DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0196440 to Nagaoka.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the condition is not required to occur.
Nagaoka teaches the following:
1,7. A numerical control device and method for performing movement control of a machining tool by a fixed cycle (Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 25, 44, fixed cycle is broad and the examiner submits the cycle of control shown in Fig. 1 is a fixed cycle), the numerical control device configured to perform:
issuing a machining command to a machining device based on a machining program (Fig. 1, element 12, paragraph 24); pre-reading and analyzing the machining program (Fig. 1, element 13, paragraph 32, 55-57, 60, 73,76, “path information analyzing unit 13 pre-reads the machining program 11”);
when pre-reading a machining program and issuing a machining command to a machining device (Fig. 1, 5, paragraphs 20-47; Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the condition is not required to occur.),
measuring a physical quantity indicating a machining state during machining (Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40, “rotary encoder or the like is typically used as the position detector 17.”, “performs servo control so that the feedback position follows the corrected command position.”; or, paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”; or paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54);
determining an overlap control start position based on the physical quantity (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10; Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40; Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40, “rotary encoder or the like is typically used as the position detector 17.”, “performs servo control so that the feedback position follows the corrected command position.”; or, paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”; or paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54),
obtaining a current position of the machining tool from the physical quantity (Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40, “rotary encoder or the like is typically used as the position detector 17.”, “performs servo control so that the feedback position follows the corrected command position.”; or, paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”; or paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54) and
determining whether the current position of the machining tool is the overlap control start position (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10;); and
executing overlap control to shorten a cumulative travel distance by overlapping movement commands to multiple drive axes on the machining tool (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10; Nagaoka teaches executing the program wherein both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10 which is both overlap control of the X and Y axis and overlap control of X and Y overlapping the same Z axis which reads on executing overlap control of the machining tool (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10), and Nagaoka shows in Fig. 10 that the distance travelled is by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the lines 10 to line 11 in the program, which is shorter than the distance of the combined distance of the opposite and adjacent lengths formed by the triangle by the lines 10 to line 11 in the program (See Fig. 6, from (5,2.001,2) to (10,2,2) is the hypotenuse));
wherein the current position of the machining tool is obtained from the physical quantity (Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40, “rotary encoder or the like is typically used as the position detector 17.”, “performs servo control so that the feedback position follows the corrected command position.”; or, paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”; or paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54).
Applicant argues Nagaoka fails to teach determining an overlap control start position based on the physical quantity; obtaining a current position of the machining tool from the physical quantity; determining whether the current position of the machining tool is the overlap control start position; and executing overlap control of the machining tool; wherein the current position of the machining tool is obtained from the physical quantity. The examiner disagrees. Nagaoka teaches determining both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10 which is both overlap control of the X and Y axis and overlap control of X and Y overlapping the same Z axis (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10; Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40), and the program in Figs. 6-7 is executed based on the feedback or the magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount (Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40, “rotary encoder or the like is typically used as the position detector 17.”, “performs servo control so that the feedback position follows the corrected command position.”; or, paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”; or paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54), which reads on determining an overlap control start position based on the physical quantity. Nagaoka teaches rotary encoder or the like is typically used as the position detector 17 (Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40, “rotary encoder or the like is typically used as the position detector 17.”, “performs servo control so that the feedback position follows the corrected command position.”; or, paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”; or paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54), which reads on obtaining a current position of the machining tool from the physical quantity, and the wherein the current position of the machining tool is obtained from the physical quantity. Nagaoka teaches the program determining both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10 (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10) which reads on determining whether the current position of the machining tool is the overlap control start position; and Nagaoka teaches executing the program which reads on executing overlap control of the machining tool (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10).
Applicant argues Nagaoka fails to teach executing overlap control to shorten a cumulative travel distance by overlapping movement commands to multiple drive axes on the machining tool. The examiner disagrees. Nagaoka teaches executing the program wherein both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10 which is both overlap control of the X and Y axis and overlap control of X and Y overlapping the same Z axis which reads on executing overlap control of the machining tool (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10), and Nagaoka shows in Fig. 10 that the distance travelled is by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the lines 10 to line 11 in the program, which is shorter than the distance of the combined distance of the opposite and adjacent lengths formed by the triangle by the lines 10 to line 11 in the program (See Fig. 6, from (5,2.001,2) to (10,2,2) is the hypotenuse).
2,8. The numerical control device according to claim 1, wherein the overlap control start position is determined based on a change of the physical quantity (Fig. 1, 5, paragraph 22, 23, 40, “performs servo control so that the feedback position follows the corrected command position.”; or, paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”; or paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54).
3,9. The numerical control device according to claim 2, wherein the overlap control start position is determined based on the physical quantity at a first contact position of a workpiece and the machining tool (paragraph 4, 7, 54, 70, 76).
4,10. The numerical control device according to claim 1, wherein the overlap control start position is determined by adding a predetermined margin movement amount (paragraph 24, 32-43, 55-76, add/subtract correction amount).
5,11. The numerical control device according to claim 1, wherein the physical quantity is a machining sound or vibration during machining (paragraph 37-38, 54-60,70, 73-76, “a magnitude corresponding to a backlash amount”).
6,12. The numerical control device according to claim 1, wherein the physical quantity is a machining load to the machining tool during machining (paragraph 24, 40, 46, 47, 54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 7 requires limitations after the preamble. The examiner disagrees. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (MPEP 2111.04). The claimed condition of “when…” is made optional by the terminology used in the claim because the condition is not required to occur.
Applicant argues Nagaoka fails to teach executing overlap control to shorten a cumulative travel distance by overlapping movement commands to multiple drive axes on the machining tool. The examiner disagrees. Nagaoka teaches executing the program wherein both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10 which is both overlap control of the X and Y axis and overlap control of X and Y overlapping the same Z axis which reads on executing overlap control of the machining tool (overlap is broad; See paths and machining program in Figs. 6-7, paragraphs 20, 48-70, e.g., from line 10 to line 11, both X and Y axis move from position at the start of line 10), and Nagaoka shows in Fig. 10 that the distance travelled is by the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the lines 10 to line 11 in the program, which is shorter than the distance of the combined distance of the opposite and adjacent lengths formed by the triangle by the lines 10 to line 11 in the program (See Fig. 6, from (5,2.001,2) to (10,2,2) is the hypotenuse).
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1, 7. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “by a fixed cycle” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., automatically identify the overlap start position from the machining program, assuming that overlap control will be performed when moving a tool to the next machining position after machining one position. (see, Applicant's Published specification, paragraphs [0014] and [0059]); The timing to perform overlap control is determined based on whether the current position of the tool matches the overlap control start position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The following art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0409331 to Saijo is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to executing parallel overlap control of machining tool (paragraph 52).
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kraig can be reached on 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights