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
Claims 1, 3-9, are amended. No claims are canceled. No claims are added. As a result, claims 1-15 remain under consideration.
The amendment to claims 1 and 9 obviates the previously indicated objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that:
Yasuda discloses that the irregular discharge points 46 are determined based on the characteristics of the shape of the workpiece (positions of the upper and lower end). If the irregular discharge points 46 are detected, the irregular discharge points 46 are removed. On the other hand, if discharge points are not detected above the upper end or below the lower end of the workpiece 14 (irregular discharge points are not detected), all the detected discharge points are used as data for acquiring an angle of the slant of the wire electrode. In other words, Yasuda fails to disclose that data located in a middle of the order is recognized as valid data. See Remarks, page 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument regarding Yasuda’s disclosed technique of excluding data outside the upper and lower end of the workpiece as failing to disclose data located in the middle order as valid data. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claims, the claimed wire electrical discharge machine requires that a middle portion of a plurality of relative positions arranged in ascending order of vertical positioning must be extracted as valid data, where the middle portion of the order is a predetermined range. The claim language does not exclude a process in which the outlier points of a data set are excluded in order to extract “valid data” from a data set. Yasuda stores discharge positions measured in an upper and lower end of the workpiece as a working data set of vertical positioning in order to determine the wire electrode’s verticality relative to the workpiece, and carries out a calculation to determine whether the discharge points measured are irregular in order to exclude the determined irregular data from calculating the slant angle of the wire electrode. In this case, the irregularity of the data point is predetermined based on the thickness of the workpiece which correspond to the claimed “predetermined range” that dictates the middle portion of the plurality of relative positions of the data set gathered by Yasuda.
In addition, after Yasuda excludes the irregular data from the data set gathered in order to obtain “valid data” (e.g. non-irregular discharge points”), all points including a subset of points located inside the recognized valid data are similarly recognized as valid data and are used to “determine the end surface position of the place object” as claimed. Therefore, Yasuda’s technique of taking a data set and excluding data from an upper and lower end in order to determine verticality based on the thickness of the workpiece reads on the claim language as written.
For reasons detailed herein, the Examiner maintains, based on the preponderance of evidence that the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3 and 4, the phrase “… the wire electrical discharge machine to:… to set…” is grammatically improper, and should be corrected to “… the wire electrical discharge machine to:… set…”;
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “… the wire electrical discharge machine to… to issue…” is grammatically improper, and should be corrected to “… the wire electrical discharge machine to… issue…”;
Regarding claim 14, the claim language “a second number of times setting step” lacks proper antecedent basis and necessitates claim 9 and 13 from which it depends upon to recite “first number of times setting step” to clearly convey multiple setting steps, as the claim language only recites “a/the predetermined number of times,”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
In claim 1, "one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: determine [whether or not the wire electrode has come into contact with the placed object]…; cause [an end surface detection] operation to be performed a number of times…; store…; extract…; determine [the end surface position]";
In claim 3, "wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: acquire […information]…; calculate […a number of times]…; set […the predetermined number of times]";
In claim 4, "wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: acquire […information]…; calculate [… a range]…; set [… the predetermined range]";
In claim 5 and 7, "wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: calculate [a degree of variation]…";
In claim 6, "wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: set [… the predetermined number of times]…";
In claim 8, "wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: calculate [a degree of variation]…; evaluate […an accuracy]…; issue [… a notification]…";
In claim 9, “a relative movement control step of causing,” “a storage control step of… storing,” “a data extraction step of…extracting”;
In claim 11, “a number of times setting step of setting”;
In claim 12, “a range setting step of setting”;
In claim 14, “a second number of times setting step of setting”;
In all instances, the generic placeholder for performing the claimed function “processor” is linked by the phrase “cause the… machine to” followed by a function or functions that are not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing said functions.
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.
The specification describes the processor as “the arithmetic processing unit” in [0032], which includes “for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a processor such as a microprocessing unit (MPU) or the like, and a memory such as a ROM and a RAM or the like,” which executes a stored program that enables “the voltage control unit 28, the travel control unit 30, the contact determination unit 32, the relative movement control unit 34, the number of times setting unit 36, the storage control unit 38, the data extraction unit 40, the range setting unit 42, the statistical unit 44, and the end surface position determination unit 46.”
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to determine [whether or not the wire electrode has come into contact with the placed object],” the specification describes a determination unit alternatively as "a contact determination unit 32" and is described further in at least [0022]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of determining a wire electrode coming into contact with the workpiece in the case that the inter-electrode voltage is less than a predetermined voltage or separated away from the workpiece in the case that the inter-electrode voltage is greater than or equal to the predetermined voltage.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to cause [an end surface detection] operation to be performed a number of times,” the specification describes a relative movement control unit as element 34 and is described further in at least [0036], [0038], and [0039]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of controlling a movement mechanism to cause a wire electrode to be moved relatively from a position where a wire
electrode is separated away from the workpiece in a direction in which the wire electrode is made to
come into contact with the workpiece.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to store,” the specification describes a storage control unit as element 38 and is described further in at
least [0025], [0050], [0101] and [0104]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of storing values into a storage unit when it is determined that the wire electrode has come into contact with the workpiece.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to extract,” the specification describes a data extraction unit as element 40 and is described further in at least [0026]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of extracting valid data from among the coordinate values of the wire electrodes acquired.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to determine [the end surface position],” the specification describes an end surface position determination unit as element 46 and is described further in at least [0031]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of determining the end surface position of a workpiece based on valid data.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to acquire […information]…; calculate […a number of times]…; set […the predetermined number of times],” the specification describes a number of times setting unit as element 36 and is described further in at least [0024]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of setting a predetermined number of times an operation is performed.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to acquire […information]…; calculate […a range]…; set […the predetermined range],” the specification describes a range setting unit as element 42 and is described further in at least [0029]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of setting a range of the order within which values are regarded as valid data, or outside of which are regarded as invalid data.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to calculate [a degree of variation],” the specification describes a statistical unit as element 42 and is described further in at least [0030]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of calculating a degree of variation in values are regarded as valid data, or outside of which are regarded as invalid data.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to issue [… a notification],” the specification describes a notification control unit as element 50 and is described further in at least [0059] and [0070]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of controlling a notification unit.
Regarding the claim language reciting one or more processors that “cause the… machine to evaluate […an accuracy],” the specification describes an evaluation unit as element 52 and is described further in at least [0074] and [0085]. Equivalents shall include structures capable of evaluating the accuracy of the position of the workpiece with methods such as the difference between maximum and minimum value, variance, or standard deviation of valid data.
The “step of” claim language present in claims 9 and 11-15 are similarly defined by the units mentioned in the specification detailed previously.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, a microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor, which are receiving, storing and/or processing data. All other computer-implemented functions that are not considered “basic functions of a microprocessor” require disclosure of an algorithm (see MPEP § 2181 II B). In this case, the claims recite a processor based on the special functions disclosed below:
Claims 3 and 4 recite “one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to:… calculate… a number of times” based on a diameter of the wire electrode (becomes smaller), a resistivity of the placed object (becomes higher), or a surface roughness of the placed object (becomes higher) in a manner so that the number of times changes based on the above variables. The claim language invokes a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the generic placeholder for performing the claimed function “processor” is linked by the phrase “cause the… machine to” followed by a function or functions that are not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing said functions.
Claim 11 and 12 recite “a number of times setting step of setting” or “a range setting step off setting” based on a diameter of the wire electrode (becomes smaller), a resistivity of the placed object (becomes higher), or a surface roughness of the placed object (becomes higher) in a manner so that the number of times changes based on the above variables. The claim language invokes a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the generic placeholder for performing the claimed function “setting” is linked by the phrase “step of” followed by a function or functions that are not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing said functions.
Paragraph [0024] and [0052] describe the number of times setting unit 36 as setting “the predetermined number of times. The predetermined number of times is set on the basis of at least one of a diameter of the wire electrode 12, a resistivity of the workpiece 14,or a surface roughness of the workpiece 14. As the diameter of the wire electrode 12 becomes smaller, the predetermined number of times is set to a greater number of times. As the resistivity of the workpiece 14 becomes greater, the predetermined number of times is set to a greater number of times. As the surface roughness of the workpiece 14 becomes rougher, the predetermined number of times is set to a greater number of times” and paragraph [0032] includes the number of times setting unit 36 as included in the control device 26, which is a general purpose computer “equipped with an arithmetic processing unit and a storage… The arithmetic processing unit includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a processor such as a microprocessing unit (MPU) or the like, and a memory such as a ROM and a RAM or the like. The storage, for example, is a recording medium such as a hard disk or a solid state drive (SSD).”
Determining a dynamically changing variable (such as changing during manipulation of a workpiece) or statically changed variable (such as changing before the manipulation of a workpiece) is a specialized function corresponding to Computer-Implemented functions (MPEP 2161.01-I and MPEP 2181-II-B). Functions such as “processing,” “receiving,” and “storing” can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming (Reference In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 Fed Cir. 2011). However, the claims require the control unit, of which the number of times setting unit is a part of, to control the operation of the wire electrode machine in accordance to changing diameter, resistivity, or roughness of the workpiece, which are not typical functions found in a general purpose processor.
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F,3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPG2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 88 USPG2d at 1239. The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241.
The specification, as originally filed, fails to disclose the algorithm, hardware or the user interface required to obtain, or otherwise teach how the machine acquires, the inputs for the diameter of the wire electrode, resistivity of the placed object, or surface roughness of the placed object in order for the number of times setting unit and step to set a predetermined number of times and the ranged setting unit and step to set the predetermined range based on the above variable inputs. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP 2161.01 -I. As such, it is not clear as to the steps that the control unit 36 dictates the number of times setting unit takes in order to execute a change in a dynamically or statically changing “number of times” variable which depends upon the variables of “at least one of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object.” How is the controller made aware of the changes in diameter, resistivity or roughness of the workpiece before or during starting manipulation of the workpiece? Does the controller require the use of feedback control, human input, predicted data, or a lookup table stored in memory, etc.?
For the reasons detailed above, the claims and the instant specification only support a processor that executes code stored on a memory, and the special functions detailed in the claims are understood to require the disclosure of an algorithm which is absent from the claims and the specification, rendering the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites similar language regarding “valid data” as claim 1, and does not address the ambiguities noted above. Claim 9 also recites “ascending order” with respect to data in the form of coordinate values, where the claim language “ascending” is undefined and may mean numerical sorting according to one or both coordinate values, by order of subjective importance of coordinate values or by a one dimensional relative vector with respect to the workpiece. It is unclear how the claim language “ascending” is being defined with respect to arranging a multi-variable relative position or coordinate.
Claim 10-15 inherit the above deficiencies and are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claim.
Claim 3 and 4 limitation “one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to:… calculate… a number of times”, claim 11 “a number of times setting step of,” and claim 12 “a range setting step of” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification does not disclose a mathematic formula or algorithm for the general purpose computer to execute in order to set the predetermined number of times or the predetermined range based on the input of the wire diameter of the wire electrode, resistivity of the placed object, or the surface roughness of the placed object, rendering the claims indefinite.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 10 and 13-15 inherit the above deficiencies and are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10024644 B2 in view of Yasuda et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 5744775 A.
Claim 1. Abe discloses a wire electrical discharge machine configured to detect an end surface position of a placed object that is placed on a work table by applying a voltage between a wire electrode and the placed object, the wire electrical discharge machine comprising: (Abe, col. 1 line 13 “The present invention relates to a wire electrical discharge machine configured to quickly accurately perform an end face detection operation…”; and col. 1 line 51 “In general, the contact position is detected in such a system that a detection voltage is applied between the wire electrode and the workpiece…”)
a voltage detection unit configured to detect a voltage between the wire electrode and the placed object; and (Abe, col. 5 line 27 “When the wire electrode 2 and the workpiece 1 contact each other, conduction occurs and the actually applied voltage fluctuates. A contact determination unit 25 monitors this fluctuation and determines the contact state in a mode described later.”)
one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
determine, based on the detected voltage, whether or not the wire electrode has come into contact with the placed object; (Abe, col. 5 line 27 “When the wire electrode 2 and the workpiece 1 contact each other, conduction occurs and the actually applied voltage fluctuates. A contact determination unit 25 monitors this fluctuation and determines the contact state in a mode described later.”)
cause an end surface detection operation to be performed a predetermined number of times, in which, from a state in which the wire electrode is separated away from the placed object, the wire electrode moves relatively in a manner so that the wire electrode comes into contact with the placed object, and when it is determined that the wire electrode has come into contact with the placed object, the wire electrode moves to a first movement starting position, or alternatively, from a state in which the wire electrode is in contact with the placed object, the wire electrode moves relatively in a manner so that the wire electrode separates away from the placed object, and when it is determined that the wire electrode has separated away from the placed object, the wire electrode moves to a second movement starting position; (Abe, col. 3 line 45 “a relative movement unit for relatively moving the wire electrode and the object,”; col. 3 line 48 “a contact state detecting unit configured to detect the voltage between the wire electrode and the object in the course of relative movement of the wire electrode toward and away from the object by the relative movement unit and detect the contact/non-contact state of the wire electrode and the object based on the detected voltage…” where the non-contact state corresponds to the movement starting position; and Fig. 6 shows steps S101-S106 where the contact / non-contact detection steps are repeated until the execution count S107 is met.)
in each of the end surface detection operations, store in a storage unit a relative position of the wire electrode with respect to the work table at a time when it is determined that the wire electrode has come into contact with the placed object or at a time when it is determined that the wire electrode has separated away from the placed object; (Abe, Fig. 6 shows steps S102 and S105 where contact and non-contact positions are stored; col. 10 line 34 “… the displacement amount of the wire electrode are set and input through an operation screen and stored in a storage device.”; and col. 10 line 30 “… the displacement is in a direction perpendicular to a line segment connecting the upper and lower wire guides..”)
determine the end surface position of the placed object based on the valid data. (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
Abe does not explicitly disclose in a case that a plurality of the relative positions are arranged in an ascending order of vertical positioning, extract, as valid data, the plurality of relative positions that are positioned in a predetermined range that lies in a middle of the order.
Yasuda teaches in a case that a plurality of the relative positions are arranged in an ascending order of vertical positioning, extract, as valid data, the plurality of relative positions that are positioned in a predetermined range that lies in a middle of the order; and (Yasuda, col. 25 line 62 “If the irregular discharge points 46 are detected above the upper end or under the lower end of the workpiece 14, these points are recognized as irregular values, and they are excluded from the data for calculating the slant angle of the wire electrode 1 when checking its verticality relative to the workpiece.”)
