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 Arguments
112 Rejection
Based on applicant’s amendments, the previously set forth 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi et al. (JP 2021053772A) in view of Kitano (2021/0293613), further in view of Lin et al. (CN 106739126A) and Ishikawa et al. (4,469,164).
With respect to claim 1, Deguchi et al. teaches an information processing apparatus (3) comprising circuitry (i.e. processing circuitry indirectly taught by the disclosed calculation unit 3) configured to: obtain detected information (i.e. sensor data 2) representing a detected vibration (vibration; [0028]) generated in processing (i.e. during punching; [0030]) on a workpiece (51); detect (using control logic taught by Deguchi), based on the detected information (from sensor 41), a start timing (T1) at which a punch [0060] has started striking the workpiece (51) and a cracking timing (T2; [0040]) at which the punch has cracked the workpiece (as Deguchi et al. teaches peak time indicates a crack is generated, usually do to a worn tool); calculate a time difference between the start timing and the cracking timing (as Deguchi teaches calculating the difference of the feature amounts using of the collected and time information; [0068-0069]); compare the time difference and reference information [0069]; and control a display (70) to
display a comparison result indicating a result of the comparison between the time difference and the reference information (as Deguchi et al. teaches displaying the result of the diagnosis, which involves the comparison between the calculated time difference and the result indicating wear relative to a wear degree calculation model [0070-0073]), wherein the reference information represents a range of time difference (as seen in Fig. 12, the graph defines a range of wear the calculation unit uses to diagnosis the state of the punch), and the circuitry (of the control logic) is further configured to indicate that the punch is worn in response to when the time difference exceeding an upper limit of the range of the time difference (when the calculated difference exceeds 64 as seen in Fig. 12, the display will indicated the tool requires replacement; [0048-0051]).
Deguchi et al. remains silent regarding display[ing] one or more waveform information sets, each waveform information set including a first vibration waveform that indicates the start timing, a second vibration waveform that indicates the cracking timing, and display a time difference indication as a numerical value, numerical value being indicative of the time difference based on a difference between a first peak of the first vibration waveform and a second peak of the second vibration waveform and the circuitry is further configured to indicate that a machining is defective in response to the time difference being less than a lower limit of the range of time difference.
Kitano teaches a similar apparatus that includes a display (68) that displays one or more waveform information sets (Kitano teaches in [0093] displaying a current waveform 212 and a reference waveform 202), each waveform information set (i.e. the current waveform 212 and the reference waveform 202) including a first vibration waveform (212) that indicates a start timing (i.e. as both the reference and current waveforms have a start period defined by point A, which indicates the start of contact; [0069]), a second vibration waveform that indicates the cracking timing (as the current waveform reads on a second vibration waveform that depicts a crack, depicted in Fig. 6), and a time difference indication (i.e. an outputted display on the display; [0093]) the time difference indication being indicative of the time difference based on a difference between a first peak of the first vibration waveform and a second peak of the second vibration waveform (as the outputted display includes time points that indicate the crack and the alert indicates an abnormality based on the time difference between the reference and the current waveform, as depicted; [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic and display of Deguchi et al. to include the control logic and display configuration of Kitano such that the collected and reference waveform sets and the determined time difference indicating an abnormality are displayed. Furthermore, such a modification would be advantageous because displaying the waveform sets allows a user to observe the detection process in real-time, thereby enabling the user to prevent catastrophic damage to the workpiece or the tool itself.
Deguchi et al. as modified remains silent regarding the displayed time difference is a numerical value and the circuitry is further configured to indicate that a machining is defective in response to the time difference being less than a lower limit of the range of time difference.
Lin et al. teaches a similar apparatus that monitors aspects of a punching operation and displays a calculated time difference (as read in the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic and display features of Deguchi et al as modified by Kitano, such that the determined times A and B of Kitano, the calculated difference is displayed, as taught by Lin et al. because Lin et al. teaches such a modification allows for information to be clearly displayed, thereby improving the overall punch monitoring; Abstract.
Deguchi et al. as modified remains silent regarding the circuitry is further configured to indicate that a machining is defective in response to the time difference being less than a lower limit of the range of time difference.
Ishikawa et al. teaches a similar apparatus with circuitry configured that machining is defective in response to a value being less than a lower limit of the range of time value (see Fig. 4a, step 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the circuitry such that the taught time difference is compared against upper and lower limits, as taught in Ishikawa et al. because Ishikawa et al. teaches such a modification allows for malfunctioning detection to occur in real-time, thereby preventing the manufacturing of defective products, Col. 1 lines 34-41 and Col. 2 lines 19-29.
The method steps of claim 11 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, Deguchi et al. as modified teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of program codes [0017] which, when executed by one or more processors (of a CPU, as modified), causes the one or more processors to perform the rejected method of claim 11 during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus, wherein the detected information includes a vibration waveform of the detected vibration (Deguchi et al. which teaches the information including a vibration shock wave [0028]), and wherein the circuitry (3) is configured to detect the start timing and the cracking timing based on an amplitude of the vibration waveform (i.e. peak).
With respect to claim 3, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry (3) is further configured to store, in a memory (i.e. storage device; [0044]), the start timing and the cracking timing (T1 and T2).
With respect to claim 4, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry (3) is configured to store, in the memory (i.e. storage device; [0044]), the start timing and the cracking timing (T1 and T2) in association with identification information identifying the detected information (i.e. vibration peak shockwave and time information; [0046]).
With respect to claim 5, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry (3) is further configured to control the display (70) to display at least one of timing information indicating the start timing and the cracking timing (as seen in Fig. 5a; [0078]).
With respect to claim 6, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry (3) is further configured to control the display (70) to display the timing information (T1 and T2, as seen in Fig. 5a).
With respect to claim 7, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry (i.e. the circuitry of 3) is further configured to: receive an operation of designating the identification information identifying the detected information (as the user is able to specify information regarding the tool and time; [0026]), on a screen section (of the display) that receives the operation of designating (as entered by the user); retrieve, from a memory (i.e. storage device; [0044]), the timing information (as entered by the user) and display the timing information (as seen in Fig. 5a).
With respect to claim 8, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus wherein the identification information identifying the detected information includes shearing time information indicating a time at which the punch has performed shearing of the workpiece (as T2 is capable of identifying shearing time; [0040]).
With respect to claim 9, Deguchi et al., the information processing apparatus wherein the circuitry (i.e. the circuitry of unit 3) is further configured to transmit, to an external device external (i.e. a computer/display 70) to the information processing apparatus (3), the timing information indicating the start timing and the cracking timing (T1 and T2).
With respect to claim 10, Deguchi et al. teaches an information processing system (seen in Fig. 13) comprising; an information processing apparatus (3) including circuitry (i.e. processing circuitry indirectly taught by the disclosed calculation unit 3) configured to: obtain detected information (i.e. sensor data 2) representing a detected vibration (vibration; [0028]) generated in processing (i.e. during punching; [0030]) on a workpiece (51); detect (using control logic taught by Deguchi), based on the detected information (from sensor 41), a start timing (T1) at which a punch [0060] has started striking the workpiece (51) and a cracking timing (T2; [0040]) at which the punch has cracked the workpiece (as Deguchi et al. teaches peak time indicates a crack is generated, usually do to a worn tool); calculate a time difference between the start timing and the cracking timing (as Deguchi teaches calculating the difference of the feature amounts using of the collected and time information; [0068-0069]); compare the time difference and reference information [0069], the reference information representing a range of time difference (as seen in Fig. 12, the graph defines a range of wear the calculation unit uses to diagnosis the state of the punch); determine that the punch is worn when the time difference exceeds an upper limit of the range of the time difference (when the calculated difference exceeds 64 as seen in Fig. 12, the display will indicated the tool requires replacement; [0048-0051]); and transmit (as seen in Fig. 13 by the depicted directional arrow indication information being sent to a computer/display 70) a comparison result indicating a result of the comparison between the time difference and the reference information and communication terminal (found within the 70) including second circuity (as indirectly taught) configured to receive the comparison result (indicated how warn the punch is); and control a display (70) to display the comparison result [0048-0051].
Deguchi et al. remains silent regarding display[ing] one or more waveform information sets, each waveform information set including a first vibration waveform that indicates the start timing, a second vibration waveform that indicates the cracking timing, and display a time difference indication indicating the time difference based on a difference between a first peak of the first vibration waveform and a second peak of the second vibration waveform.
Kitano teaches a similar apparatus that includes a display (68) that displays one or more waveform information sets (Kitano teaches in [0093] displaying a current waveform 212 and a reference waveform 202), each waveform information set (i.e. the current waveform 212 and the reference waveform 202) including a first vibration waveform (212) that indicates a start timing (i.e. as both the reference and current waveforms have a start period defined by point A, which indicates the start of contact; [0069]), a second vibration waveform that indicates the cracking timing (as the current waveform reads on a second vibration waveform that depicts a crack, depicted in Fig. 6), and display (as seen in Fig. 6) a time difference indication (i.e. an outputted display on the display; [0093]) indicating the time difference based on a difference between a first peak of the first vibration waveform and a second peak of the second vibration waveform (as the outputted display and alert indicates an abnormality based on the time difference between the reference and the current waveform; [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic and display of Deguchi et al. to include the control logic and display configuration of Kitano such that the collected and reference waveform sets and the determined time difference indicating an abnormality are displayed. Furthermore, such a modification would be advantageous because displaying the waveform sets allows a user to observe the detection process in real-time, thereby enabling the user to prevent catastrophic damage to the workpiece or the tool itself.
Deguchi et al. as modified remains silent regarding the displayed time difference is a numerical value.
Lin et al. teaches a similar apparatus that monitors aspects of a punching operation and displays a calculated time difference (as read in the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control logic and display features of Deguchi et al as modified by Kitano, such that the determined times A and B of Kitano, the calculated difference is displayed, as taught by Lin et al. because Lin et al. teaches such a modification allows for information to be clearly displayed, thereby improving the overall punch monitoring; Abstract.
With respect to claim 15, Deguchi et al. as modified by Kitano and Lin et al. teach all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remain silent regarding wherein the time difference indication is further displayed as a double-headed arrow between the first peak of the first vibration waveform and the second peak of the second vibration waveform.
The need to display detected information is well known, as both Kitano and Lin et al. teach displaying the time and a difference between the time of a start and end of a crack formation. Because both Kitano and Lin et al. teaches all the recited variables needed for determining the difference and the displaying of those variable, the examiner has concluded the recited format, i.e. double-headed arrow, in which the data is displayed requires only a finite number of potential options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to display the calculated time difference as a double-sided arrow, in light of the prior art. As there are only a finite number of predictable solutions for how data can be displayed between two points in time, thereby providing a reasonable expectation of success when displaying the calculated time difference in the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (2008/0092620) which teaches punch monitoring to ensure quality during formation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights