DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the RCE filed 22 May 2026. Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
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 Remarks
Double Patenting
Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer has been fully considered and it is persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 5-6) that the cited references do not teach the newly amended claim which specify storing the data and calculating the load prior to an initiation of a machining operation of the workpiece.
Examiner agrees. Accordingly, a new reference, Rogers (US 2019/0018391 A1), has been added to the rejection, as further detailed below.
The foregoing applies to all independent claims and their dependent claims.
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, 3-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2019/0196417 A1) hereinafter known as Uno in view of Koyama (US 2018/0284711 A1) hereinafter known as Koyama in view of Rogers (US 2019/0018391 A1) hereinafter known as Rogers.
Regarding independent claim 1, Uno teaches:
a processor; and (Uno: Fig. 1 and ¶[0031]; Uno teaches a CPU.)
a memory storinq instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: acquire time-series data of a spindle load detected when a workpiece is machined; (Uno: Fig. 2 and ¶[0044]; Uno teaches using state variables to monitor parameters of the PID control for controlling the machining, which feeds into the machine learning device. Fig. 7 and ¶[0002]-¶[0010] further teach PID control which uses feedback control which uses spindle load at time t. Accordingly, the foregoing teaches continuously retrieving time series data with respect to the load.)
store the acquired time-series data in a storage area of the memory; (Uno: ¶[0041]; Uno teaches storing the relationships relating to spindle load in nonvolatile memory.)
...
based on the set machining time, calculate, from the ... time-series data ..., a load applied to the spindle in a case where the workpiece is machined and a feed rate of the spindle is controlled such that the spindle load is maintained at a constant load; and (Uno: Fig. 7 and ¶[0002]-¶[0010]; Uno teaches feedback control which uses spindle load at time t., during the cycle time, to calculate target spindle load and spindle load, while controlling feed rate so that the load on the spindle becomes constant.)
output data indicating the calculated spindle load. (Uno: Fig. 7 and ¶[0002]-¶[0010]; Uno teaches feedback control which uses spindle load at time t., during the cycle time, to calculate target spindle load and spindle load, while controlling feed rate so that the load on the spindle becomes constant.)
Uno does not explicitly teach but Koyama teaches:
set a machining time for machininq the workpiece; (Koyama: Fig. 3 and ¶[00042]; Koyama teaches setting the machining time.)
Koyama is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to adaptive control of machining. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the load on the spindle based on time-series data during a machining cycle as taught in Uno with setting the machining time as taught in Koyama. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Uno to include teachings of Koyama, because the combination would allow the operator to set change conditions, as suggested by Koyama: ¶[0042].
Rogers further teaches:
stored ... and prior to an initiation of a machining operation of the workpiece; (Rogers: Figs. 1 and 2 and ¶[0050] and ¶[0063]; Rogers teaches generating output file 126 and storing it and then using the data for future NC programs. ¶[0110] and ¶[0121] teach using the prior data for control spindle load and feed rate for the new jobs.)
Rogers is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to adaptive control of machining. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the load on the spindle based on time-series data during a machining cycle and setting the machining time as taught in Uno in view of Koyama with further explicitly storing previously run data and using it control future jobs before the initiation of the future job as taught in Rogers. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Uno and Koyama to include teachings of Rogers, because the combination would allow learning from historical data and improving efficiency, as suggested by Rogers: ¶[0021].
Regarding claim 3, Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers further teaches the numerical controller according to claim 1.
Uno further teaches:
wherein the instructions cause the processor to calculate the load on the spindle assuming that the load on the spindle and the feed rate are proportional to each other. (Uno: Figs. 7 and 8 and ¶[0002]-¶[0010]; Uno teaches controlling the feed rate so that the load of the spindle becomes constant, during cutting.)
Regarding claim 4, Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers further teaches the numerical controller according to claim 1.
Uno further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: learn a relationship between the load on the spindle and the feed rate; and calculate the load on the spindle based on the learned relationship. (Uno: Fig. 2 and ¶[0043]-¶[0046] and ¶[0058]-¶[0062]; Uno teaches a learning unit that takes in PID control parameters.)
Regarding claim 5, Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers further teaches the numerical controller according to claim 1.
Uno further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to output data indicating a relationship between the machining time and the load on the spindle. (Uno: Figs. 7 and 8 and ¶[0002]-¶[0010]; Uno teaches showing the spindle load over time.)
Regarding claim 6, Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers further teaches the numerical controller according to claim 1.
Uno further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to calculate a feed rate applied when the workpiece is machined in the machining time and when the feed rate of the spindle is controlled so that the load on the spindle is a constant load. (Uno: Figs. 7 and 8 and ¶[0002]-¶[0010]; Uno teaches showing the spindle load over time.)
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a computer readable storage medium that performs the function of the numerical controller of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers in view of Scherer (US 2004/0167659 A1) hereinafter known as Scherer.
Regarding claim 2, Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers further teaches the numerical controller according to claim 1.
Uno in view of Koyama does not explicitly teach but Scherer teaches:
wherein the output is provided to a display device. (Scherer: Fig. 2 and ¶[0081]; Scherer teaches an interface which displays the spindle load.)
Scherer is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to adaptive control of machining. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the load on the spindle based on time-series data as taught in Uno with further displaying the spindle load as taught in Scherer. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Uno to include teachings of Scherer, because the combination would allow informing the operator of the load level, as suggested by Scherer: ¶[0081].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers in view of Uno2 (US 2019/0265680 A1) hereinafter known as Uno2.
Regarding claim 8, Uno in view of Koyama in view of Rogers further teaches the numerical controller according to claim 1.
Uno does not explicitly teach but Uno2 teaches:
wherein the memory stores frequency distribution data generated based on the time-series data. (Uno2: Fig. 9 and ¶[0007] and ¶[0044]; Uno2 teaches a feature amount calculation unit that counts frequency of occurrences in the time-series load data. Fig. 2 and ¶[0021]-¶[0022] further teach a memory that stores the programs and data.)
Uno2 is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to adaptive control of machining. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the load on the spindle based on time-series data as taught in Uno with storing frequency distribution data as taught in Uno2. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Uno to include teachings of Uno2, because the combination would allow extracting more data from the time-series data, as suggested by Uno2: ¶[0044]-¶[0045].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights