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 .
Claims 1-6 and 8 have been presented for examination.
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) 1,5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda PGPUB 2017/0146985 in view of Miyata et al1 [Miyata] WO 2013118179.
Referring to claim 1, Maeda teaches a machine tool capable of processing a workpiece using a plurality of tools, the machine tool comprising:
a display [0034].
a process of acquiring processing information that specifies a tool used in processing the workpiece and a processing route of the tool [Fig. 2, 0025, 0027].
a process of receiving designation of a site corresponding to a portion of a processed workpiece [Measurement Point: Fig. 2, 0025-0026, 0028].
a process of determining, based on the processing information, an employed tool that has been involved in processing the designated site [Monitored Spot / Countermeasure Spot: Fig. 2, 0029].
a process of displaying information on the employed tool on the display [0030-0034].
In summary, Maeda teaches a system including machine tools that processes workpieces, can detect defects and locations of defects in the workpieces, and provide status and recommended fixes to assist in maintenance of the machine tools. Specifically, system includes a measurement device that determines of the workpieces include any defects. The locations of the defects, and the tool/jig associated with the defect in the locations are stored in a database. Based in part of the status of the identified tool (i.e, the number of hours) recommendations on maintenance (i.e., replacement of tool) can be presented to the user. This information is also shared amongst other machine tools to anticipate maintenance for the other tools based on detected defects going forward. It should be noted that because the above processes are performed by a combination of server (110) and measurement device (130), both the server (110) and measurement device (130) are interpreted as the claimed control unit.
While Maeda teaches the invention substantially above, it is not further taught to display a 3-D model of the workpiece created based on the processing information. Miyata teaches displaying a tool path superimposed on a three-dimensional model of the workpiece [English translation page 1; final paragraph]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of the Miyata into the Maeda system because doing so would enable the user to verify the machining program and thus shorten the time required for verification as explicitly taught by Miyata [English translation page 2; first paragraph].
Referring to claim 5, Miyata teaches displaying a processing route of the tool on the 3D object [Fig. 2].
Referring to claims 6 and 8, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Maeda and Miyata teach the system and therefore teach the method and program performing the same.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda and Miyata as applied to claims 1, 5-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Sato PGPUB 2016/0334777.
Referring to claims 2-3, while Maeda and Miyata teach the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to acquire size information from a database to display or using a camera to acquire a tool image to display. Sato teaches using a camera to capture an image of a tool when a tool change in a CNC machine occurs and based on the tool shape, calculates shape and size of the tool and compares that to size and shape data stored in a tool management data storage unit (interpreted as the claimed database) and displays shape and size information to the user [Fig. 2, abstract, 0005, 0038-0039, 0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Sato into the Maeda-Miyata combination because it would allow an operator to be informed on what tool is being used as taught by Sato.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda and Miyata as applied to claims 1, 5-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Fukuyama et al [Fukuyama] US Pat No 4631465.
Referring to claim 4, while Maeda and Miyata teach the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include a magazine for holding a plurality of tools which can be displayed, selected and used to process the workpiece. Fukuyama teaches displaying and using selected tools to process a workpiece using a magazine to store and rotate between the plurality of tools stored with the magazine [col. 1 lines 14-64, col. 2 lines 6-39]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Fukuyama into the Maeda-Miyata combination because it provides a known and common mechanism to change tools required for processing a workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Lee can be reached at 571-272-3667. 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 CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 1/9/26
1 Cited by applicant