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 . In an Amendment filed on 09/04/2025, claim 2 was cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1, and 3-4 are still pending in this Application.
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114,
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, on page 4, with respect to rejections to claims 1, 3-4 under double patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive. For the reasons provided in detail hereinbelow, the amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been maintained.
In the arguments, the Applicant argues/requests to hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance until a terminal disclaimer is submitted. However, this is respectfully unpersuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been maintained.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 5-6, with respect to rejections to claims 1 and 3-4 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been maintained..
On page 2, the Applicant argues that:
“Claim 1 has been amended to recite, in relevant part, that the control device
comprises an evacuation diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the evacuation
operation by the evacuation unit is normal or abnormal, and the predetermined timing
to perform the chip discharging operation by the chip discharging unit diagnoses the
evacuation operation as abnormal and causes the evacuation operation by the
evacuation unit to be cancelled.
As explained during the interview, claim 1 is distinguishable over the applied
prior art because, according to the disclosure of Horino, the tap is withdrawn to a
position away from the machined hole (i.e., above the machined hole), after which
residual chips are discharged from the machined hole (see Horino, paragraphs [0007],
[0018] and [0019]). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that performing the evacuation operation and chip discharging operation
of Horino requires moving the tap in an opposite direction of the machining direction.
To the contrary, in the present invention, the tap moves in the same direction as the
machining direction during the chip discharging operation at the evacuation operation,
as recited in the last paragraph of claim 1. Therefore, Horino fails to teach or suggest
at least the limitations recited in the fifth and eighth paragraph of amended claim 1. Further, the asserted combination of Horino, Wakabayashi, and Yang, either alone, or
in combination, fail to teach or suggest the additional limitations now recited in the
fourth and ninth paragraphs of amended claim 1”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
The invention as claimed is about controlling a tool tapping to perform an evacuation operation (retract/backwards the tool), and perform a discharge operation (cause the tool to move down or forwards) by a distance. While Horino teaches that a discharging operation is performed during the evacuation operation, Horino, was not cited to teach the discharge operation wherein a forward/down movement is performed when an abnormality is detected during the evacuation operation. Wakabayashi was cited to teach a tap tool for tapping operation (forward movement), evacuation operation (retract/backward movement) and a discharge operation (forward movement) performed when an abnormality is found during the evacuation operation (see 0045 “when an R-axis torque abnormality occurs (“YES” in step S9), the arithmetic processing unit 91 temporarily stops the drive of the elevating motor 65 and the rotary drive motor 83, and rotates and reciprocates the machining tool 100. Is interrupted, and then reverse drive is performed at a low speed by a certain amount…On the other hand, if an R-axis torque abnormality occurs while the machining tool 100 is being rotated in the reverse direction and raised in the Z2 direction, the machining tool 100 is rotated in the forward direction by a certain amount and lowered in the Z1 direction. After that, the process returns to step S8 and the rotary reciprocating movement of the machining tool 100 is restarted).
On page 6, the Applicant further argues that:
“claim 1 has been further amended to recite that the evacuation operation is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap. Further amended claim 1 is distinguishable over the applied prior art because the asserted combination of Horino and Wakabayashi fails to teach or suggest a predetermined timing to perform a chip discharging operation when a evacuation operation is diagnosed as being abnormal, which causes the evacuation operation to be cancelled, based on a measured operational torque of the main spindle being larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap, as now recited in claim 1. Yang fails to overcome the deficiencies of Horino and Wakabayashi”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
Wakabayashi clearly teaches detecting an abnormal torque when performing the evocation operation, and causing a discharge operation when the abnormality is detected (see 0045). Horino clearly teaches correlating an abnormal torque threshold before a tool breaks, thus, a breaking torque threshold value is suggested (see 0004 and 0014). Therefore, the combination of Horino-Wakabayashi-Yang teach the claimed subject matter of claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Instant Application 17938379
US Patent 12314030
As per claim 1, A control device for a machine tool in which a tap used to machine a workpiece is mounted to a main spindle that is relatively movable with respect to the workpiece, the control device comprising:
a parameter preparing unit that stores a predetermined parameter regarding a control in advance;
an evacuation unit that causes the tool to perform an evacuation operation from the workpiece;
an evacuation diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is normal or abnormal;
and a chip discharging unit that causes the tool to perform a chip discharging operation during the evacuation operation,
the parameter preparing unit stores a chip discharge groove pitch of the tap and a tap rotation number set in advance (see claim 5 of the US patent),
the evacuation operation of the tap by the evacuation unit and the chip discharging operation by the chip discharging unit are performable at respective predetermined timings,
H) the predetermined timing to perform the chip discharging operation by the chip discharging unit is when the evacuation diagnosing unit diagnoses the evacuation operation as abnormal and causes the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit to be canceled;
G) the chip discharging unit calculates a chip discharging operation distance based on the chip discharge groove pitch and the tap rotation number, and causes the tap to perform a feed operation and a rotating operation causing a movement equal to the chip discharging operation distance only in a same direction as a machining direction to discharge chips (see claim 5);
and
I) the evacuation operation is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap.
