schneider, Hu and Noguchi teaches changing of parameters as it was listed above on claim 3 but it does not explicitly teach output CNC parameter information that includes a group of a number for one or more parameters for the CNC device and values for the parameters.
While Shivasheshadri teach the post-processor further comprises a CNC parameter information output unit configured to, based on the evaluation for the machining simulation result, output CNC parameter information that includes a group of a number for one or more parameters for the CNC device and values for the parameters (Abstract, this paper focuses on the minimization of machining time. Genetic Algorithm is proposed for the optimization of machining parameters such as speed and feed with respect to the constraints (surface finish requirements, maximum machine power and cutting force) for milling operation in CNC milling machine and MASTER CAM is used as simulation software and Page 2 -10, section 3, Fig. 8 shows the Genetic Algorithm (GA) execution file to obtain the optimized machining parameters and machining time for each operations and Fig. 9 shows the optimized speed, feed and machining time for the same)
Shivasheshadri is considered to be analogous to the combined model of Saito, Schneider, Hu ,Noguchi and the claim invention, since they focus on analyzing machining parameters. Therefore it would be obvious to include a simulation software in to the post processor of the combined model in order to generate optimized parameter information including number of parameter and value.
The motivation would have been since machining parameters have major effect on the quantity of production, cost of production and production rate, so by generate optimized parametric information machining parameters should yield desired quality on the machined surface while utilizing the machining resources(Shivasheshadri, Introduction, page 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO KYOKU (JP 2019082852) in the view of SCHNEIDER ROLAND (JP 2009123209), in the view of Hu Xiaoping (CN110244656A), further in the view of MISMAN, LAILISA NUR BINTI. Application Of Cnc Simulator For Cnc Machining Via Cad/Cam. Diss. University Sains Malaysia, 2017.
As of claim 5 the combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Saito also teaches a target shape information input unit configured to receive input of post-machining target shape information (para 07, , In the present invention, the CL data includes information relating to a feature shape such as an edge or a smooth surface. To provide a post processor device, a processing program generation method, a CNC processing system and a program for generating a processing program, which reads out Information on feature shape included in the CL data and generates a machining program suitable for processing of the feature shape)
The combined model does not explicitly teach wherein the machining simulation result evaluation unit evaluates the machining simulation result based on the machining simulation result and the post-machining target shape information.
While Misman teaches wherein the machining simulation result evaluation unit evaluates the machining simulation result based on the machining simulation result and the post-machining target shape information (section 2.2, Simulation allows a close to reality simulation of the real material removal executed
and enables a comparison between the simulated work piece geometry and the target
CAD geometry directly in a CAD program).
Misman is considered to be analogous to the combined model and the claimed invention, since they focus on generating a machining program. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform evaluation on the target shape information and simulated result.
The motivation would have been evaluation of the target and simulated shapes can guarantee not only errorfree in manufacturing processes, it also saves time for commissioning at the real machine, and idling can also be avoided. CAD/CAM systems have had significant technological improvements in development and application in CNC machining ( Misman, section 2.2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO KYOKU (JP 2019082852) in the view of SCHNEIDER ROLAND (JP 2009123209), in the view of Hu Xiaoping (CN110244656A), further in the view of BRETSCHNEIDER, JOCHEN (JP 2010123122).
As of claim 6, the combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Saito also teaches wherein the machining command input unit receives input of a machining command in which machining is expressed as a set of one or more machining steps (Fig 4 and para 34, As a reference example of a hierarchical structure of a data 111odel of CL data having the above information, for example, a ISO 14649 is given. However, as long as the necessary information can be appropriately described, the hierarchical structure of the data mode! of the CL data is not limited to an example of a ISO 14649. FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing a hierarchical structure of a data-model based on a ISO 14649 , Since it is not contained in the layered structure of a data model based on information Inf2 (information about the characteristics form on = tool path), and ISO 14649 1 it has set up temporarily as lower level structural data "characteristics form" of the "tool path" in the layered structure of the above-mentioned data model). On para 52 of the specification said this step is also listed on Japanese Patent No. 66460276.
The combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu do not explicitly teach the machining target input unit receives input of a different machining target for each machining step the machining program generation unit generates a machining program for each machining step.
While Bretschneider teaches the machining target input unit receives input of a different machining target for each machining step the machining program generation unit generates a machining program for each machining step (para 05 -09 and 33, The motion information generated by the CAM system generally consists of a so called GOTO statement which, on the one hand, contains information relating to the movement to be performed by the tool and, on the other hand, contains additional information concerning the processing steps to be performed. Thus, for example, the movement information may include, inter alia, information that a subsequent tool movement to be performed ls a finish machining. In the case of finishing, a movement of the tool has to be performed such that, for example, a surface quality of the workpiece is as good as possible ln the workpiece. For example, in the case of rough machining, the movement of the tool should be performed as quickly as possible, and the surface quality of the workpiece may be insufficient, e.g., uneven. In order to optimally perform a particular machining process, such as, for example, finishing and roughing, an optimized control subprogram is used in the control device of the machine tool). According to the specification this prior art was also listed on “background art” on para 03 as patent document 1 and it teaches this claim limitation.
Bretschneider is considered to be analogous to the combined model and the claim invention, since they focus on generating of machining process. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to create a machining program based on inputted machining target for each step as Bretschneider creates a part program for different machining step with a machining targets like surface quality, on the combined model.
The motivation would have been by creating a part time program which can be use for specific machining process in order to provide a simple production of a part program for a machine tool (Bretschneider para 08- 10).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO KYOKU (JP 2019082852), in the view of SCHNEIDER ROLAND (JP 2009123209), in the view of Hu Xiaoping (CN110244656A) further in the view of SAGAWA TAKANOBU (JP2003271215).
As of claim 8, the combined model of Saito, Schneider and Hu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach a material shape information input unit configured to receive input of information regarding a material shape before machining, or a tool shape information input unit configured to receive input of information regarding a tool shape for a tool to be used in machining and wherein the machining simulation unit uses the information regarding the material shape before machining or the information regarding the tool shape to perform the . machining simulation.
While Sagawa teaches a material shape information input unit configured to receive input of information regarding a material shape before machining, or a tool shape information input unit configured to receive input of information regarding a tool shape for a tool to be used in machining( para 22,The RAM 19 ls a random-access memory, and is used as a working memory of the CPU 17 and temporarily stores a processing program (NC program) to be executed and various data input from the input unit 13 or the external I / F 8. The input data includes machine shape data, material shape data, material data, holder (tool rest) shape data, tool shape data, cutting condition data, and the like)
wherein the machining simulation unit uses the information regarding the material shape before machining or the information regarding the tool shape to perform the . machining simulation (para 22, from the input unit 13 or the external I / F 8. The input data includes machine shape data, material shape data, material data, holder (tool rest) shape data, tool shape data, cutting condition data, and the like, which will be described later…The input unit 13 also inputs, through the input unit 13, a switch for selecting various functions of the NC machine tool 1 and inputting information necessary for driving, a button, and the above-described data necessary for the control unit 16 to execute a simulation of a machining program).
Sagawa is considered to be analogous for the combined model and the claim invention, since they focus on generating of machining program. Therefore it would be obvious for a person of skill in the art to receive the shape of material and use in machining simulation before machining on the combined model to output a machining program.
The motivation would have been by using information of the material shape and performing simulation of the machining program it is possible to quickly and easily detect and correct an abnormal portion of the machining program, In addition, the check mode on an NC machine can be efficiently and reliably confirmed (Sagawa, para 67)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baraki Fard, Mohammad J (JP 2016528620 A, Date Published 2016-09-15) this invention is similar to the claim invention since it teaches optimization of multi axis CNC machining parameters.
Tatsuya Kuki (JP 3759096 B2, Date Published, 2006-03-22) ) this invention is similar to the claim invention since it teaches creation of a machining command for NC machine tool by using process creation information that define the processing target shape and accuracy of the processing object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571 272 4071. 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.
/A.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188