DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the amendment filed 09 February 2026. Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 1-6, 8, 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
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections are amended.
112(b) and 112(f)
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections and interpretation are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 7) that the cited references are directed to real-time feedback control and does not teach post-acquisition calculation based on stored historical data.
However, Uno does teach a feedback calculation based on historical data, as further detailed below.
Applicant argues (pg. 7) that Koyama does not teach using past time-series data to calculate spindle load. However, the foregoing is taught by Uno, as further detailed below.
Applicant argues (pg. 7) that there is no motivation to combine Uno and Koyama. However, both Uno and Koyama are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, i.e. 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].
Applicant argues (pg. 7) that there is no motivation to combine Uno and Uno2. However, 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].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of US18/276,942. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
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.)
An embodiment of Uno does not explicitly teach but another embodiment 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].
Regarding claim 3, Uno in view of Koyama 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 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 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 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 Scherer (US 2004/0167659 A1) hereinafter known as Scherer.
Regarding claim 2, Uno in view of Koyama 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 Uno2 (US 2019/0265680 A1) hereinafter known as Uno2.
Regarding claim 8, Uno in view of Koyama 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
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 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