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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18277832 filed 8/18/2023. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, & 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “estimates a breakage position” (l. 17) is believed to be in error for - - estimates the breakage position - -.
The recitation “based on a rotation angle” (l. 18) is believed to be in error for - - based on the rotation angle - -.
Regarding Claim 3:
The recitation “an acquired torque” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - the acquired torque - -.
The recitation “a predetermined range concerning the torque” (ll. 4-5) is believed to be in error for - - a predetermined torque range - -.
Regarding Claim 6:
The recitation “a detection signal” (l. 11) is believed to be in error for - - the detection signal - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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: “a torque acquisition unit that acquires torque of the winding motor based on the detection signal” (claim 1), “a determination unit that determines… whether a rear end of the wire electrode wound by the winding roller has passed the winding roller” (claim 1), “a rotation angle acquisition unit that acquires a rotation angle of the winding motor based on the detection signal” (claim 1), “a wire-breakage position estimation unit that estimates a breakage position of the wire electrode based on a rotation angle of the winding motor from a time when the wire electrode is broken to a time when it is determined that the rear end of the wire electrode has passed the winding roller” (claim 1), “a cause and countermeasure specifying unit that specifies, based on the table, at least one of the cause of breakage or the countermeasure for breakage corresponding to the breakage position estimated by the wire-breakage position estimation unit” (claim 4), and “a display control unit that causes a display unit to display at least one of a specified cause of breakage or a specified countermeasure for breakage (claim 4). All of these limitations are disclosed in the specification as being respective modules within a controller (Fig. 1, controller 16, which includes the wire-breakage position estimation device 58, shown in Fig. 3).
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onodera 20130292506.
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Onodera teaches a wire-breakage position estimation method for estimating a breakage position of a wire electrode in a wire electric discharge machine (the italicized limitation does not impose a requirement that the wire electrode has actually broken, and the body of the claim nowhere positively recites that this breakage actually occurs – rather, the determination step recites determining “when” the wire electrode is broken, which suggests that the wire breakage may not occur when the other steps of the method are being carried out - thus the foregoing italicized limitation in the preamble is not construed as limiting the method to being performed only when the wire electrode has broken and thus does not require estimating the wire-breakage position, despite the intention to estimate the wire-breakage position if or when the wire electrode does break), wherein the wire electric discharge machine comprises:
a winding roller (Fig. 6, 11a/11b) that winds the wire electrode (1) that has been fed out toward a workpiece (2) and has passed through the workpiece;
a winding motor (12a) that drives the winding roller (paras. [0022] & [0033]); and
a sensor (18) that outputs a detection signal corresponding to driving of a shaft of the winding motor (14), the wire-breakage position estimation method includes:
a rotation angle acquiring step of acquiring a rotation angle of the winding motor based on a detection signal of the sensor (amount of rotation is measured based on the signal from 14, which inherently corresponds with a rotation angle of 12a; para. [0034]);
a torque acquisition step of acquiring torque of the winding motor based on the detection signal of the sensor (rapid acceleration is detected when the electrode 1 breaks, which is indicative of the torque of 12a; para. [0035]).
The recitations “a determination step of determining, when the wire electrode is broken, based on the torque whether a rear end of the wire electrode wound by the winding roller has passed the winding roller; and a wire-breakage position estimation step of estimating a breakage position of the wire electrode based on a rotation angle of the winding motor from a time when the wire electrode is broken to a time when it is determined that the rear end of the wire electrode has passed the winding roller” are contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the determination step is not required because the claim does not positively recite the breakage of the wire electrode (if the wire electrode does not break, there is no need to carry out this step) and the wire-breakage position estimation step is not required, similarly, because the breakage of the wire electrode is not positively recited and because the claim does not positively recite the rear end of the wire having passed the winding roller (i.e. even if the wire electrode breakage is positively recited, there is no estimation step carried out until and unless the wire electrode has passed the winding roller, since the step requires the time difference between breakage and the electrode passing the winding roller). See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, a wire-breakage position estimation unit that estimates a breakage position of the wire electrode based on a rotation angle of the winding motor from a time when the wire electrode is broken to a time when it is determined that the rear end of the wire electrode has passed the winding roller.
The closest prior art is Onodera 20130292506, Yoshida 20180210889, and Yokomichi 5142116. Onodera teaches a sensor (Fig. 6, encoder 14), a torque acquisition unit (detecting rapid acceleration of collecting motor 12a from signal generated by encoder 14, which indicates torque of the motor 12a; para. [0035]), a rotation angle acquisition unit (amount of rotation, indicative of the rotation angle, detected via signal from encoder 14; para. [0034]). Yoshida teaches a wire-breakage position estimation unit (encoder signals from EC1, EC2 and a signal from tip detector 36 are used to determine the position of wire electrode 12; para. [0056]). Yokomichi teaches that the position of the end of a wire electrode (3) can be determined after a break in the wire electrode based on the amount of wire electrode (3) fed out, which can be detected using a detected direction of the feed of the wire electrode and the amount of rotation of a wire feed roller (21B) based on signals from a rotary encoder (31). The prior art, in combination, therefore would teach using torque to determine breakage of the wire electrode (Onodera), determine a rotation angle (Onodera and Yokomichi), and estimate the position of the breakage position using the indication of breakage and indicated direction and rotation angle from the sensor (encoder). The prior art, however, does not teach determining whether a rear end of the wire electrode wound by the winding roller has passed the winding roller and thus does not teach estimating the breakage position based on the rotation angle which accrues over the recited time between when the wire electrode is broken to when the rear end of the wire electrode has passed the winding roller. While the acquired torque (indicated by acceleration inferred from an encoder) is used in the prior art to determine when breakage occurs whereas the acquired torque is used by Applicant to determine when the rear end of the wire electrode has passed the winding roller, the acquired torque signal for each of these conditions are not the same (i.e. the indicated torque when the breakage occurs is based on a sudden lack of tension in the electrode as soon as the electrode breaks whereas the indicated torque when the electrode passes the winding roller is based on a sudden change in frictional resistance to the winding motor when the electrode is no longer in contact with the winding roller, and the torque signals for these two conditions would necessarily differ… the use of the former indicated torque when the breakage occurs would not permit the estimation unit to calculate the wire-breakage position since the estimation unit as claimed uses the time difference between breakage and expulsion of the electrode from the winding roller, which the prior art nowhere considers).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741