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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the machine tool performing machining using the cutting tool, the measurement value being measured by the sensor”, which read as method steps in what is understood to be an apparatus (system) claim. The scope of these limitations is thus unclear. For examination purposes, they will be understood as referring to the capability of the respective elements, e.g. the machine tool is for performing machining using the cutting tool, and the measurement value is capable of being measured by the sensor.
Claim 6 similarly recites “the machine tool performing machining using a cutting tool that includes a cutting edge and a sensor, the measurement value being measured by the sensor”, which reads as method steps in what is understood to be an apparatus (system) claim. It also makes it unclear whether the cutting tool, cutting edge, and sensor are intended to be positively recited here since they are introduced in the capacity of a method limitation.
Claim 8 similar recites “the machine tool performing machining using a cutting tool that includes a cutting edge and a sensor, the measurement value being measured by the sensor” and is indefinite for similar reasons.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (JP2016175147, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Inoue discloses a machining condition management system comprising: a cutting tool (13/14) that includes a cutting edge (see [0016]) and a sensor (dynamometer 15 with piezoelectric sensors - [0017]-[0018]); a storage (memory) that stores a mechanical machining condition for a machine tool and a measurement value (e.g. memory 24 - [0028], [0032], [0039]. [0044], also noting that as claimed the storage need only be capable of doing so), the machine tool [for] performing machining using the cutting tool (e.g. [0016]), the measurement value [capable of] being measured by the sensor [0018]; and a processor (control unit 20 having CPU 22 - [0028], [0030]) that performs revision of the mechanical machining condition (e.g. depth of cut) based on the mechanical machining condition and the measurement value (e.g. force) stored in the storage ([0033] and [0037]), wherein the processor determines a load (cutting force) on the cutting tool based on the measurement value (force measured by the dynamometer 15 - [0031]) in a first cutting process (first machining pass N) under the mechanical machining condition, calculates a revised value for revising the mechanical machining condition (adjusts depth of cut - [0038]-[0039]) for at least one machining interval (at least part of N) that has fulfilled a prescribed condition (force exceeds threshold) in the determination for the first cutting process (i.e. the first machining pass for which an abnormality was detected based on measured force), and updates the mechanical machining condition in a second cutting process (increases cut depth for a subsequent machining pass N+1 - [0039]), based on the calculated revised value (increasing cut depth by a predetermined amount, Id.), and outputs the mechanical machining condition in the second cutting process (the updated cut depth is implemented in the second machining pass).
Claim 2: The processor determines that an interval (e.g. first machining process N) at which the measurement value in the first cutting process exceeds a previously set threshold is the machining interval (i.e. the machining interval N has fulfilled a prescribed condition per claim 1 in that it has exceeded a force threshold as cited above).
Claim 3: The processor obtains a distribution of the measurement value in the first cutting process (i.e. it measures a number of force vales over the time of the first machining pass), and determines an interval at which an excessive load has been generated (the interval defined by first pass), based on a statistic of the distribution ((ΔFy/ΔT) max, e.g. [0033], where a maximum is considered a form of statistic (instant application at page 16, lines 2-5).
Claim 5: Inoue further comprises a display (21) that can display time-series data about the measurement value (paragraph 18, noting that force is also measured as a waveform function over time - [0023] - noting that the display must also only be capable of doing so as claimed), wherein the processor identifies an interval at which the mechanical machining condition is revised , for the time-series data about the measurement value (as discussed above), and displays the interval at which the mechanical machining condition is revised, on the display (the interval would be effectively displayed by virtue of displaying the forces thereof).
Claim 6: Inoue discloses a machining control device comprising: a storage (memory) that stores a mechanical machining condition for a machine tool and a measurement value (e.g. memory 24 - [0028], [0032], [0039]. [0044], also noting that as claimed the storage need only be capable of doing so), the machine tool [for] performing machining using a cutting tool (13/14 - e.g. [0016]) that includes a cutting edge (Id.) and a sensor (dynamometer 15 with piezoelectric sensors - [0017]-[0018]), the measurement value [capable of] being measured by the sensor [0018]; a processor (control unit 20 having CPU 22 - [0028], [0030]) that performs revision of the mechanical machining condition (e.g. depth of cut) based on the mechanical machining condition and the measurement value (e.g. force) stored in the storage ([0033] and [0037]); and a drive control circuitry (“drive circuit” - [0017]] that performs machining under the mechanical machining condition (an electronically controlled device would also be generally understood to possess the requisite drive circuitry), wherein the processor determines a load (cutting force) on the cutting tool based on the measurement value (force measured by the dynamometer 15 - [0031]) in a first cutting process (first machining pass N) under the mechanical machining condition, calculates a revised value for revising the mechanical machining condition (adjusts depth of cut - [0038]-[0039]) for at least one machining interval (at least part of N) that has fulfilled a prescribed condition (force exceeds threshold) in the determination for the first cutting process (i.e. the first machining pass for which an abnormality was detected based on measured force), and updates the mechanical machining condition in a second cutting process (increases cut depth for a subsequent machining pass N+1 - [0039]), based on the calculated revised value (increasing cut depth by a predetermined amount, Id.), and outputs the mechanical machining condition in the second cutting process, to the drive control circuitry (the updated cut depth is implemented in the second machining pass).