As per claim 3, the control device for the machine tool according to claim 2,
wherein the parameter preparing unit identifies in advance an operation distance in which chips are dischargeable and evacuation is possible without damage to the tap or the workpiece, and determines the tap rotation number based on the operation distance identified in advance and the chip discharge groove pitch.
As per claim 4, the control device for the machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising a machining diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the machining of the workpiece is normal or not, wherein the predetermined timing to perform the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is when the machining is diagnosed as abnormal by the machining diagnosing unit.
As per claim 4, A control device for a machine tool that includes a tool mounted on a main spindle relatively movable with respect to a workpiece and machines the workpiece using the tool, the control device comprising:
a parameter preparing unit that preliminarily stores a predetermined parameter relating to a control;
B) an evacuation unit that causes the tool to perform an evacuation operation from the workpiece;
C) an evacuation diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the evacuation operation is normal, wherein when the evacuation diagnosing unit diagnoses that the evacuation operation is abnormal, the evacuation operation is cancelled, and
D) a chip discharging unit that causes the tool to perform a discharge operation of chip, and
and H) wherein when the evacuation diagnosing unit diagnoses that the evacuation operation is abnormal (cancelled see above), the control device causes the chip discharging unit to perform the discharge operation of chip after cancelling the evacuation operation (this teaches or suggest that the evacuation and discharging operation happens at predetermined times).
Claim 5 The control device for the machine tool according to claim 4, E) wherein the tool is a tap, G) the parameter preparing unit stores a pitch of a chip discharge groove of the tap and a preset tap rotation number, and the chip discharging unit, when the evacuation operation is diagnosed to be abnormal by the evacuation diagnosing unit, calculates a discharging operation distance of chip from the pitch of the chip discharge groove and the tap rotation number, and causes the tap to perform a feeding movement and a rotating movement by the discharging operation distance in a direction same as a processing direction.
As per claim 6, the control device for the machine tool according to claim 5, wherein the parameter preparing unit is capable of discharging chip, preliminarily identifies an operational distance that allows an evacuation without a damage on the tap or the workpiece, and determines the tap rotation number based on an identification result and the pitch.
…As per claim 2, the control device for the machine tool according to The control device for the machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising a machining diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the machining of the workpiece is normal, wherein the evacuation unit causes the tool to perform the evacuation operation from the workpiece when the machining is diagnosed to be abnormal by the machining diagnosing unit.
Claims 1, and 3-4 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims and 4-6, of US Patent 12,314,030 in view of Horino et al (JP 2002086330, as supported by the machine translation provided in the IDS).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the US Patent is narrower than this instant application. Claims 4-6 of the US patent 12,314,030 teaches or suggest all of the elements of the current application claims 1 and 3 and further includes other limitations that make the claim narrower. For instance, claim 1 of the instant invention is taught or suggested by claim 5 and 4; Claim 3 is taught or suggested by claim 6 of the patent. It has been held in court that the generic patented invention has been anticipated by the species. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, the patent dos not explicitly teach the evacuation operation is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap.
However, Horino further teaches a machine comprising a diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether an operation of a workpiece is normal or not, the operation diagnosed abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap (see [0014]-0015 “Step 3: The load acting on the cutting tool is detected. In this step, the load acting on the cutting tool is always detected during movement at the cutting speed… axis, it is sufficient to detect the load using the function of monitoring the load state such as the torque and the current value, which each control device for the tool spindle and the feed axis has).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified US Patent 12,314,030’ invention as taught above to include diagnosing an operation is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap as taught by Horino in order to determining abnormalities during the evacuation operation of US patent 12314030 and avoid breakage of the tool (see [0015-0017]).
Claim 4, US Patent 12,314,030 teaches the control device for the machine tool according to claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach further comprising a machining diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the machining of the workpiece is normal or not, wherein the predetermined timing to perform the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is when the machining is diagnosed as abnormal by the machining diagnosing unit.
However, Horino further teaches a machine comprising a machining diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the machining of the workpiece is normal or not, wherein the predetermined timing to perform the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is when the machining is diagnosed as abnormal by the machining diagnosing unit (see [0015-0017] “… Step 4: Compare the load on the cutting tool with a threshold. In this step, the load (load detection value) acting on the cutting tool detected in the previous step 3 is compared with the load level as a preset threshold value. In the present embodiment, since both the load applied to the tool spindle and the load applied to the feed axis are detected as the load acting on the cutting tool, the load level is also the load level for the tool spindle and the load level for the feed axis. Will be set in advance. Therefore, if the load on the tool spindle is greater than the load level for the tool spindle or the load on the feed axis is greater than the load level for the feed axis, it acts on the cutting tool. It is determined that the load has become higher than the preset load level. In this step, when the load acting on the cutting tool becomes larger than the preset load level, the process proceeds to step 5…”; also, see [0018] “[0018] Step 7: The cutting tool is retracted, and the residual chips in the processed hole are discharged. In this step, if the count value of the retry counter in the previous step 6 has not reached the preset count-up value (step 6N), the cutting tool at the cutting interruption position is moved to the preset retract position…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified US Patent 12,314,030’ invention as taught above to include diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the machining of the workpiece is normal or not, wherein the predetermined timing to perform the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is when the machining is diagnosed as abnormal by the machining diagnosing unit as taught by Horino in order to determining abnormalities during the machining/tapping process and avoid breakage of the tool (see [0015-0017]).
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 limitation(s) is/are:
A parameter preparing unit… , an evacuation unit…an evacuation diagnosing unit and a chip discharging unit…, in claim 1;
a machining diagnosing unit…, in claim 4;
For purposes of Examination and interpretation in the broadest reasonable interpretation , these “units” will be interpreted as computer implemented functions implemented in a control device such as position controller (see [0018] “…control device 10. The control device 10 may be contained in a position controller (not illustrated) of the machine tool 1.and see Fig. 3) which is known in the art a numerical controller (CNC machine controller which is a programmable computer).
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.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horino et al (JP 2002086330, as supported by the machine translation provided in the IDS) in view of WAKABAYASHI (WO2020161881A1, as supported by the machine translation provided in the IDS), Yang (KR 200184169 Y1, as supported by the machine translation provided).
As per claim 1, Horino teaches a control device for a machine tool in which a tool/ (see [0004] “numerically controlled machine tool…”; also, see [0012] “Step 1: The movement of the cutting tool is started at the rapid feed speed. In the cutting of machine tools including numerically controlled machine tools, in order to shorten the processing time, generally, the cutting tool is moved to a position near the work piece at a rapid feed speed faster than the cutting speed, and then the cutting is performed. The cutting tool is moved at the cutting speed to the end position…”; also, see [0014] “,,,Focusing on the fact that the cutting resistance becomes larger than usual just before the cutting tool wears or breaks, this influence increases the load on the tool spindle that rotates the cutting tool and the cutting tool in the cutting direction. This is to detect an increase in the load on the moving feed shaft. Regarding the load applied to the tool spindle and the load applied to the feed axis, it is sufficient to detect the load using the function of monitoring the load state such as the torque and the current value, which each control device for the tool spindle and the feed axis has…”), the control device comprising:
a parameter preparing unit that stores a predetermined parameter regarding a control in advance (see [0024] “…. The set value 3 is the above-mentioned load level and is set as a variable on the NC machining program or parameter data of the control device. A plurality of these setting values can be set for each cutting tool or the same tool…”; also, see [0012-0012]);
an evacuation unit that causes the tool to perform an evacuation operation from the workpiece (see [0006] “…If the count value of the retry counter has not reached the preset count-up value, the cutting tool is temporarily retracted to the preset retracted position, and then the cutting tool at this retracted position is moved to the cutting interruption position. …” and see [0018] “Step 7: The cutting tool is retracted, and the residual chips in the processed hole are discharged; also, see [0020]);
and
a chip discharging unit that causes the tool to perform a chip discharging operation during the evacuation operation (see [0006] and see [0018] “Step 7: The cutting tool is retracted, and the residual chips in the processed hole are discharged. In this step, if the count value of the retry counter in the previous step 6 has not reached the preset count-up value (step 6N), the cutting tool at the cutting interruption position is moved to the preset retract position. It is evacuated once, and the residual chips in the processed hole are discharged by this operation. Regarding the retracted position, this may be set in advance at a position where the tip of the cutting tool is far from the opening of the machining hole, enough to discharge the residual chips from the machining hole”; also, the discharging operation seem to include a forward/feed operation and a rotating operation in a direction same as a machining direction, which suggests that this operation performs a remachining/recutting operation and the chip discharge happens during this time, Horino discloses in [0019-0020]),
wherein
,
the evacuation operation of the tool by the evacuation unit and the chip discharging operation by the chip discharging unit are performable at respective predetermined timings (see [0018] the evacuation is started at a predetermined point and retracted far from the hole wherein the discharge of the chips is performed), and
the chip discharging unit calculates a chip discharging operation distance o discharge the chips (see [0019] “Step 8: Start the movement of the cutting tool toward the re-cutting start position at the rapid feed speed. In this step, the cutting tool temporarily retracted for discharging the residual chips in the previous step 7 is moved to the re-cutting start position stored in the previous step 5, that is, a position before the cutting interruption position by a predetermined amount. Start moving at a fast-forward speed. Regarding the point where the re-cutting start position is not the cutting interruption position but a position a predetermined amount before the cutting interruption position, it is highly likely that the cutting interruption position itself is a place where cutting has not yet been completed. This is taken into consideration when an excessive load may be applied in the vicinity of the cutting interruption position if the cutting position is moved to the position at the rapid feed speed. It should be noted that it is sufficient to set the position before the predetermined amount by about 1 to 2 mm”, this step causes a discharging operation causing the discharge of chips);
(see [0013] “…when an abnormal load is detected,…”; also, see [0014] Step 3: The load acting on the cutting tool is detected. In this step, the load acting on the cutting tool is always detected during movement at the cutting speed. Focusing on the fact that the cutting resistance becomes larger than usual just before the cutting tool wears or breaks, this influence increases the load on the tool spindle that rotates the cutting tool and the cutting tool in the cutting direction… it is sufficient to detect the load using the function of monitoring the load state such as the torque and the current value, which each control device for the tool spindle and the feed axis has…”; [0015] “…Therefore, if the load on the tool spindle is greater than the load level for the tool spindle or the load on the feed axis is greater than the load level for the feed axis, it acts on the cutting tool. It is determined that the load has become higher than the preset load level….”).
Thus, Horino teaches moving the tool (feed and rotation) in the same direction as a machining process by a predetermined distance which might not be the same point where cutting was interrupted but any desired distance of movement in the forward direction (see 0019). However, Horino does not explicitly teach wherein the tool is a tap, the parameter preparing unit stores a chip discharge groove pitch of the tap and a tap rotation number set in advance, and calculates the chip discharging operation distance based on the chip discharge groove pitch and the tap rotation number, an evacuation diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is normal or abnormal, the predetermined timing to perform the chip discharging operation by the chip discharging unit is when the evacuation diagnosing unit diagnoses the evacuation operation as abnormal and causes the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit to be canceled; and the evacuation operation is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap.
However, WAKABAYASHI teaches a machine and method of controlling the machine comprising a tapping tool being raised and lowered by a predetermined distance for performing evocation and chip discharging (see [0045] “Therefore, in the present embodiment, while the number of rotation reciprocating movements is repeated by the value pointed out by the operator in advance, the arithmetic processing unit 91 monitors the occurrence of the R-axis torque abnormality based on the current value of the elevating motor 65. (Steps S9 and S10). Then, when an R-axis torque abnormality occurs (“YES” in step S9), the arithmetic processing unit 91 temporarily stops the drive of the elevating motor 65 and the rotary drive motor 83, and rotates and reciprocates the machining tool 100. Is interrupted, and then reverse drive is performed at a low speed by a certain amount…On the other hand, if an R-axis torque abnormality occurs while the machining tool 100 is being rotated in the reverse direction and raised in the Z2 direction, the machining tool 100 is rotated in the forward direction by a certain amount and lowered in the Z1 direction. After that, the process returns to step S8 and the rotary reciprocating movement of the machining tool 100 is restarted.; also, see [0042]), stores the parameters in advance, and controls the movement of the tool based on the stored parameters (see [0031]), an evacuation diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is normal or abnormal (see [0041] and [0045] “… Then, when an R-axis torque abnormality occurs (YES in step S9), the calculation processing unit 91 temporarily stops the driving of the lifting motor 65 and the rotational drive motor 83 to interrupt the rotational reciprocating movement of the machining tool 100, and then reverses the drive at a low speed for a certain amount. For example, if an R-axis torque anomaly occurs while the machining tool 100 is being lowered in the Z1 direction while rotating in the forward direction, the machining tool 100 is rotated in the reverse direction by a certain amount while being raised in the Z2 direction. On the other hand, if an R-axis torque abnormality occurs while the machining tool 100 is being raised in the Z2 direction while rotating in the reverse direction, the machining tool 100 is lowered in the Z1 direction while rotating in the forward direction by a certain amount. After that, the process returns to step S8 and the rotational reciprocating movement of the machining tool 100 resumes…”), the predetermined timing to perform the chip discharging operation by the chip discharging unit is when the evacuation diagnosing unit diagnoses the evacuation operation as abnormal and causes the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit to be canceled (see [0045] “On the other hand, if an R-axis torque abnormality occurs while the machining tool 100 is being raised in the Z2 direction while rotating in the reverse direction, the machining tool 100 is lowered in the Z1 direction while rotating in the forward direction by a certain amount. After that, the process returns to step S8 and the rotational reciprocating movement of the machining tool 100 resumes”, the execution of this function will cause the evacuation (lifting) to be cancelled, and will cause discharging operation (lowering by an amount)), and the evacuation operation is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated threshold torque (see [0041] “problems may occur such as excessive torque being applied to the machining tool 100”; also, see [0045] “…On the other hand, if an R-axis torque abnormality occurs while the machining tool 100 is being raised in the Z2 direction while rotating in the reverse direction…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Horino’s invention to include a tapping tool being raised and lowered by a predetermined distance for performing evacuation and chip discharging, stores the parameters in advance, and controls the movement of the tool based on the stored parameters, an evacuation diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is normal or abnormal, the predetermined timing to perform the chip discharging operation by the chip discharging unit is when the evacuation diagnosing unit diagnoses the evacuation operation as abnormal and causes the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit to be canceled, and the evacuation operation is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated threshold torque as taught by WAKABAYASHI in order to avoid damages to the tool during the evacuation operation (see [0045] and [0042]) and to detect that the evacuation operation as taught by Wakabashi is diagnosed as abnormal when a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap as taught by Horino (Wakabashi teaches detecting an abnormal torque during the evacuation and Horino teaches a an abnormal torque detection related to a threshold torque that would cause a break in the tool).
However, Horino-WAKABAYASHI still does not explicitly teach the parameter preparing unit stores a chip discharge groove pitch of the tap and a tap rotation number set in advance, and calculates the chip discharging operation distance based on the chip discharge groove pitch and the tap rotation number.
However, Yang teaches a machine comprising calculating an operation distance based on a groove pitch and a tap rotation number (see page 3 last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Horino-WAKABAYASHI’s combination as taught above to include the teachings of Yang including calculating an operation distance based on a groove pitch and a tap rotation number as taught by Yang in order to easily calculate the chip discharging operation distance based on the chip discharge groove pitch and the tap rotation number, using stored values of groove pitch and tap rotation number as suggested by WAKABAYASHI’s to control the direction of a tool in any desired direction and at the desired calculated distance (see page 3 last paragraph).
Horino-WAKABAYASHI-Yang does not explicitly teach detecting the evacuation abnormality when the measured torque is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap.
As per claim 4, Horino-WAKABAYASHI-Yang teaches the control device for the machine tool according to claim 1, Horino further teaches further comprising a machining diagnosing unit that diagnoses whether the machining of the workpiece is normal or not, wherein the predetermined timing to perform the evacuation operation by the evacuation unit is when the machining is diagnosed as abnormal by the machining diagnosing unit (see [0015-0017] “… Step 4: Compare the load on the cutting tool with a threshold. In this step, the load (load detection value) acting on the cutting tool detected in the previous step 3 is compared with the load level as a preset threshold value. In the present embodiment, since both the load applied to the tool spindle and the load applied to the feed axis are detected as the load acting on the cutting tool, the load level is also the load level for the tool spindle and the load level for the feed axis. Will be set in advance. Therefore, if the load on the tool spindle is greater than the load level for the tool spindle or the load on the feed axis is greater than the load level for the feed axis, it acts on the cutting tool. It is determined that the load has become higher than the preset load level. In this step, when the load acting on the cutting tool becomes larger than the preset load level, the process proceeds to step 5…”; also, see [0018] “[0018] Step 7: The cutting tool is retracted, and the residual chips in the processed hole are discharged. In this step, if the count value of the retry counter in the previous step 6 has not reached the preset count-up value (step 6N), the cutting tool at the cutting interruption position is moved to the preset retract position…”).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horino et al (JP 2002086330, as supported by the machine translation provided in the IDS) in view of WAKABAYASHI (WO2020161881A1, as supported by the machine translation provided in the IDS) and Yang (KR 200184169 Y1 as supported by the machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of BORDIGNON (EP 1775049).
As per claim 3, Horino-WAKABAYASHI-Yang teaches the control device for the machine tool according to claim 1, Horino wherein the parameter preparing unit identifies in advance an operation distance in which chips are dischargeable and evacuation is possible without damage to the tap or the workpiece (see [0019]. The distance moved is a predefined position before the point where the cutting was suspended. Thus, at this distance the tool and workpiece cannot be possible damaged since not a big load torque exists, chips are discharged by the movement and evacuation is possible), -WAKABAYASHI also teaches these previous limitations (see [0045]), while Yang teaches the formula that distance is determined from pitch and number of rotations, Horino-WAKABAYASHI-Yang does not explicitly teach determines the tap rotation number based on the operation distance identified in advance and the chip discharge groove pitch.
However, BORDIGNON teaches a tapping machine comprising determining a tap rotation number based on a distance and a pitch (see page 4 last three pars. “a pre-established number of revolutions performed by the chuck - and calculated on the basis of the actual pitch of the threads to be cut - is counted starting from such instant, an information is produced relating to the travel length covered by the chuck, or the depth reached by the same chuck, starting of course from the beginning of the tapping operation. The tapping operation itself goes on until the total number of revolutions completed by the chuck reaches up to a pre-established value corresponding to the length of the tapping travel to be covered or the number of threads to be cut”, thus, the rotation number/number of revolutions is calculated based on the pitch and corresponding to a travel length/distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Horino-WAKABAYASHI-Yang’s combination as taught above to include determining a tap rotation number based on a distance and a pitch as taught by BORDIGNON in order to calculate the number of revolution necessary to reach a desired length and control the movement of the tool until the number of revolutions is achieved and thus the desired distance is reached (see page 4 last three pars.).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill the in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Yasugi (US 20060142893 A1) teaches detecting if a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap (see [0002], 0011, 0034).
Chung et al (US 20130253670) teaches detecting if a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap (see Fig. 6 and see [0052]).
Kayamoto et al (JP 23117939) teaches detecting if a measured operational torque of the main spindle is larger than a calculated breaking torque threshold value of the tap (see “Abstract “The set value T is read from the storage unit 24 corresponding to the type of the tap, and the load setting is determined by comparing the read set value and the total load value detected by the detection unit 30 during rotation of the spindle…
The present invention relates to a tapping device that prevents breakage of a tap during tapping”; also, see page 6 par. 1 “when the processing device 22 determines that the load is equal to or greater than the set value, the spindle rotating motor control device is controlled so as to control the withdrawal of the tap.)
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights