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 (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear as to what is meant by the term “equipped with” as written in line 3. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted to mean “attached to” or similar since the preamble recites that the machine tool includes the main shaft already.
Line 4 of the claim recites the limitation of “that is configured to movie in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the main shaft” however it is not clear as to what element this is referring to. For example, it could refer to the machine tool being configured to move, the moving body being configured to move, the main shaft being configured to move, or a combination thereof.
In line 12, it is unclear what is meant by the term “in association with each other” and how the association would be determined.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by the term “in association with each other” and how the association would be determined.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, both claims recite the limitation of “pieces of the movement information” however it is not clear as to what this limitation would entail and what the “pieces” would be as it relates the data. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that they are independent measurements which can be averaged over time.
Regarding claim 12, it is not clear as to what is meant by the term “equipped with” as written in line 3. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted to mean “attached to” or similar since the preamble recites that the machine tool includes the main shaft already.
Line 4 of the claim recites the limitation of “that is configured to movie in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the main shaft” however it is not clear as to what element this is referring to. For example, it could refer to the machine tool being configured to move, the moving body being configured to move, the main shaft being configured to move, or a combination thereof.
In line 12, it is unclear what is meant by the term “in association with each other” and how the association would be determined.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. US 2010/0242693 and Hasegawa US 2015/0051727.
Regarding claim 1, Akiyama teaches:
an observation device (NC Apparatus 52) configured to observe a balance state of a main shaft (50) of a machine tool (roll lathe, fig. 4), wherein:
the machine tool is equipped with the main shaft (50), and a moving body (carriage 16) to which the main shaft is fixed so as to be rotatable (paragraph 0040) and that is configured to move in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the main shaft (X axis in fig. 4); and
the observation device comprises:
a first acquisition unit (encoder 53) configured to acquire angles of rotation of the main shaft that is rotating (paragraph 0051);
a second acquisition unit (NC apparatus 52) configured to acquire movement information indicating a state of movement of the moving body at a time when the main shaft is rotating (the NC apparatus monitors and controls the movement along the x axis among others and would therefore have to acquire the movement information, paragraph 0051). Akiyama further teaches the displaying of data on a monitor (paragraph 0015) or display screen (paragraph 0054), but does not explicitly disclose an output generation unit configured to cause a display unit to display each of the angles of rotation of the main shaft, and the movement information in association with each other.
Hasegawa teaches a cutting tool machine which monitors a rotation angle of the main shaft (paragraph 0017) and includes a display interface 53 and display device 54 which is capable of displaying the angle and movement information of the tool since the control device is designed to receive data from the tool and display it for the operator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Hasegawa with those of Akiyama in order to likewise display all operating parameters of the machine to ensure proper operation during use.
Regarding claim 2, the NC apparatus of Akiyama functions as a command output unit configured to control the machine tool in a manner so that the main shaft rotates and the moving body does not deviate from a predetermined position since it controls the position of the tool during operation.
Regarding claim 3, Akiyama teaches the machine tool further comprising a main shaft motor 51 connected to the main shaft 50, and a detector 53 configured to detect angles of ration of a rotating shaft of the main shaft motor (paragraph 0051), wherein the main shaft is an electrically driven main shaft that rotates by being driven by the main shaft motor (paragraph 0048), and the first acquisition unit acquires the angles of rotation of the main shaft based on a detection result of the detector (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 5, Akiyama teaches a feed axis motor (feed axis driving mechanism, paragraphs 0048-0049) for controlling movement of the moving body, and the second acquisition unit acquires as movement information, a drive position of the motor as claimed via the NC apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, Akiyama teaches
An observation method of observing a balance state of a main shaft (50) of a machine tool (roll lathe, fig. 4), wherein:
the machine tool is equipped with the main shaft (50), and a moving body (carriage 16) to which the main shaft is fixed so as to be rotatable (paragraph 0040) and that is configured to move in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the main shaft (X axis in fig. 4); and
the observation method comprises:
a first acquisition step of acquiring angles of rotation of the main shaft that is rotating via a first acquisition unit (encoder 53, paragraph 0051);
a second acquisition step of acquiring movement information indicating a state of movement of the moving body at a time when the main shaft is rotating (the NC apparatus monitors and controls the movement along the x axis among others and would therefore have to acquire the movement information, paragraph 0051). Akiyama further teaches the displaying of data on a monitor (paragraph 0015) or display screen (paragraph 0054), but does not explicitly disclose the output displaying each of the angles of rotation of the main shaft, and the movement information in association with each other.
Hasegawa teaches a cutting tool machine and method which includes a display interface 53 and display device 54 which is capable of displaying the angle and movement information of the tool since the control device is designed to receive data from the tool and display it for the operator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Hasegawa with those of Akiyama in order to likewise display all operating parameters of the machine to ensure proper operation during use.
Regarding claim 13, the NC apparatus of Akiyama comprises a command output unit which performs a command output step to control the machine tool in a manner so that the main shaft rotates and the moving body does not deviate from a predetermined position since it controls the position of the tool during operation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Hasegawa as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Adler US 5,148,632.
Regarding claim 4, Akiyama and Hasegawa disclose the claimed invention including a detector to detect the angles of the rotation of the main shaft (inherent to display the angles as taught by Hasegawa) but do not explicitly teach the main shaft as in air spindle configured to be rotated by air. Adler teaches a machining tool in which a tool is rotated by an air spindle for rotating a cutting element (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Adler with those of Akiyama and Hasegawa in order to provide a similar air spindle for rotation of the main shaft since such bearings were known in the art to provide high precision control with less wear to the internal components. In combination, the angles of rotation of the main shaft would be based on a detection result of the detector as taught by Hasegawa (paragraph 0017).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855