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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 3/24/2026.
Claims 5 and 14 are canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15 are presented for examination.
Oath/Declaration
The examiner notes that a properly executed inventor’s oath or declaration has not been received for any of the inventors listed on the application data sheet.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding rejections under §112
Applicant Argues
Claims have been amended such that the claims do not require being interpreted under 112(f) and claims as amended overcome the 112(b) rejections.
Examiner Responds
Rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn and the claims are no long are being interpreted under 112(f).
Regarding rejections under §101
Applicant Argues
Claims have been amended to overcome the 101 rejections.
Examiner Responds
The 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under §103
Applicant Argues
“Jantunen cautions that torque is a more sensitive measure than spindle current, thereby
teaching away from using spindle current as the primary wear indicator.”
Examiner Responds
The examiner disagrees. Jantunen, page 1001 under heading 2.4 Spindle motor and feed drive current, teaches “measuring torque is more complicated than measuring the current of the spindle motor and therefore the measurement of the current has also been widely tested and used”.
Applicant Argues
“Eichler concerns generic anomaly detection systems; it does not teach using IQR of spindle current as a direct wear proxy in a dental restoration manufacturing device, nor does it teach the linear proportionality of IQR to wear used in real time (on-the-fly) compensation.”
Examiner Responds
The examiner did not rely on Eichler to teach using IQR of spindle current as a direct wear proxy in a dental restoration device. The examiner relied on Eichler to teach IQR as a method of statistical analysis to be implemented as a subroutine in the tool wear calculator taught by the Schneider-Jantunen combination. Additionally, the claims do not recite that the IQR is used in real time to establish a linear proportionality to wear. “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” MPEP 2145(VI).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble to claim 15 recites that claim 15 depends on claim 14, however claim 14 is canceled. The claim will be examined as being dependent upon claim 11, which is what claim 14 dependent on prior to being canceled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER1 in view of JANTUNEN2 in view of EICHLER3 (hereinafter – “SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER”).
Regarding claim 1
SCHNEIDER teaches a manufacturing device for a dental restoration ([0012]: “dental machining system for manufacturing a dental restoration”), comprising:
a rotating machining tool configured to remove material from a blank ([0039]: dental machining system for manufacturing a dental restoration comprising: dental blank holder which holds a dental blank 2, a control unit to control the dental blank holder and the driving units based at least on a spatial amount of material removed from the dental blank 2, two driving units 4 each movably holding a dental tool 3 for machining the dental blank 2, dental tools 3 are held by tool motors, [0041]: “
dynamical quantity corresponds at least to the speed […] The speed may also comprise the speed of revolution of the dental tool (3)”);
a [0048]: “dental machining system which comprises one or more sensors for the measuring the dynamical quantities which relate one or more dental tools (4) when driven along the temporal trajectory with the spatial amount of material removal from the dental blank (2)” [0023]: “dynamical quantities correspond to at least […] the supply current to a dental tool motor of the respective dental tool […] sensors used may be […] a supply current sensor”, supply current of dental tool motor implies the motor is in used and thus the current is sensed during machining); and
a processor comprising a memory for storing instructions, which, when the instructions are executed by the processor cause the processor to calculate wear of the tool based on the measured[0039]: “a control unit adapted to control the dental blank holder and the driving units” [0043]: “control unit is further adapted to execute the secondary trained artificial intelligence algorithm which is further adapted to predict the wear condition of the dental tool (3) based on the predicted dynamical quantities”).
SCHNEIDER is not relied on for a spindle current sensor electrically connected to a turning spindle and configured to directly measure a spindle current.
However, JANTUNEN in analogous art teaches a spindle current sensor electrically connected to a turning spindle and configured to directly measure a spindle current in order to determine tool wear (Pp. 997, Abstract: “paper presents a summary of the monitoring methods, signal analysis and diagnostic techniques for tool wear” Pp. 1001, 2.4 Spindle motor and feed drive current: “Spindle motor current is in principle a measure of the same feature as torque, i.e. they both enlighten how much power is used in the cutting process and they both also advice about the dynamics of cutting […] However, measuring torque is more complicated than measuring the current of the spindle motor and therefore the measurement of the current has also been widely tested and used”).
SCHNEIDER and JANTUNEN are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of machine tools. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JANTUNEN to the teachings of SCHNEIDER such that the current sensor of SCHNEIDER’s device would be configured to measure the spindle current as taught by JANTUNEN, rather than the spindle motor supply current. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine SCHNEIDER and JANTUNEN because they would have recognized that measuring the current at the motor rather than a supply current of the motor would provide a more accurate indication of the current in the motor (e.g., measuring the current at the motor, as opposed to away from the motor, would mitigate resistive losses or signal distortion from power electronics), and thus a more accurate indication of the dynamics undergone by the tool, by which to calculate the wear of the tool.
Thus, SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN teach:
a manufacturing device for a dental restoration, comprising:
a rotating machining tool configured to remove material from a blank;
a spindle current sensor electrically connected to a turning spindle and configured to directly measure a spindle current during machining; and
a processor comprising a memory for storing instructions, which, when the instructions are executed by the processor cause the processor to calculate wear of the tool based on the measured
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN are not relied on for wherein the processor is configured to calculate an interval for the average 50% of the values of the spindle current.
However, EICHLER in analogous art teaches subroutine to be implemented by a control unit to calculate an interval for the average 50% of values of a machine tool to identify current sensor measurement drift, compare to a threshold, and to provide an alarm when the threshold is met ([0024]: “computer system or data processing system 100 that facilitates providing an alarm 150 (e.g., providing an alarm 150 relating to anomaly scores assigned to input data 140, such as detecting a distribution drift of the incoming data 140 using anomaly detection models 130) is illustrated. The processing system 100 may include at least one processor 102 that is configured to execute at least one application software component 106 from a memory 104 accessed by the processor 102. The application software component 106 may be configured (e.g., programmed) to cause the processor 102 to carry out various acts and functions described herein” [0027]: “application software component 106 and/or the processor 102 may be configured to receive input data 140 relating to at least one device 142 […] application software component 106 and/or the processor 102 may further be configured to apply the anomaly detection models Mn 130 to the input data 140 to generate output data 152. The output data 152 is suitable for analyzing, monitoring, operating, and/or controlling the respective device 142” [0030]: input data may included measured sensor data relating to an electric current “respective measured sensor data may characterize a machining or production step that is carried out or monitored by the respective device 142” [0032]: “input data 140 may be used to generate output data 152 by applying anomaly detection models Mn 130 to the input data 140 […] output data 152 may be used to operate or control the respective device 142” [0035]: “descriptive statistics of anomaly scores sn may be determined and compared with corresponding descriptive statistics Sn obtained for every model Mn. Hereby, the descriptive statistics for the respective anomaly scores sn or Sn may include corresponding median values, standard deviations, and/or interquartile ranges of the respective anomaly scores sn or Sn. Herein, in descriptive statistics, the interquartile range (IQR), also referred to as the midspread, middle 50%, or H-spread, is a measure of a statistical dispersion” [0037]: “If the comparison of the anomaly scores sn with the anomaly scores S1, . . . , Sn of the N anomaly detection models Mn 130 (or of the corresponding descriptive statistics on sn and Sn) reveals significant differences that may be the case if the determined difference is greater than the difference threshold, a data distribution drift may detected and a warning may be sent to the user, the respective device 142”).
EICHLER is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of control of production systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of EICHLER to the SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN combination such that EICHLER’s signal analysis subroutine to detect sensor drift could have been implemented by the control unit taught by SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that electric motor torque is proportional to the motor current, and that the distribution of the sensor current data shifting rightward (i.e., more current required in the aggregate) would indicate that more torque is being required by the tool for machining, and that a more worn tool requires more torque to perform the same material removal than a less worn tool. In view of JANTUNEN’s teaching that in a machining process “signal analysis is really needed in order to be able to separate the wanted information from the rest of the “noise”” (Pp. 998, left column, fourth paragraph), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the incoming sensor data would contain noise and/or outliers, thus providing the rationale to use the IQR analysis method in order to mitigate signal noise and/or outliers.
Regarding claim 2
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANTUNEN also teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate the wear from a plurality of measured values of the spindle current (Pp. 1002: 3.1 Time domain signal).
Regarding claim 3
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANTUNEN also teaches wherein the processor is configured to sum or average the spindle current from the plurality of measured values (Pp. 1002: arithmetic mean).
Regarding claim 4
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANTUNEN also teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate the wear from a sliding time window for the spindle current (Pp. 1004: moving average).
Regarding claim 6
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANTUNEN also teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate the wear from a width of the interval (Pp. 1002: arithmetic mean).
Regarding claim 7
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
EICHLER also teaches to calculate the wear of the tool in proportion to the width of the interval ([0064]: “anomaly detection models Mn 130 may be amended, for example, by introducing an offset or factor with respect to the variable”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER in view of JOHNSON.4
Regarding claim 8
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER are not relied on for wherein the manufacturing device is configured to compensate for the wear of the tool during the machining process.
However, JOHNSON in analogous art teaches to compensate for tool wear during a machining process ([0155]: “calibration surface can be used by a machine (e.g., a mill), typically before the machining process begins, as a reference surface to accurately determine the overall dimension (such as the length) of the machining tool […] machine can be programmed to compensate for tool wear”).
JOHNSON is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of methods of making dental restorations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JOHNSON to the teachings of SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER such that JOHNSON’s wear compensation subroutine could be used with SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER’s control unit configured to determine tool wear.
Claims 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER in view of GREBACKEN5 (hereinafter – “SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER-GREBACKEN”).
Regarding claim 9
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER are not relied on for wherein the manufacturing device comprises a tool replacer for replacing a tool.
However, GREBACKEN in analogous are teaches a tool replacer for replacing a tool (Fig. 1 & Pp. 8, ll. 28-30 & Pp.9, ll. 1-23: tool changer, tool to be changed according to recorded instructions/data programs).
SCHNEIDER teaches to determine when the wear of the tool meets a predetermined level ([0018]: “displays information indicating the predicted wear condition of the dental tool for the adjustment before start of the machining. The indication is preferably a percentage value between 100% and 0%, wherein 100% indicates that the dental tool is substantially new and 0% indicates a that the dental tool is completely worn”).
GREBACKEN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of machine tools. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GREBACKEN to the SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER combination such that GREBACKEN’s tool changer could have been used with SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER’s manufacturing device for the purposes of changing the tool when the wear value reaches 0%. SCHNEIDER teaches manual replacement of the dental tool ([0017]: “user can be enabled to safely exchange the dental tool”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would be obvious to try to include an automatic tool changer such that an operator would not be put in harm’s way during replacement of the tool.
Regarding claim 10
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER-GREBACKEN teaches the elements of claim 9 as outlined above.
SCHNEIDER teaches to determine when the wear of the tool exceeds a predetermined level, as outlined above under claim 9.
GREBACKEN teaches to automatically change the tool, as outlined above under claim 9.
Regarding claim 11
SCHNEIDER teaches a manufacturing method for a dental restoration ([0001]: “method of controlling the same for manufacturing a dental restoration”).
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER teaches the substantially same limitations of detecting a spindle current of a turning spindle and calculating wear of the tool based on the spindle current, wherein an interval is calculated for the average 50% of the values of the spindle current, as outlined above under claim 1.
SCHNEIDER teaches to determine when the wear of the tool meets a predetermined level ([0018]: “displays information indicating the predicted wear condition of the dental tool for the adjustment before start of the machining. The indication is preferably a percentage value between 100% and 0%, wherein 100% indicates that the dental tool is substantially new and 0% indicates a that the dental tool is completely worn”).
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER are not relied on for replacing the tool.
However, GREBACKEN in analogous art teaches a machining device comprising a tool changer and automatically changing the tool (Fig. 1 & Pp. 8, ll. 28-30 & Pp.9, ll. 1-23: tool changer, tool to be changed according to recorded instructions/data programs).
PNG
media_image1.png
291
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GREBACKEN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of machine tools. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GREBACKEN to the SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER combination such that GREBACKEN’s method of automatic tool changing could have been used with SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER’s manufacturing method for the purposes of changing the tool when the wear value reaches 0%. SCHNEIDER teaches manual replacement of the dental tool ([0017]: “user can be enabled to safely exchange the dental tool”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would be obvious to try to include an automatic tool changer such that an operator would not be put in harm’s way during replacement of the tool.
Regarding claim 12
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER-GREBACKEN teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
JANTUNEN also teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate the wear from a plurality of measured values of the spindle current (Pp. 1002: 3.1 Time domain signal).
Regarding claim 13
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER-GREBACKEN teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above.
JANTUNEN also teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate the wear from a sliding time window for the spindle current (Pp. 1004: moving average).
Regarding claim 15
SCHNEIDER-JANTUNEN-EICHLER-GREBACKEN teaches the elements of claim as outlined above.
JANTUNEN also teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate the wear from a width of the interval (Pp. 1002: arithmetic mean).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 SCHNEIDER is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
2 JANTUNEN is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
3 EICHLER is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
4 JOHNSON is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
5 GREBACKEN is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights