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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2023,is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledge. Group II (Claims 7-12) is withdrawn from consideration.
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:
“control unit configured to control, in accordance with a machining condition, a relative speed of the wire electrode with respect to the workpiece, and an electric discharge energy generated in the inter-electrode gap” in claim 1 (lines 6-8). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to control, in accordance with a machining condition, a relative speed of the wire electrode with respect to the workpiece, and an electric discharge energy generated in the inter-electrode gap” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “control unit” will be interpreted as “computer” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0025: “The control device 26 includes a computer equipped with an arithmetic processing unit and a storage, neither of which are shown. The arithmetic processing unit includes, for example, a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), 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 hard disk, a solid state drive (SSD), or the like.”.
“voltage detection unit configured to detect a voltage in the inter-electrode gap” in claim 1 (line 9). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to detect a voltage in the inter-electrode gap” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification and the drawings of the Instant Application do not describe the structure(s) of the “voltage detection unit”, see detailed explanation in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
“electric discharge determination unit configured to, in a case that the wire electrode is approaching a machining end surface of the workpiece in order to machine the workpiece, determine, for each unit time period, whether or not the electric discharge has occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, based on the voltage in the inter-electrode gap that has been detected” in claim 1 (lines 10-14). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to, in a case that the wire electrode is approaching a machining end surface of the workpiece in order to machine the workpiece, determine, for each unit time period, whether or not the electric discharge has occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, based on the voltage in the inter-electrode gap that has been detected” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “electric discharge determination unit” will be interpreted as “part of the computer that is configured to be realized by a program that is stored in the storage being executed by the arithmetic processing unit” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0025: “The electric discharge determination unit 28, the counting unit 30, the machining condition setting unit 32, the electric discharge induction voltage control unit 34, the machining current control unit 36, and the servo controller 38 are realized by a program that is stored in the storage being executed by the arithmetic processing unit.”, and as shown in Fig.1.
“counting unit configured to count a number of times that it is determined that the electric discharge has occurred” in claim 1 (lines 15-16) and “counting unit resets the counted number of times” in claims 2 (line 3) & 3 (line 4). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to count a number of times that it is determined that the electric discharge has occurred” / “resets the counted number of times” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “counting unit” will be interpreted as “part of the computer that is configured to be realized by a program that is stored in the storage being executed by the arithmetic processing unit” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0025: “The electric discharge determination unit 28, the counting unit 30, the machining condition setting unit 32, the electric discharge induction voltage control unit 34, the machining current control unit 36, and the servo controller 38 are realized by a program that is stored in the storage being executed by the arithmetic processing unit.”, and as shown in Fig.1.
“machining condition setting unit configured to set the machining condition to a first condition in the case that the wire electrode is approaching the machining end surface, and to set the machining condition to a second condition that differs from the first condition, in a case that the counted number of times has reached a predetermined number of times” in claim 1 (lines 17-20) and “machining condition setting unit sets the machining condition to a third condition that differs from the second condition, in a case that a movement distance of the wire electrode with respect to the workpiece has reached a predetermined distance” in claim 5 (lines 2-5). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to set the machining condition to a first condition in the case that the wire electrode is approaching the machining end surface, and to set the machining condition to a second condition that differs from the first condition, in a case that the counted number of times has reached a predetermined number of times” / “sets the machining condition to a third condition that differs from the second condition, in a case that a movement distance of the wire electrode with respect to the workpiece has reached a predetermined distance” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “machining condition setting unit” will be interpreted as “part of the computer that is configured to be realized by a program that is stored in the storage being executed by the arithmetic processing unit” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0025: “The electric discharge determination unit 28, the counting unit 30, the machining condition setting unit 32, the electric discharge induction voltage control unit 34, the machining current control unit 36, and the servo controller 38 are realized by a program that is stored in the storage being executed by the arithmetic processing unit.”, and as shown in Fig.1.
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.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “voltage detection unit configured to detect a voltage in the inter-electrode gap” in line 9. Claim limitation “voltage detection unit configured to detect a voltage in the inter-electrode gap” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the Claim Interpretation section above.
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Disclosure that an invention "may be controlled by known differential pressure, valving and control equipment" was not a disclosure of any structure corresponding to the claimed "control means for operating [a] valving " and the claim was held indefinite).
Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph).
The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs. See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 493 (CCPA 1973) ("[The sixth paragraph of section 112] cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description requirement of the first paragraph … or to the definiteness requirement found in the second paragraph of section 112. Means-plus-function language can be used in the claims, but the claims must still accurately define the invention.").
In this case, the specification of the Instant Application describes: “The voltage detection unit 18 detects a voltage in the inter-electrode gap (hereinafter, also referred to as an inter- electrode voltage)” in Par.0017. However, the structure of the voltage detection unit is not described in the specification. Furthermore, the drawings of the Instant Application use a rectangular box to represent the voltage detection unit 18. Therefore, the specification and drawings of the Instant Application do not describe and illustrate what structure(s) define the voltage detection unit. Rather, the specification merely repeats substantially the claimed language. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to what structures correspond to the claimed function. As a result of this deficiency, claim 1 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependent on claim 1.
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 1-6 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 1 (line 15), claim 2 (line 2), claim 3 (line 3) recite the limitation “it”. It is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “voltage detection unit configured to detect a voltage in the inter-electrode gap” in line 9. Claim limitation “voltage detection unit configured to detect a voltage in the inter-electrode gap” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See the Claim Interpretation section above. 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. Specifically, the specification of the Instant Application describes: “The voltage detection unit 18 detects a voltage in the inter-electrode gap (hereinafter, also referred to as an inter- electrode voltage)” in Par.0017. However, the structure of the voltage detection unit is not described in the specification. Furthermore, the drawings of the Instant Application use a rectangular box to represent the voltage detection unit 18. Therefore, the specification and drawings of the Instant Application do not describe and illustrate what structure(s) define the voltage detection unit. It is unclear how to determine the functional equivalents. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0143432 A1) in view of Inoue (U.S. Patent No. 3,997,753 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa discloses a wire electrical discharge machine (wire electrical discharge machine 10, Nishikawa Fig.1) configured to perform electrical discharge machining on a workpiece (workpiece W, Nishikawa Fig.1) by applying a voltage to an inter-electrode gap between a wire electrode (wire electrode 14, Nishikawa Fig.1) and the workpiece (workpiece W, Nishikawa Fig.1) and thereby generating an electric discharge (Nishikawa Par.0021 discloses: “The wire electrical discharge machine 10 is a machine tool that generates electrical discharge by applying voltage across an electrode gap between a wire electrode 14 and a workpiece W to thereby perform electrical discharge machining on the workpiece W.”) while causing the wire electrode (wire electrode 14, Nishikawa Fig.1) to be moved with respect to the workpiece (workpiece W, Nishikawa Fig.1) (Nishikawa Par.0022 discloses: “the wire electrical discharge machine 10 has an X-axis motor 24 and a Y-axis motor 26 which move a worktable 22 on which the workpiece W is fixed, so as to move the workpiece W relative to the wire electrode 14”. It is noted that the Instant Application defines the workpiece is moved with respect to the wire electrode in Par.0015, specifically, Par.0015 of the Instant Application describes: “The workpiece 14 is placed on a non-illustrated work table. By a servo motor 16 moving the work table in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction, the wire electrode 12 moves relatively with respect to the workpiece 14.”. Therefore, the Instant Application and the prior art Nishikawa relative movements between the wire electrode and the workpiece are equivalent.), the wire electrical discharge machine (wire electrical discharge machine 10, Nishikawa Fig.1) comprising:
a control unit (machining speed setting unit 28 and XY axis motor control unit 34, Nishikawa Fig.1) configured to control, in accordance with a machining condition (machining condition includes setting machining path, route, access points (i.e., positions on the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W); Nishikawa Pars.0025-0026), a relative speed of the wire electrode (wire electrode 14, Nishikawa Fig.1) with respect to the workpiece (workpiece W, Nishikawa Fig.1) (Nishikawa Par.0023 discloses: “The machining speed setting unit 28 sets the machining speed at which the workpiece W is relatively moved to the wire electrode 14 during electrical discharge machining.”, and Nishikawa Par.0026 discloses: “The XY axis motor control unit 34 controls the X-axis motor 24 and the Y-axis motor 26 in accordance with the machining path R set by the machining path setting unit 32 and the machining speed set by the machining speed setting unit 28.”. It is noted that the Instant Application defines the workpiece is moved with respect to the wire electrode in Par.0015, specifically, Par.0015 of the Instant Application describes: “The workpiece 14 is placed on a non-illustrated work table. By a servo motor 16 moving the work table in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction, the wire electrode 12 moves relatively with respect to the workpiece 14.”. Therefore, the Instant Application and the prior art Nishikawa relative movements between the wire electrode and the workpiece are equivalent.), and an electric discharge energy generated in the inter-electrode gap (Nishikawa discloses the controller 12 that governs operation of the machining power supply 16 which applies voltage across the inter-electrode gap to generate electric discharge [Nishikawa Fig.1 & Pars.0021-0022]; further, the gap voltage and the discharge count information (via the electrode gap voltage acquisition unit 18 and the discharge counter 20) are received, and the machining speed setting unit 28 and XY axis motor control unit 34 adjust machining parameters such as machining speed based on these values. Since the electric discharge energy in EDM is directly determined by electrical parameters including applied voltage and discharge occurrence (i.e., discharge count), thus, the machining speed setting unit 28 and the XY axis motor control unit 34 configured to control electric discharge energy generated in the inter-electrode gap.);
a voltage detection unit (electrode gap voltage acquisition unit 18, Nishikawa Fig.1) configured to detect a voltage in the inter-electrode gap (Nishikawa Par.0021 discloses: “an electrode gap voltage acquisition unit 18 for acquiring the voltage between the wire electrode 14 and the workpiece W (which will be also referred to as the gap voltage)”);
a counting unit (discharge counter 20, Nishikawa Fig.1) configured to count a number of times that it is determined that the electric discharge has occurred (Nishikawa Par.0022 discloses: “a discharge counter 20 for acquiring the number of discharges across the electrode gap (which will be hereinafter referred to as the discharge count). The discharge counter 20 acquires, as the discharge count, the number of times of discharge generated across the electrode gap during electrical discharge machining, for example, based on change in the voltage output from the machining power supply 16.”); and
a machining condition setting unit (machining path setting unit 32, Nishikawa Fig.1) configured to set the machining condition (Nishikawa discloses the machining path setting unit 32 sets the route and access points, specifically, Nishikawa Par.0025 discloses: “The machining path setting unit 32 sets the route defined in advance by the NC program as a machining path R. The machining path setting unit 32 sets an access point A1, i.e., a position on the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W when the wire electrode 14 is moved close to the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W from the machining start point S in the finishing at and after the third machining, and a departure point A2, i.e., a position on the machining surface of the workpiece W when the wire electrode 14 is moved away from the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W and returned to the machining start point S.”) to a first condition (overcut Co, Nishikawa Figs.3-4) in the case that the wire electrode (wire electrode 14, Nishikawa Fig.1) is approaching the machining end surface (Nishikawa Par.0031 discloses: “FIG. 4 shows a graph of a state in which an overcut Co occurs in a region before the approach point A in the machining direction and an undercut Cu occurs in a region after the approach point A in the machining direction.”, and Nishikawa Par.0037 discloses: “the overcut Co often occurs in the region before the approach point A in the machining direction because the wire electrode 14 comes close to the approach point A twice, i.e., at the start of machining and at the end of machining, resulting in excessive machining of the machining surface Wf”), and to set the machining condition (Nishikawa discloses the machining path setting unit 32 sets the route and access points, specifically, Nishikawa Par.0025 discloses: “The machining path setting unit 32 sets the route defined in advance by the NC program as a machining path R. The machining path setting unit 32 sets an access point A1, i.e., a position on the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W when the wire electrode 14 is moved close to the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W from the machining start point S in the finishing at and after the third machining, and a departure point A2, i.e., a position on the machining surface of the workpiece W when the wire electrode 14 is moved away from the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W and returned to the machining start point S.”) to a second condition (undercut Cu, Nishikawa Figs.3-4) that differs from the first condition (overcut Co, Nishikawa Figs.3-4), in a case that the counted number of times has reached a predetermined number of times (Nishikawa Par.0032 discloses: “In the second machining, the machining path setting unit 32 specifies overcuts Co and undercuts Cu on the machining surface Wf according to the discharge count when the wire electrode 14 is moving on the machining path R. The machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an undercut Cu, a portion where the discharge count is greater than a first predetermined discharge count. Further, the machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an overcut Co, a portion where the discharge count is smaller than a second predetermined discharge count. It should be noted that the first predetermined discharge count is set to be greater than the second predetermined discharge count.”).
Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose:
an electric discharge determination unit configured to, in a case that the wire electrode is approaching a machining end surface of the workpiece in order to machine the workpiece, determine, for each unit time period, whether or not the electric discharge has occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, based on the voltage in the inter-electrode gap that has been detected;
Inoue teaches a wire electrical discharge machine (Inoue Title & Abstract) comprising:
an electric discharge determination unit (“system for the control of an electrical discharge machining (EDM) apparatus”, Inoue Abstract) configured to, in a case that the wire electrode is approaching a machining end surface of the workpiece in order to machine the workpiece, determine, for each unit time period, whether or not the electric discharge has occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, based on the voltage in the inter-electrode gap that has been detected (Inoue Abstract teaches: “system for the control of an electrical discharge machining (EDM) apparatus in which a parameter representing the condition of the machining gap is detected over a predetermined checking period, the discharge is evaluated and a good or effective discharge is discriminated from a poor or unsatisfactory discharge, and the system is controlled in response to the relative rates of occurrence of the satisfactory or unsatisfactory discharges.”, and more specifically, Inoue Col.3 lines 24-32 teaches: “measuring at least one of the gap variables (gap resistance, gap impedance, discharge current, discharge voltage or development of a high frequency component across the gap) over only a selected limited portion of each discharge to produce a signal representing the measured variable. A circuit is then triggered with this signal to produce an output when the signal bears a predetermined relation to a reference value preset at the circuit.”; therefore, Inoue teaches detecting voltage in the inter-electrode gap and using it to determine whether a discharge (good/abnormal) occurred. Since Inoue Col.3 lines 24-28 teaches: “measuring at least one of the gap variables (gap resistance, gap impedance, discharge current, discharge voltage or development of a high frequency component across the gap) over only a selected limited portion of each discharge”, Inoue Abstract teaches: “the condition of the machining gap is detected over a predetermined checking period”, and Inoue Col.6 lines 11-17 teaches: “The gap monitor 35 comprises three threshold discriminators 35a, 35b and 35c for inspecting gap characteristics during a given time period within each machining pulse. To this end, delay means 36 is provided which permits these discriminators to respond to a gap signal selectively during such a time period.”; therefore, Inoue teaches each unit time period. Additionally, Inoue Col.2 lines 30-34 teaches: “distinguish between normal and abnormal pulses in each pulse cycle by determining whether the discharge voltage or the discharge current is in a predetermined range and whether the discharge contains the high-frequency component mentioned earlier”, Inoue Col.2 lines 65-Col.3 line 1 teaches: “a gap condition (discharge voltage, discharge current, gap resistance, gap impedance or presence of high-frequency component) is measured or evaluated over a predetermined checking period and satisfactory and unsatisfactory pulses are discriminated”, and Inoue Col.6 lines 36-39 teaches: “permit a development thereacross of a signal proportional to the existing gap voltage only for the time period determined by the discharge time of capacitor 36a”. Therefore, Inoue teaches electric discharge determination unit configured to, in a case that the wire electrode is approaching a machining end surface of the workpiece in order to machine the workpiece, determine, for each unit time period, whether or not the electric discharge has occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, based on the voltage in the inter-electrode gap that has been detected);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire electrical discharge machine of Nishikawa, by adding electric discharge determination unit configured to, in a case that the wire electrode is approaching a machining end surface of the workpiece in order to machine the workpiece, determine, for each unit time period, whether or not the electric discharge has occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, based on the voltage in the inter-electrode gap that has been detected, as taught by Inoue, in order to improve the accuracy of counting discharge events, thereby enabling more precise and reliable control of machining conditions. Therefore, improve the performance of the wire electrical discharge machine.
Regarding claim 4, Nishikawa in view of Inoue teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Nishikawa also teaches:
wherein the second condition (undercut Cu, Nishikawa Figs.3-4) is a condition in which the relative speed of the wire electrode (wire electrode 14, Nishikawa Fig.1) with respect to the workpiece (workpiece W, Nishikawa Fig.1) is slower than the relative speed in the first condition (overcut Co, Nishikawa Figs.3-4) (Nishikawa Par.0023 discloses: “The machining speed is set according to the gap voltage, and the machining speed is set to be higher as the gap voltage is greater. It should be noted that when the discharge count at the electrode gap is smaller due to a long distance between the wire electrode 14 and the workpiece W, the electrode gap voltage becomes higher.”, and Nishikawa Par.0032 discloses: “The machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an undercut Cu, a portion where the discharge count is greater than a first predetermined discharge count. Further, the machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an overcut Co, a portion where the discharge count is smaller than a second predetermined discharge count. It should be noted that the first predetermined discharge count is set to be greater than the second predetermined discharge count.”; therefore, the overcut Co has smaller discharge count than the undercut Cu, this is also shown in Nishikawa Fig.4; thus, the electrode gap voltage of the overcut Co becomes higher than the electrode gap voltage of the undercut Cu; accordingly, the machining speed of the overcut Co is higher than the machining speed of the undercut Cu. It is noted that the machining speed is the relative speed of the wire electrode 14 with respect to the workpiece W, as indicated by Nishikawa Par.0023 or as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, Nishikawa discloses the undercut Cu is a condition in which the relative speed of the wire electrode 14 with respect to the workpiece W is slower than the relative speed in the overcut Co.).
Regarding claim 5, Nishikawa in view of Inoue teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Nishikawa also teaches:
wherein, after having set the machining condition to the second condition (undercut Cu, Nishikawa Figs.3-4), the machining condition setting unit (machining path setting unit 32, Nishikawa Fig.1) sets the machining condition to a third condition (third condition is normal machining condition, not overcut or undercut; Nishikawa Par.0032 discloses: “The machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an undercut Cu, a portion where the discharge count is greater than a first predetermined discharge count. Further, the machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an overcut Co, a portion where the discharge count is smaller than a second predetermined discharge count. It should be noted that the first predetermined discharge count is set to be greater than the second predetermined discharge count.”, therefore, Nishikawa discloses two thresholds necessarily defines three distinct regions, including a region between the first threshold and the second threshold corresponding to normal machining condition (i.e., not overcut or undercut)) that differs from the second condition (undercut Cu, Nishikawa Figs.3-4), in a case that a movement distance of the wire electrode (wire electrode 14, Nishikawa Fig.1) with respect to the workpiece (workpiece W, Nishikawa Fig.1) has reached a predetermined distance (Nishikawa Par.0023 discloses: “The machining speed is set according to the gap voltage, and the machining speed is set to be higher as the gap voltage is greater. It should be noted that when the discharge count at the electrode gap is smaller due to a long distance between the wire electrode 14 and the workpiece W, the electrode gap voltage becomes higher.”, therefore, Nishikawa discloses that the distance between the wire electrode 14 and the machining surface Wf of the workpiece W is determined based on the discharge count, such that a higher discharge count corresponds to a smaller distance and a lower discharge count corresponds to a larger distance. Nishikawa further defines machining states using predetermined discharge count thresholds, including undercut and overcut conditions, specifically, Nishikawa Par.0032 discloses: “The machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an undercut Cu, a portion where the discharge count is greater than a first predetermined discharge count. Further, the machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an overcut Co, a portion where the discharge count is smaller than a second predetermined discharge count. It should be noted that the first predetermined discharge count is set to be greater than the second predetermined discharge count.”. Because these thresholds define boundaries of discharge count values, and discharge count directly corresponds to distance; therefore, the thresholds define a corresponding range of distances between the wire electrode 14 and the workpiece W. Accordingly, a region between the predetermined thresholds corresponds to an intermediate, predetermined distance range associated with normal machining condition.).
Regarding claim 6, Nishikawa in view of Inoue teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, Nishikawa also teaches:
wherein the third condition (normal machining condition (i.e., not overcut or undercut), as explained previously in the rejection of claim 5 above) is at least one of a condition in which the relative speed of the wire electrode (wire electrode 14, Nishikawa Fig.1) with respect to the workpiece (workpiece W, Nishikawa Fig.1) is faster than the relative speed in the second condition (undercut Cu, Nishikawa Figs.3-4), or a condition in which the electric discharge energy generated in the inter-electrode gap is higher than the electric discharge energy in the second condition (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of a condition in which the relative speed of the wire electrode with respect to the workpiece is faster than the relative speed in the second condition, or a condition in which the electric discharge energy generated in the inter-electrode gap is higher than the electric discharge energy in the second condition” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Nishikawa discloses the third condition is at least one of a condition in which the relative speed of the wire electrode with respect to the workpiece is faster than the relative speed in the second condition because Nishikawa Par.0023 discloses: “The machining speed is set according to the gap voltage, and the machining speed is set to be higher as the gap voltage is greater. It should be noted that when the discharge count at the electrode gap is smaller due to a long distance between the wire electrode 14 and the workpiece W, the electrode gap voltage becomes higher.”, and Nishikawa Par.0032 discloses: “The machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an undercut Cu, a portion where the discharge count is greater than a first predetermined discharge count. Further, the machining path setting unit 32 specifies, as an overcut Co, a portion where the discharge count is smaller than a second predetermined discharge count. It should be noted that the first predetermined discharge count is set to be greater than the second predetermined discharge count.”; therefore, the overcut Co has smaller discharge count than the undercut Cu, this is also shown in Nishikawa Fig.4. It is noted that the region between the first predetermined discharge count and the second predetermined discharge count corresponding to normal machining condition (i.e., not overcut or undercut), as explained previously in the rejection of claim 5 above. Therefore, the normal machining condition (i.e., not overcut or undercut) has smaller discharge count than the undercut Cu. Thus, the electrode gap voltage of the normal machining condition becomes higher than the electrode gap voltage of the undercut Cu; accordingly, the machining speed of the normal machining condition is higher than the machining speed of the undercut Cu. It is noted that the machining speed is the relative speed of the wire electrode 14 with respect to the workpiece W, as indicated by Nishikawa Par.0023 or as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, Nishikawa teaches the third condition is condition in which the relative speed of the wire electrode 14 with respect to the workpiece W is faster than the relative speed in the second condition).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0143432 A1) in view of Inoue (U.S. Patent No. 3,997,753 A), and further in view of D’Amario (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0061031 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa in view of Inoue teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein, in a case that it is determined that the electric discharge has not occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, the counting unit resets the counted number of times.
D’Amario teaches a wire electrical discharge machine (D’Amario Abstract & Fig.1):
wherein, in a case that it is determined that the electric discharge has not occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, the counting unit (“consecutive discharges counter”, D’Amario Par.0123) resets the counted number of times (D’Amario Par.0123 teaches: “The consecutive discharges counter of a vertical section is reset if no discharges occurs during a certain period in that vertical section.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire electrical discharge machine of Nishikawa in view of Inoue, by adding the teaching of in a case that it is determined that the electric discharge has not occurred in the inter-electrode gap within the unit time period, the counting unit resets the counted number of times, as taught by D’Amario, in order to prevent accumulation of stale discharge counts and ensure that control decisions are based on current machining conditions. The modification would improve responsiveness and stability of the machining process.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0143432 A1) in view of Inoue (U.S. Patent No. 3,997,753 A), and further in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,756,956 A).
Regarding claim 3, Nishikawa in view of Inoue teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein, in a case that a predetermined time period, which is longer than the unit time period, has elapsed since start of counting of the number of times that it is determined that the electric discharge has occurred, the counting unit resets the counted number of times.
Sato teaches a wire electrical discharge machine (Sato Abstract & Fig.1):
wherein, in a case that a predetermined time period, which is longer than the unit time period, has elapsed since start of counting of the number of times that it is determined that the electric discharge has occurred, the counting unit (counter 14 includes integrating counter 26, Sato Figs.1-2) resets the counted number of times (Sato Claim 2 teaches: “pulse train generating means for outputting a pulse train representing a machining current supplying duration only when the voltage detected by said voltage detecting means exceeds a certain voltage level representing valid electric discharge in an interelectrode gap”, Sato Col.6 lines 36-44 teaches: “the counter circuit 14 enters the pulse train output by the pulse train generation circuit 13 into the integrating counter 26 in the counter circuit 14 and measures the number of pulses contained in the pulse trains at intervals of predetermined time. This predetermined time. Tp, is set by the sampling circuit 25. The sampling circuit 25 outputs the reset signal 39, which resets the integrating counter 26, to the integrating counter 26 at intervals of predetermined time Tp.”; therefore, Sato teaches determining whether electric discharge has occurred and counting the number of such occurrences, Sato also teaches the predetermined time Tp spans multiple discharge events, and is therefore longer than unit time period associated with individual discharge determination. Therefore, Sato teaches in a case that a predetermined time period, which is longer than the unit time period, has elapsed since start of counting of the number of times that it is determined that the electric discharge has occurred, the counting unit resets the counted number of times.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire electrical discharge machine of Nishikawa in view of Inoue, by adding the teaching of in a case that a predetermined time period, which is longer than the unit time period, has elapsed since start of counting of the number of times that it is determined that the electric discharge has occurred, the counting unit resets the counted number of times, as taught by Sato, in order to periodically refresh the discharge count and accurately control machining conditions, thereby preventing abnormal discharge accumulation as Sato explicitly teaches improving machining stability and preventing faulty machining conditions [Sato Col.21 lines 36-50].
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Yoda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0297126 A1) discloses a wire electrical discharge machining device that precisely processes a work by using a wire electrode. Yoda also discloses estimate the inter-electrode gap amount between a wire electrode and the work.
Onodera et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,829,383 B2) discloses based on a discharging gap value and machining allowance value stored in a corner-control-information storing means, a speed-ratio calculating means being a machining-volume calculating means calculates machining volumes of a straight line portion and a corner portion to calculate a volume ratio therebetween.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 04/17/2026
Prosecution Insights