Abe and Yasuda are analogous art because they are related to the operation of wire electrode discharge machines. Abe differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose how its numerical control device 30 handles input in order to find the end surface of the workpiece accurately. Yasuda teaches a method to handle wire electrode positioning data in relation to the workpiece by arranging the discharge points from an upper to lower end positions of the workpiece, then truncating the position values where irregular discharges are detected in these upper and lower end positions of the workpiece, thus only making calculations based on positioning data that lie in the middle range of position values for the “correcting amount” for correcting the wire electrode positioning relative to the workpiece. It is a well-known, mathematical technique in data processing that a system may exclude outliers by arranging the data in a sequential order to extract a predetermined middle range. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the numerical control device 30 of Abe to use the method of handling data as taught by Yasuda in order to similarly correct the positioning of the wire electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “detect the discharge position with higher accuracy”, eliminate the need to “very accurately fix the workpiece to the table” and allow automation of the process of accurate positioning even if there are a plurality of workpieces on the worktable (see Yasuda, paragraph 7 and 8).
Claim 2. Modified Abe discloses the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 1, wherein the relative movement control unit causes the end surface detection operation to be performed in a state in which the wire electrode is being made to travel. (Abe, col. 9 line 3, Step S402 and S404 show that in order to detect contact / non-contact between the wire electrode and the workpiece, the process waits until contact / non-contact is detected after movement is started in S401 and S403, while the wire is moving.)
Claim 9. Abe discloses a method of controlling a wire electrical discharge machine configured to detect an end surface position of a placed object that is placed on a work table by applying a voltage between a wire electrode and the placed object, wherein the wire electrical discharge machine includes (Abe, col. 1 line 13 “The present invention relates to a wire electrical discharge machine configured to quickly accurately perform an end face detection operation…”; and col. 1 line 51 “In general, the contact position is detected in such a system that a detection voltage is applied between the wire electrode and the workpiece…”)
a voltage detection unit configured to detect a voltage between the wire electrode and the placed object, the method of controlling the wire electrical discharge machine, comprising: (Abe, col. 5 line 27 “When the wire electrode 2 and the workpiece 1 contact each other, conduction occurs and the actually applied voltage fluctuates. A contact determination unit 25 monitors this fluctuation and determines the contact state in a mode described later.”)
a relative movement control step of causing an end surface detection operation to be performed a predetermined number of times, in which, from a state in which the wire electrode is separated away from the placed object, the wire electrode moves relatively in a manner so that the wire electrode comes into contact with the placed object, and when it is determined that the wire electrode has come into contact with the placed object, the wire electrode moves to a movement starting position, or alternatively, from a state in which the wire electrode is in contact with the placed object, the wire electrode moves relatively in a manner so that the wire electrode separates away from the placed object, and when it is determined that the wire electrode has separated away from the placed object, the wire electrode moves to a movement starting position; (Abe, col. 3 line 45 “a relative movement unit for relatively moving the wire electrode and the object,”; col. 3 line 48 “a contact state detecting unit configured to detect the voltage between the wire electrode and the object in the course of relative movement of the wire electrode toward and away from the object by the relative movement unit and detect the contact/non-contact state of the wire electrode and the object based on the detected voltage…” where the non-contact state corresponds to the movement starting position; and Fig. 6 shows steps S101-S106 where the contact / non-contact detection steps are repeated until the execution count S107 is met.)
a storage control step of, in each of the end surface detection operations, storing in a storage unit a relative position of the wire electrode with respect to the work table at a time when it is determined that the wire electrode has come into contact with the placed object or at a time when it is determined that the wire electrode has separated away from the placed object; (Abe, Fig. 6 shows steps S102 and S105 where contact and non-contact positions are stored; col. 10 line 34 “… the displacement amount of the wire electrode are set and input through an operation screen and stored in a storage device.”; and col. 10 line 30 “… the displacement is in a direction perpendicular to a line segment connecting the upper and lower wire guides..”)
an end surface position determination step of determining the end surface position of the placed object based on the valid data. (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
Abe does not explicitly disclose a data extraction step of, in a case that a plurality of the relative positions are arranged in an ascending order, extracting, as valid data, the plurality of relative positions that are positioned in a predetermined range that lies in a middle of the order.
Yasuda teaches a data extraction step of, in a case that a plurality of the relative positions are arranged in an ascending order, extracting, as valid data, the plurality of relative positions that are positioned in a predetermined range that lies in a middle of the order; and (Yasuda, paragraph 71 “If the irregular discharge points 46 are detected above the upper end or under the lower end of the workpiece 14, these points are recognized as irregular values, and they are excluded from the data for calculating the slant angle of the wire electrode 1 when checking its verticality relative to the workpiece.”)
Abe and Yasuda are analogous art because they are related to the operation of wire electrode discharge machines. Abe differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose how its numerical control device 30 handles input in order to find the end surface of the workpiece accurately. Yasuda teaches a method to handle wire electrode positioning data in relation to the workpiece by truncating the position values where irregular discharges are detected in the upper and lower end positions of the workpiece, thus only making calculations based on positioning data that lie in the middle range of position values for the “correcting amount” for correcting the wire electrode positioning relative to the workpiece. It is a well-known, mathematical technique in data processing that a system may exclude outliers by arranging the data in a sequential order to extract a predetermined middle range. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the numerical control device 30 of Abe to use the method of handling data as taught by Yasuda in order to similarly correct the positioning of the wire electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “detect the discharge position with higher accuracy”, eliminate the need to “very accurately fix the workpiece to the table” and allow automation of the process of accurate positioning even if there are a plurality of workpieces on the worktable (see Yasuda, paragraph 7 and 8).
Claim 10. Modified Abe discloses the method of controlling the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 9, wherein, in the relative movement control step, the end surface detection operation is performed in a state in which the wire electrode is being made to travel. (Abe, col. 9 line 3, Step S402 and S404 show that in order to detect contact / non-contact between the wire electrode and the workpiece, the process waits until contact / non-contact is detected after movement is started in S401 and S403, while the wire is moving.)
Claims 3-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 10024644 B2 in view of Yasuda et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 5744775 A, and in further view of Briegel et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20150323300 A1.
Claim 3. Modified Abe discloses the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
Modified Abe does not disclose acquire at least one piece of information out of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object; calculate, based on the acquired information, a number of times in a manner so that the predetermined number of times becomes greater as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher; and to set the calculated number of times to the predetermined number of times.
Briegel discloses acquire at least one piece of information out of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object; calculate, based on the acquired information, a number of times… to set the calculated number of times to the predetermined number of times. (Briegel, [0044], “The touch-trigger signal is generated at a constant deflection, in a manner that is highly repeatable, and provides consistent results for the probe in different measurements of a workpiece. The number of false triggers is reduced by setting a time or corresponding iteration number based on previous measurements in the same movement” where the touch-trigger signal is generated based on the resistivity of the workpiece.)
in a manner so that the predetermined number of times becomes greater as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher; and (Briegel, Fig. 5 shows “a plot of Prediction Variance against a Number of Samples to identify a desired minimum number of probe characteristic measurement data points to use in fitting the probe characteristic measurement data points in order to set a trigger to measure coordinates, according to an aspect of the present disclosure”; and [0020] “In the plot in the upper part of Figure 4A, a false trigger signal can be caused by, for example, vibration. If the false trigger signal is accepted, the probe will be stopped and coordinate measurements taken” indicating vibration causes error.)
Modified Abe differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose changing the position determination loop iteration number based on wire diameter, workpiece resistivity or surface condition. However, Abe teaches the operations (1) to (4) are performed a set number of times (Abe, col. 6 line 20) and that parameters such as vibration, deflection of the wire electrode or the difference between the diameter of the wire electrode and the inner diameter of the wire guide (see Abe, col. 3 line 13) cause lower detection accuracy and therefore more variance. Briegel teaches that variance decreases as the number of samples a measurement probe takes increases, the variance may be affected by probe vibration, deflection of the wire electrode or the difference between the diameter of the wire electrode and the inner diameter of the wire guide producing a false trigger signal. Briegel also teaches an iterative repetition of operations where the controller waits for a calculated number of times (iterations) before generating a trigger (see Briegel, [0042]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the iteration number of the position determination loop of Abe using Briegel's method of decrease variance by increasing sampling size in order to predictably compensate for errors due to vibration, deflection and difference between wire diameter and wire guide diameter to maintain high detection accuracy.
Claim 4. Modified Abe discloses the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the wire electrical discharge machine to: (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
a range… to set the calculated range to the predetermined range. (Yasuda, col. 5 line 27 “a counting means for equally dividing the thickness of the workpiece into a number specified in a predetermined program and counting a number of times of discharge at each of divided parts of the workpiece; and correcting amount computing means for calculating correcting amount for correcting the slant of the wire electrode relative to the workpiece based on the number of times of discharge counted by the counting means, the thickness of the workpiece and the discharge position detected by the discharge position detecting means.”; and col. 25 line 56 “If the irregular discharge points 46 are detected above the upper end or under the lower end of the workpiece 14, these points are recognized as irregular values, and they are excluded from the data for calculating the slant angle of the wire electrode 1 when checking its verticality relative to the workpiece” where the thickness of the workpiece corresponds with the claimed “predetermined range” used to make calculations such as verticality of the workpiece.)
Modified Abe does not disclose acquire at least one piece of information out of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object; calculate, based on the acquired information,… in a manner so that the predetermined range becomes narrower as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher.
Briegel discloses acquire at least one piece of information out of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object; calculate, based on the acquired information, (Briegel, [0044], “The touch-trigger signal is generated at a constant deflection, in a manner that is highly repeatable, and provides consistent results for the probe in different measurements of a workpiece. The number of false triggers is reduced by setting a time or corresponding iteration number based on previous measurements in the same movement” where the touch-trigger signal is generated based on the resistivity of the workpiece and exemplifies calculating a variable number based on acquired information, as claimed.)
in a manner so that the predetermined range becomes narrower as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher; and (Briegel, Fig. 5 shows “a plot of Prediction Variance against a Number of Samples to identify a desired minimum number of probe characteristic measurement data points to use in fitting the probe characteristic measurement data points in order to set a trigger to measure coordinates, according to an aspect of the present disclosure”; and [0020] “In the plot in the upper part of Figure 4A, a false trigger signal can be caused by, for example, vibration. If the false trigger signal is accepted, the probe will be stopped and coordinate measurements taken” indicating vibration causes error.)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Modified Abe differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose setting a predetermined range based on wire diameter, workpiece resistivity or surface condition. However, it is well known in machining art that parameters such as vibration, which is affected by wire diameter in the case of wire probes, cause lower detection accuracy and therefore more variance, which establishes the physical characteristic like wire diameter as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the accuracy of the truncated data taken using methods disclosed by Yasuda, with the additional consideration of vibration due to wire thickness as taught by Briegel since, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05 II).
Claim 5. Modified Abe discloses the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to further cause the wire electrical discharge machine to (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
Modified Abe does not disclose calculate a degree of variation in a plurality of the valid data; wherein, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree, the relative movement control unit causes the end surface detection operation to be performed again for the predetermined number of times.
Briegel discloses calculate a degree of variation in a plurality of the valid data; (Briegel, [0077] “Another factor considered in the process described herein is the number of measurement points used in order to attenuate the noise to a reasonably accurate prediction. The number of windows can be calculated by investigating the effect of the least mean squares fit on the variance of the prediction” the resulting variance of the LMS fit is given by equation (20).)
wherein, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree, (Briegel, [0078] “From the equations above (see equation (20)), it can be concluded that the resulting variance decreases when n is increased. The number of data points is thus chosen such that the resulting variance is lower than the desired one.”; Fig. 5 shows the curve of equation (20) and a horizontal line which is the targeted prediction variance corresponding to the claimed “predetermined degree”. The line can be used to set how many data points are needed to “achieve the desired noise attenuation” (see [0078]). It shows that an increase in data points leads to less variance, in the example shown in Fig. 5, at least 74 measured points is needed to “achieve desired noise attenuation.”)
the relative movement control unit causes the end surface detection operation to be performed again for the predetermined number of times. (Briegel, [0040] “If there are not yet enough measurements of the probe characteristic to create a desired fit (S225=No), the process returns to S215 as the probe continues moving and the probe characteristics are again measured at S215 and data buffered at S220.”; and [0041] “If enough measurements of the probe characteristic have been created (S225=Yes), the linear or higher order fit is created based on the buffered data of the probe characteristics at S230. An extrapolation of the fit equation then projects to the trigger value at S235, and an expected time or iteration number until the trigger value is reached is calculated at S240… Using the equation generated to describe the fit, a time until the threshold characteristic will be reached is calculated/projected.”)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply a known technique of increasing accuracy through checking statistical variance in coordinate measuring machines, such as those used by a wire electrode machine, taught by Briegel, to the control unit taught by modified Abe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to yield predictable results by ensuring the measurement data has acceptable levels of variance before making final calculations on the position of the workpiece, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurements as taught by Briegel.
Claim 6. Modified Abe discloses the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 5.
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to further cause the wire electrical discharge machine to (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
Modified Abe does not disclose set the predetermined number of times in a manner so as to become greater than the currently set predetermined number of times, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to the predetermined degree.
Briegel discloses set the predetermined number of times in a manner so as to become greater than the currently set predetermined number of times, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to the predetermined degree. (Briegel, [0040] “Of course, the probe characteristics can be continually measured even when there are enough measurements to create a desired fit, so as to, for example, create an updated fit or verify the first equation generated to describe the fit.”; and [0058] “Because the fit in a high-speed process such as described herein is updated relatively frequently (e.g., for each movement of the probe to obtain a probe coordinate), there is a benefit to reducing online calculations so as not to overburden a local device used by a coordinate measuring machine. This can be done by taking measurement values in a moving time window with a value t=0 representing the current time instant. Furthermore, the numerical accuracy of the calculations can be increased by expressing the time values in samples instead of seconds (i.e., iterations versus a particular time). The process is not dependent on a fixed sample frequency.”)
Claim 7. Modified Abe discloses the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 1.
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to further cause the wire electrical discharge machine to (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
Modified Abe does not disclose calculate a degree of variation in a plurality of the valid data, and control a notification unit so as to issue a notification to a user, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree.
Briegel discloses calculate a degree of variation in a plurality of the valid data, and (Briegel, [0077] “Another factor considered in the process described herein is the number of measurement points used in order to attenuate the noise to a reasonably accurate prediction. The number of windows can be calculated by investigating the effect of the least mean squares fit on the variance of the prediction” the resulting variance of the LMS fit is given by equation (20).)
control a notification unit so as to issue a notification to a user, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree. (Briegel, [0019] “As shown, the computer system 100 may further include a video display unit 150, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a flat panel display, a solid state display, or a cathode ray tube (CRT).”)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply a known technique of increasing accuracy through checking statistical variance in coordinate measuring machines, such as those used by a wire electrode machine, taught by Briegel, to the control unit taught by modified Abe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to yield predictable results by ensuring the measurement data has acceptable levels of variance before making final calculations on the position of the workpiece, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurements as taught by Briegel.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine as taught by modified Abe, with the notification control unit and notification unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to monitor the process with visual outputs to ensure the machine’s real-time function and reliability.
Claim 8. Modified Abe discloses the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to further cause the wire electrical discharge machine to (Abe, col. 5 line 42 “A numerical controller 30 of the wire electrical discharge machine comprises a CPU 31 for controlling the entire system, a PMC (programmable machine controller) 32, memories such as a ROM 33, RAM 34, and SRAM 35 for storing data, such as data in the machining program and various parameters, an axis control unit 37 for controlling motors in mechanical sections of a monitor 36 for various display items, and the like.”)
Modified Abe does not explicitly disclose calculate a degree of variation in at least one of a plurality of the valid data or the plurality of relative positions stored in the storage unit; evaluate, based on the calculated degree, an accuracy of the end surface position of the placed object that has been determined; and to issue, to a user, a notification of an evaluation of the accuracy of the end surface position of the placed object.
calculate a degree of variation in at least one of a plurality of the valid data or the plurality of relative positions stored in the storage unit; (Briegel, [0077] “Another factor considered in the process described herein is the number of measurement points used in order to attenuate the noise to a reasonably accurate prediction. The number of windows can be calculated by investigating the effect of the least mean squares fit on the variance of the prediction” the resulting variance of the LMS fit is given by equation (20); and [0070] “Limiting hardware factors include memory size and processing capabilities such as a number of multiplications that can be performed per sample etc. As explained previously, however, it is possible to increase the temporal length of the measurement window without increasing the memory demand by only adding every n-th data point to the buffer.”)
evaluate, based on the calculated degree, an accuracy of the end surface position of the placed object that has been determined; and (Briegel, [0039] “The fitting procedure can be implemented on a controller, wherein most of the calculations are pre-performed or performed externally, and only a linear polynomial is evaluated locally in real time.”)
to issue, to a user, a notification of an evaluation of the accuracy of the end surface position of the placed object. (Briegel, [0019] “As shown, the computer system 100 may further include a video display unit 150, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a flat panel display, a solid state display, or a cathode ray tube (CRT).”)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply a known technique of increasing accuracy through checking statistical variance in coordinate measuring machines, such as those used by a wire electrode machine, taught by Briegel, to the control unit taught by modified Abe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to yield predictable results by ensuring the measurement data has acceptable levels of variance before making final calculations on the position of the workpiece, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurements as taught by Briegel.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine as taught by modified Abe, with the notification control unit and notification unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to monitor the process with visual outputs to ensure the machine’s real-time function and reliability.
Claim 11. Modified Abe discloses the method of controlling the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 9.
further comprising a number of times setting step of setting the predetermined number of times (Abe, col. 6 line 20 “operations (1) to (4) are performed a set number of times.”)
Modified Abe does not disclose based on at least one of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object, in a manner so that the predetermined number of times becomes greater as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher.
Briegel discloses based on at least one of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object, in a manner so that the predetermined number of times becomes greater as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher. (Briegel, Fig. 5 shows “a plot of Prediction Variance against a Number of Samples to identify a desired minimum number of probe characteristic measurement data points to use in fitting the probe characteristic measurement data points in order to set a trigger to measure coordinates, according to an aspect of the present disclosure”; and [0020] “In the plot in the upper part of Figure 4A, a false trigger signal can be caused by, for example, vibration. If the false trigger signal is accepted, the probe will be stopped and coordinate measurements taken” indicating vibration causes error.)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Modified Abe differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose changing the position determination loop iteration number based on wire diameter, workpiece resistivity or surface condition. However, it is well known in machining art that parameters such as vibration, which is affected by wire diameter in the case of wire probes, cause lower detection accuracy and therefore more variance, which establishes the physical characteristic like wire diameter as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable. Briegel teaches that variance decreases as the number of samples a measurement probe takes increases, the variance may be affected by probe vibration producing a false trigger signal. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the iteration number of the position determination loop of Abe according to a result-effective variable such as wire diameter in order to predictably compensate for errors due to vibration and maintain high detection accuracy.
Claim 12. Modified Abe discloses the method of controlling the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 9.
further comprising a range setting step of setting the predetermined range(Yasuda, paragraph 71 “If the irregular discharge points 46 are detected above the upper end or under the lower end of the workpiece 14, these points are recognized as irregular values, and they are excluded from the data for calculating the slant angle of the wire electrode 1 when checking its verticality relative to the workpiece.”)
Modified Abe does not disclose based on at least one of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object, in a manner so that the predetermined range becomes narrower as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher.
Briegel discloses based on at least one of a diameter of the wire electrode, a resistivity of the placed object, or a surface roughness of the placed object, in a manner so that the predetermined range becomes narrower as the diameter of the wire electrode becomes smaller, as the resistivity of the placed object becomes higher, or as the surface roughness of the placed object becomes higher. (Briegel, Fig. 5 shows “a plot of Prediction Variance against a Number of Samples to identify a desired minimum number of probe characteristic measurement data points to use in fitting the probe characteristic measurement data points in order to set a trigger to measure coordinates, according to an aspect of the present disclosure”; and [0020] “In the plot in the upper part of Figure 4A, a false trigger signal can be caused by, for example, vibration. If the false trigger signal is accepted, the probe will be stopped and coordinate measurements taken” indicating vibration causes error.)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Modified Abe differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose setting a predetermined range based on wire diameter, workpiece resistivity or surface condition. However, it is well known in machining art that parameters such as vibration, which is affected by wire diameter in the case of wire probes, cause lower detection accuracy and therefore more variance, which establishes the physical characteristic like wire diameter as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the accuracy of the truncated data taken using methods disclosed by Yasuda, with the additional consideration of vibration due to wire thickness as taught by Briegel since, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05 II).
Claim 13. Modified Abe discloses the method of controlling the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 9.
Modified Abe does not disclose further comprising a statistical step of calculating a degree of variation in a plurality of the valid data, wherein, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree, the method returns to the relative movement control step, and the end surface detection operation is performed again for the predetermined number of times.
Briegel discloses further comprising a statistical step of calculating a degree of variation in a plurality of the valid data, (Briegel, [0077] “Another factor considered in the process described herein is the number of measurement points used in order to attenuate the noise to a reasonably accurate prediction. The number of windows can be calculated by investigating the effect of the least mean squares fit on the variance of the prediction” the resulting variance of the LMS fit is given by equation (20).)
wherein, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree, (Briegel, [0078] “From the equations above (see equation (20)), it can be concluded that the resulting variance decreases when n is increased. The number of data points is thus chosen such that the resulting variance is lower than the desired one.”; Fig. 5 shows the curve of equation (20) and a horizontal line which is the targeted prediction variance corresponding to the claimed “predetermined degree”. The line can be used to set how many data points are needed to “achieve the desired noise attenuation” (see [0078]). It shows that an increase in data points leads to less variance, in the example shown in Fig. 5, at least 74 measured points is needed to “achieve desired noise attenuation.”)
the method returns to the relative movement control step, and the end surface detection operation is performed again for the predetermined number of times. (Briegel, [0040] “If there are not yet enough measurements of the probe characteristic to create a desired fit (S225=No), the process returns to S215 as the probe continues moving and the probe characteristics are again measured at S215 and data buffered at S220.”; and [0041] “If enough measurements of the probe characteristic have been created (S225=Yes), the linear or higher order fit is created based on the buffered data of the probe characteristics at S230. An extrapolation of the fit equation then projects to the trigger value at S235, and an expected time or iteration number until the trigger value is reached is calculated at S240… Using the equation generated to describe the fit, a time until the threshold characteristic will be reached is calculated/projected.”)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply a known technique of increasing accuracy through checking statistical variance in coordinate measuring machines, such as those used by a wire electrode machine, taught by Briegel, to the control unit taught by modified Abe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to yield predictable results by ensuring the measurement data has acceptable levels of variance before making final calculations on the position of the workpiece, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurements as taught by Briegel.
Claim 14. Modified Abe discloses the method of controlling the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 13.
Modified Abe does not disclose further comprising a second number of times setting step of setting the predetermined number of times in a manner so as to become greater than the currently set predetermined number of times, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to the predetermined degree.
Briegel discloses further comprising a second number of times setting step of setting the predetermined number of times in a manner so as to become greater than the currently set predetermined number of times, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to the predetermined degree. (Briegel, [0040] “Of course, the probe characteristics can be continually measured even when there are enough measurements to create a desired fit, so as to, for example, create an updated fit or verify the first equation generated to describe the fit.”; and [0058] “Because the fit in a high-speed process such as described herein is updated relatively frequently (e.g., for each movement of the probe to obtain a probe coordinate), there is a benefit to reducing online calculations so as not to overburden a local device used by a coordinate measuring machine. This can be done by taking measurement values in a moving time window with a value t=0 representing the current time instant. Furthermore, the numerical accuracy of the calculations can be increased by expressing the time values in samples instead of seconds (i.e., iterations versus a particular time). The process is not dependent on a fixed sample frequency.”)
Claim 15. Modified Abe discloses the method of controlling the wire electrical discharge machine according to claim 9.
Briegel discloses further comprising: a statistical step of calculating a degree of variation in a plurality of the valid data, and (Briegel, [0077] “Another factor considered in the process described herein is the number of measurement points used in order to attenuate the noise to a reasonably accurate prediction. The number of windows can be calculated by investigating the effect of the least mean squares fit on the variance of the prediction” the resulting variance of the LMS fit is given by equation (20).)
a notification control step of controlling a notification unit so as to issue a notification to a user, in a case that the calculated degree of variation in the valid data is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree. (Briegel, [0019] “As shown, the computer system 100 may further include a video display unit 150, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a flat panel display, a solid state display, or a cathode ray tube (CRT).”)
Abe, Yasuda and Briegel are analogous art because they are related to the control of wire electrode discharge machines. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply a known technique of increasing accuracy through checking statistical variance in coordinate measuring machines, such as those used by a wire electrode machine, taught by Briegel, to the control unit taught by modified Abe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to yield predictable results by ensuring the measurement data has acceptable levels of variance before making final calculations on the position of the workpiece, thereby increasing the accuracy of the measurements as taught by Briegel.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine as taught by modified Abe, with the notification control unit and notification unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to monitor the process with visual outputs to ensure the machine’s real-time function and reliability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRYSTENE NHELLE B MACEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-2380. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/K.B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights