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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that punctuation such as a colon (:) should be added following “processor to” in line 3
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP2016175147, cited in IDS, with reference to translation) in view of Bolin et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0127139).
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 being for performing machining using the cutting tool (e.g. [0016]), the measurement value to be 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).
Inoue does not necessarily calculate the revised value “based on the measurement value in the first cutting process”, i.e. in that the measurement value is not used in the calculation, and instead uses some predetermined correction amount. However, Bolin teaches a similar method wherein a revised value for a mechanical machining condition (e.g. depth of cut) is calculated based on a measured force value (e.g. paragraphs 26, 50, 55, 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculated the revised value based on the measurement value in order to have provided a more tailored or optimized adjustment, and/or to be better suited to inconsistent forgings.
Claim 2: Referring to Inoue, 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 4: As noted above in Inoue, 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, Applicant admits (see uncontested Official Notice from the previous Action and MPEP 2144.03 C.) 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.
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 9: The cutting tool includes a cutting insert (14) that includes the cutting edge (paragraph 16), and a shank (13) that holds the cutting insert.
Claim 13: The mechanical machining condition includes at least one of machining path information and a cutting condition, and the cutting condition includes at least one of a feed speed and a cutting speed of the cutting tool (Inoue uses depth of cut as the machining condition, which may be considered an aspect of machining path information as evidenced by Bolin, e.g. paragraphs 50 and 60).
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 being 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 to be 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).
Inoue does not necessarily calculate the revised value “based on the measurement value in the first cutting process”, i.e. in that the measurement value is not used in the calculation, and instead uses some predetermined correction amount. However, Bolin teaches a similar method wherein a revised value for a mechanical machining condition (e.g. depth of cut) is calculated based on a measured force value (e.g. paragraphs 26, 50, 55, 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculated the revised value based on the measurement value in order to have provided a more tailored or optimized adjustment, and/or to be better suited to inconsistent forgings.
Claim 14: 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 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 to be 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).
Inoue does not necessarily calculate the revised value “based on the measurement value in the first cutting process”, i.e. in that the measurement value is not used in the calculation, and instead uses some predetermined correction amount. However, Bolin teaches a similar method wherein a revised value for a mechanical machining condition (e.g. depth of cut) is calculated based on a measured force value (e.g. paragraphs 26, 50, 55, 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculated the revised value based on the measurement value in order to have provided a more tailored or optimized adjustment, and/or to be better suited to inconsistent forgings.
Claim 8: Inoue discloses 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 being for 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 to be 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.
Inoue does not necessarily calculate the revised value “based on the measurement value in the first cutting process”, i.e. in that the measurement value is not used in the calculation, and instead uses some predetermined correction amount. However, Bolin teaches a similar method wherein a revised value for a mechanical machining condition (e.g. depth of cut) is calculated based on a measured force value (e.g. paragraphs 26, 50, 55, 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have calculated the revised value based on the measurement value in order to have provided a more tailored or optimized adjustment, and/or to be better suited to inconsistent forgings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 15-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 10, 15, 18, and 20, the prior art of record fails to disclose or teach wherein the processor calculates a revision coefficient based on the measurement value in the first cutting process, and calculates the revised value based on the revision coefficient.
Claims 11, 16, and 19 depend from claims 10, 15, and 18, respectively.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, the prior art of record fails to disclose or teach wherein the prescribed condition is fulfilled when an absolute value of one of an extremum and a percentile value of the measurement value in the first cutting process exceeds an absolute value of a measurement acceptable value, the measurement acceptable value being calculated based on an average of the measurement value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant essentially relies on amendments to the claims to overcome the prior art of record. The amended claims have been addressed in the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
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