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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 12/22/2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending in the application. Claims 2 and 9-10 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and Double Patenting rejection previously set forth in the Non-final rejection dated 09/30/2025.
Double Patenting
As noted above the Double Patenting rejection previously set forth has been withdrawn in view of the presented amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
As noted above the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US 20160096231 A1) in view of Jaques et al. (US 20180266935 A1).
Regarding Claim 1. Nishikawa teaches:
A machine tool comprising:
a lifetime prediction device that predicts a lifetime of a filter configured to filter a liquid (See para[0012]: a remaining available time calculation unit configured to calculate a remaining time during which the filter is serviceable.),
a machine main body configured to machine a workpiece using the liquid (See para[0030] – para[0031]: Wire electric discharge machine 1. During the electric discharge machining, a machining fluid drawn up from the clean fluid tank 5 by a pump 9 is jetted from an upper guide (or upper and lower guides) in the machining tank 3.); and
a liquid processing device including the filter (See para[0032]: Thereupon, the machining chips in the machining fluid are filtered by the filter 8.),
wherein the machine main body is configured to perform electrical discharge machining by applying a voltage across an electrode gap between an electrode and the workpiece in a working fluid stored in a work pan (See Fig. 1 and para[0030] – para[0032]: A workpiece (not shown) is electrical-discharge-machined in the machining tank 3 by the wire electric discharge machine 1. During the electric discharge machining, a machining fluid drawn up from the clean fluid tank 5 by a pump 9 is jetted from an upper guide (or upper and lower guides) in the machining tank 3.), and
the filter is configured to remove sludge generated by the electrical discharge machining and being present in the working fluid stored in the work pan (See Fig. 1 and para[0030] – para[0032]: The machining fluid containing the machining chips discharged from the machining tank 3 and pooled in the sewage tank 4 is drawn up from the sewage tank 4 by a pump 7 and delivered to a filter 8 on the downstream side of the pump 7.),
the lifetime prediction device comprises:
a pressure acquisition unit configured to acquire a pressure value of the liquid applied to the filter in time sequence based on a signal output from a pressure sensor (See Fig. 1, para[0012], and para[0033]: a fluid pressure detection unit disposed in a filter pipe through which the machining fluid is supplied to the filter and configured to detect a fluid pressure. A pressure sensor 11 for detecting the pressure of the machining fluid is disposed in a pipe before or behind the filter 8 or in the filter 8.);
a calculation unit configured to calculate an amount of pressure change during the machining time, based on the pressure value acquired in time sequence (See Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 7, para[0012], para[0041] – para[0046]: a fluid pressure variation amount acquisition unit configured to acquire a current fluid pressure variation amount per unit time from the database, based on a current machining condition, machining material, machining thickness, wire diameter, wire material, and machining fluid quality. The fluid pressure variation amount ΔP of the filter per unit time (which is accurate, taking into account the fluid pressure in the filter, too) can be obtained by multiplying a fluid pressure variation amount an on the database corresponding to the current machining situations by the coefficient λn corresponding to a filter fluid pressure value Gn obtained from a detector currently monitoring the filter.); and
a prediction unit configured to predict a lifetime which is a remaining time before a pressure of the liquid applied to the filter reaches an upper limit value, by using the pressure value at a time point when the prescribed machining has been completed, the machining time, and the amount of pressure change (See para[0046] – para[0049]: A time Tr during which the filter is serviceable can be calculated according to equation (1), based on the fluid pressure variation amount ΔP, a current filter fluid pressure Pn, and a filter life pressure (value of the pressure sensor 11 which is output when the filtration capacity of the filter has reached its limit) Pd.), and
the prediction unit predicts the lifetime by subtracting the pressure value at the time point when the prescribed machining has been completed, from the upper limit value, and dividing a value obtained by multiplying a subtraction result by the machining time, by the amount of pressure change (See para[0036] and para[0046] – para[0049]: A time Tr during which the filter is serviceable can be calculated according to equation (1), based on the fluid pressure variation amount ΔP, a current filter fluid pressure Pn, and a filter life pressure (value of the pressure sensor 11 which is output when the filtration capacity of the filter has reached its limit) Pd, as follows: Tr=|(Pd−Pn)/ΔP|. A fluid pressure variation amount ΔP per unit time ΔT of the filter in operation.).
Nishikawa is silent as to the language of:
a time acquisition unit configured to acquire a machining time of a prescribed machining that is predetermined, based on information indicating an operating state of the machine tool.
Nevertheless Jaques teaches:
a time acquisition unit configured to acquire a machining time of a prescribed machining that is predetermined, based on information indicating an operating state of the machine tool (See Fig. 1, para[0019], para[0027]: whereas the machining time measuring unit which counts the time where the electric discharge machining process is producing debris, the filter pressure sensor is configured to measure the filter pressure during the machining time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishikawa with a time acquisition unit configured to acquire a machining time of a prescribed machining that is predetermined, based on information indicating an operating state of the machine tool such as that of Jaques. Jaques teaches, “The filters are used only during the effective machining time, thus the sampling of filter pressure is made only within the machining time ts” (See para[0045]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nishikawa, because determining the machining time would have helped to determining the time during which the filter was in use, as recognized by Jaques.
Regarding Claim 3. Nishikawa teaches:
The machine tool according to claim 1,
wherein the prediction unit predicts the lifetime each time the prescribed machining is repeated (See para[0049] and para[0056]: Thereafter, the processing returns to Step SA02 periodically or when the machining situations, current filter fluid pressure, and current flow rate of the pipe provided with the filter are changed, whereupon the processing is repeated.).
Regarding Claim 4. Nishikawa teaches:
The machine tool according to claim 3,
wherein in a case where a difference between the amount of pressure change previously calculated and the amount of pressure change currently calculated is equal to or greater than a specified value, the prediction unit re-predicts the lifetime (See para[0049] and para[0056]: Thereafter, the processing returns to Step SA02 periodically or when the machining situations, current filter fluid pressure, and current flow rate of the pipe provided with the filter are changed, whereupon the processing is repeated.), and
in a case where the difference is less than the specified value, the prediction unit sets the lifetime previously predicted as the lifetime currently predicted (See para[0049] and para[0056]: Thereafter, the processing returns to Step SA02 periodically or when the machining situations, current filter fluid pressure, and current flow rate of the pipe provided with the filter are changed, whereupon the processing is repeated.).
Regarding Claim 5. Nishikawa is silent as to the language of:
The machine tool according to claim 1,
further comprising:
a warning unit configured to give a warning when the predicted lifetime is shorter than a specified time period.
Nevertheless Jaques teaches:
a warning unit configured to give a warning when the predicted lifetime is shorter than a specified time period (See para[0037]: At his discretion the user can set one or more triggers to get an early warning about the imminent exhaustion of filters. For instance he can choose to be warned 12 hours ahead of the estimated end of life of the filters.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishikawa with a warning unit configured to give a warning when the predicted lifetime is shorter than a specified time period such as that of Jaques. Jaques teaches, “At his discretion the user can set one or more triggers to get an early warning about the imminent exhaustion of filters” (See para[0037]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nishikawa, because giving a warning when the predicted lifetime is shorter than a specified time period would have helped to give a user an early warning before the exhaustion of a filter, as recognized by Jaques.
Regarding Claim 6. Nishikawa is silent as to the language of:
The machine tool according to claim 1,
wherein the prescribed machining is a machining that is performed in one machining cycle from start of machining of one workpiece to end of the machining.
Nevertheless Jaques teaches:
wherein the prescribed machining is a machining that is performed in one machining cycle from start of machining of one workpiece to end of the machining (See para[0045]: As said the machining time measuring unit counts the machining time ts during which the electrical discharge machining process is running. The filters are used only during the effective machining time, thus the sampling of filter pressure is made only within the machining time ts. Machining time ts and sampling interval t(k+1)−t(k) are paused when the machining is stopped or paused.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishikawa wherein the prescribed machining is a machining that is performed in one machining cycle from start of machining of one workpiece to end of the machining such as that of Jaques. Jaques teaches, “The filters are used only during the effective machining time, thus the sampling of filter pressure is made only within the machining time ts” (See para[0045]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nishikawa, because determining the machining time would have helped to determining the time during which the filter was in use, as recognized by Jaques.
Regarding Claim 7. Nishikawa is silent as to the language of:
The machine tool according to claim 1,
wherein the prescribed machining is a machining in which a same shape is repeatedly formed on one workpiece.
Nevertheless Jaques teaches:
wherein the prescribed machining is a machining in which a same shape is repeatedly formed on one workpiece (See para[0006] and para[0039]: For a safe estimation of the filter lifetime it is preferable to consider the real machining condition, including roughing, finishing, machining pauses, etc..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishikawa wherein the prescribed machining is a machining in which a same shape is repeatedly formed on one workpiece such as that of Jaques. Jaques teaches, “The filters are used only during the effective machining time, thus the sampling of filter pressure is made only within the machining time ts” (See para[0045]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nishikawa, because determining the machining time would have helped to determining the time during which the filter was in use, as recognized by Jaques.
Regarding Claim 8. Nishikawa is silent as to the language of:
The machine tool according to claim 1,
wherein the prescribed machining is a rough machining or a finish machining.
Nevertheless Jaques teaches:
wherein the prescribed machining is a rough machining or a finish machining (See para[0006] and para[0039]: For a safe estimation of the filter lifetime it is preferable to consider the real machining condition, including roughing, finishing, machining pauses, etc..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishikawa wherein the prescribed machining is a rough machining or a finish machining such as that of Jaques. Jaques teaches, “The filters are used only during the effective machining time, thus the sampling of filter pressure is made only within the machining time ts” (See para[0045]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nishikawa, because determining the machining time would have helped to determining the time during which the filter was in use, as recognized by Jaques.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: However, Nishikawa fails to take the machining time into account. In other words, Nishikawa fails to disclose especially "dividing a value obtained by multiplying a subtraction result by the machining time, by the amount of pressure change" of the above-noted feature of amended claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
As shown in further detail in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above Nishikawa teaches “a fluid pressure variation amount ΔP per unit time ΔT of the filter in operation is generally fixed according to the machining conditions” (See para[0036]; “Thus, the fluid pressure variation amount ΔP of the filter per unit time (which is accurate, also based on the consideration of the flow rate variation of the filter) can be obtained by multiplying the fluid pressure variation amount an on the database corresponding to the current machining situations by the coefficient vn corresponding to a current flow rate Hn, which is the measurement value of the flow rate measurement unit” (See para[0044]; and “A time Tr during which the filter is serviceable can be calculated according to equation (1), based on the fluid pressure variation amount ΔP, a current filter fluid pressure Pn, and a filter life pressure (value of the pressure sensor 11 which is output when the filtration capacity of the filter has reached its limit) Pd, as follows: Tr=|(Pd−Pn)/ΔP|” (See para[0047]).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the prediction unit predicts the lifetime by subtracting the pressure value at the time point when the prescribed machining has been completed, from the upper limit value, and dividing a value obtained by multiplying a subtraction result by the machining time, by the amount of pressure change”. In view of the state of the art, the examiner understands a broadest reasonable interpretation of “multiplying a subtraction result by the machining time” to include dividing by a fluid pressure variation amount ΔP per unit time ΔT. Thus Nishikawa teaches a broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited limitation, because Nishikawa discloses dividing by a fluid pressure variation amount ΔP per unit time ΔT. Although the Nishikawa’s equation “Tr=|(Pd−Pn)/ΔP|” does not explicitly show multiply by time, because the fluid pressure variation amount is a function of ΔP per unit time ΔT Nishikawa discloses the recited limitation. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the recited limitation are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863