Claim 7: Inoue discloses a machining system comprising: a machine tool (1, e.g. a lathe - [0014]) that performs machining using a cutting tool (13/14) that includes a cutting edge (see [0016]) and a sensor (dynamometer 15 with piezoelectric sensors - [0017]-[0018]); and a machining control device (control unit 20 - [0028]) that controls the machine tool based on a mechanical machining condition [0018], the machining control device comprising: a storage (memory) that stores a mechanical machining condition for the machine tool and a measurement value (e.g. memory 24 - [0028], [0032], [0039]. [0044], also noting that as claimed the storage need only be capable of doing so), the measurement value being measured by the sensor [0018]; a processor (control unit 20 having CPU 22 - [0028], [0030]) that performs revision of the mechanical machining condition (e.g. depth of cut) based on the mechanical machining condition and the measurement value (e.g. force) stored in the storage ([0033] and [0037]); and a drive control circuitry (“drive circuit” - [0017]] that performs machining under the mechanical machining condition (an electronically controlled device would also be generally understood to possess the requisite drive circuitry), wherein the processor determines a load (cutting force) on the cutting tool based on the measurement value (force measured by the dynamometer 15 - [0031]) in a first cutting process (first machining pass N) under the mechanical machining condition, calculates a revised value for revising the mechanical machining condition (adjusts depth of cut - [0038]-[0039]) for at least one machining interval (at least part of N) that has fulfilled a prescribed condition (force exceeds threshold) in the determination for the first cutting process (i.e. the first machining pass for which an abnormality was detected based on measured force), and updates the mechanical machining condition in a second cutting process (increases cut depth for a subsequent machining pass N+1 - [0039]), based on the calculated revised value (increasing cut depth by a predetermined amount, Id.), and outputs the mechanical machining condition in the second cutting process, to the drive control circuitry (the updated cut depth is implemented in the second machining pass).
Claim 8: A non-transitory recording medium (control unit 20 with memory - [0028]) that has stored therein machine readable program (“operating program” - Id.) instructions that upon execution by a processor (CPU - Id.) configure the processor to perform revision of a mechanical machining condition (e.g. cut depth) for a machine tool (1, 13, 14) based on the mechanical machining condition and a measurement value (force), the machine tool performing machining using a cutting tool (13/14) that includes a cutting edge (see [0016]) and a sensor (dynamometer 15 with piezoelectric sensors - [0017]-[0018]), the measurement value [capable of] being measured by the sensor [0018]; determine a load (cutting force) on the cutting tool based on the measurement value in a first cutting process (first machining pass N) under the mechanical machining condition; calculate a revised value for revising the mechanical machining condition (adjusts depth of cut - [0038]-[0039]) for at least one machining interval (at least part of N) that has fulfilled a prescribed condition (force exceeds threshold) in the determination for the first cutting process; and update the mechanical machining condition in a second cutting process (force exceeds threshold), based on the calculated revised value (increasing cut depth by a predetermined amount, Id.), and outputting the mechanical machining condition in the second cutting process (the updated cut depth is implemented in the second machining pass).
It is also noted that given the claim is to a non-transitory recording medium and not to the overall machine tool, structural limitations of the machine tool such as the machine tool itself, the cutting tool, cutting edge, and sensor are not considered to be positively recited aspects of the claimed invention.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al.
Claim 4: As noted above, the sensor is a dynamometer using a piezoelectric sensors, but not explicitly at least one of a strain sensor, a pressure sensor, and a displacement sensor. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that dynamometers using a piezoelectric sensors for detecting force would typically use a strain gauge among other types of sensors, and could also be broadly considered a form of pressure sensor, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used such sensors as a common means for detecting force.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 4564910, while not relied upon above, also discloses a machine tool and machining condition management system wherein the system divides a machining process/cycle into a number of increments, takes a measurement value such as force or torque, averages the measurement value for each increment, and uses that data to adaptively control the machine for subsequent increments by altering machining conditions such as feed rate or cutter speed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights