DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanuc (JP 2011-034501) in view of Amada (JP 63-130293).
Regarding claim 1.
Fanuc discloses:
A workpiece edge position detection device comprising:
a control unit(14) configured to control, while causing a processing head(2) on which a gap sensor(6) is mounted to scan along a surface of a workpiece(W), a position of the processing head in such a way as to keep a space to the workpiece constant(See claim 1), the space being detected by the gap sensor(6); and
a workpiece edge detection unit configured to detect(14), during execution of control of keeping the space constant by the control unit(14), a position of an edge of the workpiece, based on a coordinate position of the processing head when a variation in a space between the gap sensor and the workpiece becomes a predetermined threshold value or greater (Fanuc disclosing in the abstract that the device detects based on a displacement sensor sensing a displacement of a preset reference value, and [0021])
Fanuc does not disclose:
a position of an edge of the workpiece, based on a coordinate position of the processing head when a variation in a space between the gap sensor and the workpiece becomes a predetermined threshold value or greater
In related art, Amada disclose:
a position of an edge of the workpiece, based on a coordinate position of the processing head when a variation in a space between the gap sensor and the workpiece becomes a predetermined threshold value or greater(disclosing that a shift angle of a work piece affects the processing precision of a laser processor. See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to detect the edge of the work piece of Fanuc and maintain it at less an a predetermined threshold for the obvious benefit of detecting the edge of the work piece of Fanuc. Thus, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2.
Fanuc discloses all of the features of claim 1:
Fanuc does not disclose:
The workpiece edge position detection device according to claim 1, wherein the variation is an amount acquired from an output of the gap sensor.
However, In relate art, Amada discloses:
(disclosing that a shift angle of a work piece affects the processing precision of a laser processor. See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to detect the edge of the work piece of Fanuc and maintain it at less a predetermined threshold for the obvious benefit of detecting the edge of the work piece of Fanuc. Thus, the features of claim 2 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3.
Fanuc discloses all of the features of claim 2.
Fanuc does not disclose:
The workpiece edge position detection device according to claim 2, wherein the variation is an error amount when the control unit performs control in such a way as to keep a space to the workpiece constant.
However, Fanuc discloses that the device may detect a distance to the work piece. It would have been obvious to control the device to keep the distance constant for the obvious benefit of ensuring the cuts are made the same, or that the machining head has the same access to all areas of the work piece. As such, the recited features would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12.
A workpiece edge position detection method comprising:
controlling, (14) while causing a processing head (2) on which a gap sensor(6) is mounted to scan along a surface of a workpiece(W), a position of the processing head in such a way as to keep a space to the workpiece constant(See claim 1), the space being detected by the gap sensor(6) ;
acquiring a variation(14), in a space between the gap sensor and the workpiece during execution of control of keeping the space constant; and detecting a position of an edge of the workpiece, based on a coordinate position of the processing head when the acquired variation becomes a predetermined threshold value or greater.(Fanuc disclosing in the abstract that the device detects based on a displacement sensor sensing a displacement of a preset reference value, and [0021])
Fanuc does not disclose:
acquiring a variation, in a space between the gap sensor and the workpiece during execution of control of keeping the space constant; and detecting a position of an edge of the workpiece, based on a coordinate position of the processing head when the acquired variation becomes a predetermined threshold value or greater.
In related art, Amada disclose:
acquiring a variation, in a space between the gap sensor and the workpiece during execution of control of keeping the space constant; and detecting a position of an edge of the workpiece, based on a coordinate position of the processing head when the acquired variation becomes a predetermined threshold value or greater.
(disclosing that a shift angle of a work piece affects the processing precision of a laser processor. See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to detect the edge of the work piece of Fanuc and maintain it at less an a predetermined threshold for the obvious benefit of detecting the edge of the work piece of Fanuc. Thus, the features of claim 12 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanuc (JP 2011-034501) in view of Amada (JP 63-130293) further in view of Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 8,957,890).
Regarding claim 6.
Fanuc discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Fanuc does not disclose:
The workpiece edge position detection device according to claim 1, wherein the variation is acquired by time-differentiating a value representing the space between the gap sensor and the workpiece.
In related art, Yamamoto discloses that time-differentiating a senses value may be used to determine a spacing. See col. 2, lines 17-26. IT would have been obvious to use the time-differentiating of Yamamoto in the device of Fanuc for the obvious benefit of determining measured values. Furthermore, Yamamoto discloses that the time-differentiated values may be used to acquire a value desired by a user see col. 6, lines 4-26. Thus, the features of claim 6 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7.
Fanuc discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Fanuc does not disclose:
The workpiece edge position detection device according to claim 6, wherein the variation is a rate of increase of an error amount when the control unit performs control in such a way as to keep a space to the workpiece constant.
In related art, Yamamoto discloses that time-differentiating a senses value may be used to determine a spacing. See col. 2, lines 17-26. IT would have been obvious to use the time-differentiating of Yamamoto in the device of Fanuc for the obvious benefit of determining measured values. It would have been obvious to use the time-differentiating calculations as an intended use, without affecting the operation of the device. See MPEP 2111. Thus, the features of claim 6 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-11 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form.
The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
the prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
wherein the variation is an amount acquired from positional information of a motor driving the processing head, as recited in claim 4;
the variation is speed of the processing head in an axial direction perpendicular to a surface of the workpiece, as recited in claim 8;
the variation is a difference between speed of the processing head in an axial direction perpendicular to a surface of the workpiece and a rate of increase of a space to the workpiece when the control unit performs control in such a way as to keep the space constant, as recited in claim 9;
the variation is acquired by dividing, by speed of the processing head in a scanning direction of the processing head, a difference between speed of the processing head in an axial direction perpendicular to a surface of the workpiece and a rate of increase of a space to the workpiece when the control unit performs control in such a way as to keep the space constant, as recited in claim 10; and
a workpiece warping detection unit configured to detect an area including warping on the workpiece, based on the variation, wherein the control unit sets an area excluding an area including the warping on the workpiece as a processable area, as recited in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898