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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 and 27 are objected to for the limitations intended to be included or excluded regarding “and/or.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-23 and 29 are objected to for relative terms including “particularly.” Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22, 26, and 29, but for the 35 USC 101 rejections, are allowable.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 26 is 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.
Claim 29 is 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.
Claim 32 is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process directed to determining actual values and determining a setpoint value for adaptive control, claims 18, 25, and 28. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations comprising receiving real time data, receiving look-ahead data, and providing a setpoint value, defining the data associated with measured values, defining look-ahead data, the particular intervals, choosing at least one cutting force, represent insignificant extra solution activity , claims 18-22 and 25-31. MPEP 2106.05(g) The simulation limitations additional represent extra-solution activity for data generation, claims 18, 23-25, MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, the tool, axis, machine, and spindle generally link the abstract idea to the field of numerical control, MPEP 2106.05(h). The computer and memory represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations directed to providing a set-point as well as using the setpoint value “to control the feed rate” represents an intended function of the setpoint without result in an affirmative control of the controlled axis.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the memory and computer represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea while in the insignificant extra-solution activity is well understood, conventional, and routine, MPEP 2106.05(d), infra cited prior art for simulation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18-20, 23-24, 27-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (PG/PUB 20170227945) in view over Ogawa (PG/PUB 20140338468).
Claim 18. Wang teaches a computer-implemented method for providing setpoint values for a feed rate for adaptive feed control on numerically controlled machine tools, the method comprising machining a workpiece with a tool, and during the machining (Figure 2, Figure 5 e.g. see adaptive feed rate based on comparing simulation results to actual measurements during machining); however, Wang does not expressly teach determining cutting force of the tool from the torque. Ogawa teaches determining cutting force of the tool from the torque described below.
receiving a real-time data associated with a current state of at least one controlled axis, wherein the real-time data comprises measured values of a torque of a spindle (Wang, ABSTRACT, 0018, 0020-21, 0028 e.g. see obtaining spindle torque)
determining actual values of at least one cutting force of the tool from the torque of the spindle (Wang, 0018, 0020-21, 0028-30, 0045 e.g. see obtaining tool force based on torque, see Ogawa for determining tool force via spindle torque, ABSTRACT, 0010-11)
receiving a look-ahead data associated with a predicted state of the at least one controlled axis (Wang e.g. see receiving numerical control program as reading on look-ahead data “associated with a predicted state,” 0002, 0016, Figure 1-2)
simulating the machining of the workpiece based on the real-time data and on the look-ahead data, wherein simulated values of the at least one cutting force of the tool are generated, the simulated values comprising values of the at least one cutting force of the tool predicted in time increments, which are sufficient to adjust the feed rate before a force spike occurs (Wang, 0016-0020-21, 0024-28, 0046-48 , Figure 2-102 -> 106, 206->214, see also 0046 e.g. see comparing predicted states to actual states using the numerical program/look-ahead for adjusting at least feed rates and applied forces, and see maintaining adjusted feed rate parameters within “thrust force limits” as reading on “sufficient to adjust a feed rate before a force spike occurs. ” Furthermore, see “predicted in time increments” as comparing actual measurements to predictions per measurement interval or calculation interval)
determining at least one setpoint value for the feed rate of the at least one controlled axis based on the simulated values and on the actual values of the at least one cutting force of the tool (Wang ,Figure 2-214 e.g. see “change feed rates” based on predicted vs. actual)
providing the at least one setpoint value for the feed rate of the at least one controlled axis (Wang, Figure 5-306 e.g. see implementation of feed rate)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Ogawa, namely determining cutting force of the tool from the torque, to the teachings of Wang, namely determining setpoint values for the federate based on force, would achieve an expected and predictable result of deriving force values using torque. Ogawa is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of determining associated tool forces, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 19. The method of claim 18, wherein the real-time data comprises data associated with measured values of the at least one cutting force of the tool and/or speed of the tool and/or position of the tool (0018, 0020-21, 0028-30, 0045)
Claim 20. The method of claim 18, wherein the look-ahead data comprises data associated with predicted values of speed and/or position of the tool (0016-0020-21, 0024-28, 0046-48 , Figure 2-102 -> 106, 206->214, see also 0046
Claim 23. The method of claim 18, wherein the simulating the machining of the workpiece comprises, particularly consists of simulating a material removal and calculating the at least one cutting force (0002, 0015, 0017, 0019)
Claim 24. The method of claim 18, wherein the simulating the at least one cutting force comprises utilizing at least one of geometry tolerances, material parameters, and tool parameters ((0016-0020-21, 0024-28, 0046-48 , Figure 2-102 -> 106, 206->214, see also 0046)
Claim 27. The method of claim 18, wherein the look-ahead data comprises data associated with predicted values of speed and/or position of the tool (e.g. see receiving numerical control program as reading on look-ahead data “associated with a predicted state,” 0002, 0016, Figure 1-2)
Claim 28. The cited combination of prior art teaches a method for adaptive feed control on numerically controlled machine tools, the method comprising machining a workpiece with a tool according to a specification of a part program, and during the machining:
acquiring a real-time data associated with a current state of at least one controlled axis; supra claim 1
based on the specification of the part program, generating a look-ahead data associated with a predicted state of the at least one controlled axis; supra claim 1
providing at least one setpoint value for a feed rate of the at least one controlled axis according to a method of claim 18; supra claim 1
utilizing the at least one setpoint value of the feed rate to control the feed rate of the at least one controlled axis, supra claim 1
Claim 30. A machine-executable component comprising instructions which, when the machine-executable component is executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to carry out a method set forth in claim 18, supra claim 1
Claim 31. A system comprising a memory, wherein the memory stores machine-executable components, and a processor, wherein the processor is operatively coupled to the memory and is configured to execute the machine-executable components, wherein the machine-executable components comprise a machine-executable component set forth in claim 30, supra claim 1
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (PG/PUB 20170227945) in view over Ogawa (PG/PUB 20140338468) in view over Takahei et al. (PG/PUB 20200333764).
Claim 25. The cited prior art teaches the method of claim 18 but does not expressly teach the comparison limitations described below. Takahei et al. teaches the comparison limitations described below.
wherein the determining at least one setpoint value for the feed rate based on the at least one simulated cutting force comprises comparing the simulated values of the at least one cutting force with the actual values of the at least one cutting force, and choosing the at least one setpoint value for the feed rate so that the actual values match the simulated values (Takahei et al., 0134 e.g. see adjusting feed rate based on comparing actual to simulated tool forces)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Takahei, namely determining feed rate based on comparing actual to simulated tool forces, to the teachings of Wang, namely determining setpoint values for the federate based on force, would achieve an expected and predictable result of deriving force values using torque. Takahei is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of determining associated tool forces, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See associated look-ahead and NC simulation for adjusting machining parameters
((US-11298766-B2 OR US-10613511-B2 OR US-6662073-B1 OR US-4833617-A).did. AND USPT.dbnm.) OR ((US-20200401107-A1 OR US-20200133242-A1 OR US-20200133228-A1 OR US-20180113436-A1 OR US-20070016325-A1 OR US-20050154488-A1).did. AND PGPB.dbnm.)
Claim 25 relevancy
20220382265 20200333764 -0134 20070016325 20050154488 -0065 0066 0071
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117