FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed below, even if JP does not specifically teach the specific interval claimed, it would have been obvious since the interval was recognized by JP as a result-effective variable (see rejection below). For this reason, the rejections below are deemed proper.
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) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3670700 B2 (JP) in view of Marumoto JP H07237106 A and Nishiyama JP H08300250 A.
Re claim 1, JP discloses grinding system (fig. 1) comprising:
a grinding apparatus including a grinding tool [¶6-7];
creating a three- dimensional shape [¶1, three-dimensional free-form] and measuring an attitude of the workpiece [¶49]; and
a grinding-tool control apparatus [3, 7, 11] configured to generate a trajectory of the grinding tool to grind based on the three-dimensional shape and attitude of the workpiece, and controls control the grinding apparatus in a manner that causes the grinding tool to move along the trajectory [where the trajectory is the contact angle of the grid point, ¶49, “calculates the attitude of the grinding tool at each lattice point … on the three-dimensional free-form surface and the calculation of the attitude of the grinding tool at each lattice point P will be specifically described. That is, when the contact angle of the grinding tool at each grid point P is calculated”].
JP further discloses obtaining a group of three-dimensional shape data points by measuring the three-dimensional shape and the attitude of the workpiece [fig. 19], the grinding-tool control apparatus is configured to set (i) target grinding points [T] through which the grinding tool is to pass to grind the flaw and (ii) an attitude vector of the grinding tool at the target grinding points based on the group of three-dimensional shape data points obtained by the shape measurement apparatus and the location of the flaw detected by the flaw detection apparatus, and to generate the trajectory of the grinding tool based on locations of the target grinding points and the attitude vector [fig. 3].
JP does not disclose an interval between each of the target grinding points is set based on a radius of curvature of the workpiece and is set within a range of 0.5mm and 20mm.
However, JP does teach the interval between the target grinding points is a result-effective variable [“the grid points P set in 271 shown in FIG. 27 are set at intervals larger than the intervals of the teaching points T that first define the grinding path on the surface (blade surface) of the grinding object. Then, the CPU 301 performs an interference check calculation process for all lattice points set at large intervals in 279. Here, when the size of the solid figure (rectangular solid, cylinder, etc.) approximated to the grinding tool is smaller than the grid point interval set initially, the grinding tool and the surface to be ground (blade surface) are actually Even if the interference occurs, the lattice points are not included in the solid figure approximated to the grinding tool, and the interference cannot be detected. Therefore, the CPU 301 needs to perform arithmetic processing of 280 to 282 shown in FIG. That is, the interference check must be performed with a sufficiently fine lattice interval in the area where interference is likely to occur. Therefore, the CPU 301 examines four surrounding lattice points in a certain region as a region likely to interfere (interfering boundary), and includes both interference points and non-interference points in the four lattice points. The case is extracted as a region likely to interfere (interference boundary). In FIG. 19, a region that is likely to interfere (interfering boundary) is represented by a shaded region. Then, the CPU 301 sets a finer grid point at 282 based on the grid point sequence data generated at 270 at this shaded part (interfering boundary). At the set fine grid point, the CPU 301 performs an interference check at 272 to 276 in the same manner as described above. The above-described interference check process by the CPU 301 is executed at 272 to 282 until the interval between the teaching points T defining the grinding path and the approximate interval of the solid figure are sufficiently fine”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimum interval range as claimed, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, in so far as the parameter (in this case the interval optimized within a range of 0.5mm and 20mm) is recognized as a result-effective variable, as taught by JP. MPEP 2144.05 II A and MPEP 2144.05 II B.
JP does not disclose a shape measurement apparatus configured to measure the three- dimensional shape; a flaw detection apparatus configured to detect a location of the flaw on the workpiece; a trajectory generated based on the detected location of the flaw; and grinding the flaw on a surface of a workpiece.
However, first, Marumoto teaches a flaw repairing system for a steel tube including a shape measurement apparatus configured to measure the three- dimensional shape and a flaw detection apparatus configured to detect a location of the flaw on the workpiece [camera 3, including main body 31, processing device 32, and calculation unit 43] [Abstract, “the case of flaw repair of the steel pipe interior… a mark 7 (an enclosing line and numeral) is photographed by an image pickup camera 3, and a position of the mark 7 on three- dimensional coordinate axes is calculated by an image processing device”]. Marumoto further teaches flaw removal based on the three-dimensional shape, the attitude, and the detected location [¶12, “[t]he (circle line + number) is photographed, and the image information is transmitted to the image processing device 32. In the image processing device 32, the moving device 1 is determined based on the position and attitude of the moving device 1 with respect to the steel pipe 10, the position and attitude of the camera 31 with respect to the moving device 1, and the position of the marking 7 on the photographing screen. Calculate the position of the marking 7 on the dimensional coordinate axes, and The information of the [mar]king 7 is decoded, and the position and the posture of the flaw maintenance tool 20 attached to the robot 2 on the three-dimensional coordinate axes are constantly calculated (tracked), and the robot 2 (the flaw maintenance tool. The position of the carriage of the moving device 1 with respect to the steel pipe 10 is controlled so that the marking 7 enters the flaw removal operation area”].
Second, Nishiyama teaches a steel manufacturing method for flaw repair including a flaw detection apparatus 12 configured to detect a location of the flaw on the workpiece (fig. 1), and to grind the flaw on a surface of a steel plate 1.
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the shape measurement apparatus configured to measure a three-dimensional shape, the flaw detection apparatus configured to detect a location, and the control apparatus configured to generate a trajectory into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate these components into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since no inventive effort would have been required, as the individual features would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the shape measurement apparatus and flaw detection apparatus of Marumoto and Nishiyama, with the grinding tool of JP, in order to yield the predictable result of repairing workpiece flaws by using high-precision grinding [¶36 of JP, “it is possible to realize high-precision grinding or polishing without leaving a grinding flaw or polishing flaw”].
Re claim 2, JP further discloses a grinding-reaction-force measurement apparatus configured to measure a grinding reaction force [force sensor 2, fig. 7], the grinding reaction force being a force exerted on the grinding tool from the workpiece in reaction to the grinding
wherein the grinding-tool control apparatus is further configured to correct the trajectory based on the measured grinding reaction force measured and control the grinding apparatus in a manner that causes the grinding tool to move along the corrected trajectory that has been corrected [¶18, “based on the deviation amount the work target of the tool detected from the force detection means attached to the hand part of the robot mechanism by correcting the operation path of the tool and drivingly controlling the driving part of the robot mechanism based on the corrected tool movement path”].
Re claims 3, 8, Nishiyama further teaches an inspection apparatus configured to inspect the surface of the workpiece at the location of the flaw 10 after grinding of the flaw is performed by the grinding apparatus [¶21, “[a]fter the completion of grinding, the control unit causes the defect inspection mechanism to inspect the ground portion for residual defects, and confirms that there is no residual defect”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inspection apparatus of Nishiyama with the grinding tool of JP, in order to yield the predictable result of confirming there is no residual defects [¶21 of Nishiyama].
Re claim 4, the grinding method is rejected similarly to claim 1 above.
Re claim 5, the grinding method is rejected similarly to claim 2 above.
Re claims 6, 9, the grinding method is rejected similarly to claims 3, 8 above.
Re claims 7, 10-12, Nishiyama further teaches a steel-product manufacturing method [manufacturing steel plate 1, see Abstract].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723