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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 10/17/2023, where claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowable over prior art, however they are rejected under USC 112(b) as shown below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent claims 1 and 7, the primary reason that the claims are allowable over the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20200014761 (Kawaai), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20200326670 (Tsuneki), and the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20200279158 (Tsunoda), is because although the cited prior art teach similar machining device and utilizing machine learning for controlling machining device, they neither alone nor in combination teach based on a plurality of pieces of the acquired machining data, calculating an importance with respect to each piece of the acquired machining data, extracting a plurality of pieces of transfer learning data for performing transfer learning of a first machine learning model that receives, as an input, the data related to the machining conditions in time series for the plurality of steps generated in advance from among the plurality of pieces of the machining data acquired based on the calculated importance and output data related to the machining state after execution for the plurality of steps, performing transfer learning of the first machine learning model by using the extracted plurality of pieces of the transfer learning data, and generating a second machine learning model that receives, as an input, data related to the machining conditions in time series for the plurality of steps and output data related to the machining state after execution for the plurality of steps. Therefore, the cited prior art do not teach every limitation in the specific combination as recited in claims 1 and 7.
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected to because of the following: independent claim 1 recites “to calculate an importance with respect to each piece of machining data acquired on a basis of a plurality of pieces of the machining data”, “in time series for the plurality of steps generated in advance from among a plurality of pieces of the machining data”, and “to perform the transfer learning of the first machine learning model by using a plurality of pieces of the transfer learning data”. In each of the three limitations above recited the element “plurality of pieces”. The element is recited with the article “a” indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, the same element has been recited in prior limitation(s). Therefore, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same element or different and distinct elements. If they are intended to be the same element, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by changing the article from “a” to “the” for the element “plurality of pieces”. If they are intended to be different and distinct elements, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by adding unique identifiers, e.g., first, second, third, etc., in front of each recitation of the “plurality of pieces” to distinguish between them.
Claim 1 further recites “on a basis of the importance calculated and outputs data related to a machining state after execution for the plurality of steps” and “data related to the machining conditions in time series for the plurality of steps and outputs data related to a machining state after execution for the plurality of steps.” In each of the two limitations above recited the element “machining state”. The element is recited with the article “a” indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, the same element has been recited in prior limitation(s). Therefore, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same element or different and distinct elements. If they are intended to be the same element, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by changing the article from “a” to “the” for the element “machining state”. If they are intended to be different and distinct elements, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by adding unique identifiers, e.g., first, second, third, etc., in front of each recitation of the “machining state” to distinguish between them.
For the above reasons, render the claim indefinite. Independent claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations and deficiencies as claim 1 discussed above; therefore, claim 7 is likewise rejected.
Claims 2-6 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim they depend from.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected to because of the following: claim 2 recites “data related to a machining state after execution for the plurality of steps”. In the above limitation recited the element “machining state”. The element is recited with the article “a” indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, the same element has been recited in prior limitation. Therefore, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same element or different and distinct elements. If they are intended to be the same element, it is suggested to amend the above limitation by changing the article from “a” to “the” for the element “machining state”. If they are intended to be different and distinct elements, it is suggested to amend the above limitation by adding unique identifiers, e.g., first, second, third, etc., in front of each recitation of the “machining state” to distinguish between them.
Claim 2 further recites “the processing circuitry calculates the importance of each piece of machining data acquired on a basis of a plurality of pieces of the machining data” and “a plurality of pieces of the preliminary learning data acquired”. In each of the two limitations above recited the element “plurality of pieces”. The element is recited with the article “a” indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, the same element has been recited in prior limitation(s). Therefore, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same element or different and distinct elements. If they are intended to be the same element, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by changing the article from “a” to “the” for the element “plurality of pieces”. If they are intended to be different and distinct elements, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by adding unique identifiers, e.g., first, second, third, etc., in front of each recitation of the “plurality of pieces” to distinguish between them.
Claim 5 is rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim it depends from.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected to because of the following: claim 3 recites “select a plurality of pieces of selected transfer learning data from among a plurality of pieces of the transfer learning data” and “using a plurality of pieces of the selected transfer learning data selected”. In each of the two limitations above recited the element “plurality of pieces”. The element is recited with the article “a” indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, the same element has been recited in prior limitation(s). Therefore, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same element or different and distinct elements. If they are intended to be the same element, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by changing the article from “a” to “the” for the element “plurality of pieces”. If they are intended to be different and distinct elements, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by adding unique identifiers, e.g., first, second, third, etc., in front of each recitation of the “plurality of pieces” to distinguish between them.
Claim 4 is rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim it depends from.
Claim 5 is rejected to because of the following: claim 5 recites “to compress a plurality of pieces of the machining data and a plurality of pieces of the preliminary learning data” and “on a basis of a plurality of pieces of the machining data and a plurality of pieces of the preliminary learning data after being compressed”. In each of the limitations above recited the element “plurality of pieces”. The element is recited with the article “a” indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, the same element has been recited in prior limitation(s). Therefore, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same element or different and distinct elements. If they are intended to be the same element, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by changing the article from “a” to “the” for the element “plurality of pieces”. If they are intended to be different and distinct elements, it is suggested to amend each of the above limitations by adding unique identifiers, e.g., first, second, third, etc., in front of each recitation of the “plurality of pieces” to distinguish between them.
Claim 6 is rejected to because of the following: claim 6 recites “the processing circuitry extracts feature amounts of a plurality of pieces of the transfer learning data”. The limitation above recited the element “plurality of pieces”. The element is recited with the article “a” indicates it is the first recitation of such element. However, the same element has been recited in prior limitation. Therefore, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same element or different and distinct elements. If they are intended to be the same element, it is suggested to amend the above limitation by changing the article from “a” to “the” for the element “plurality of pieces”. If they are intended to be different and distinct elements, it is suggested to amend the above limitation by adding unique identifiers, e.g., first, second, third, etc., in front of each recitation of the “plurality of pieces” to distinguish between them.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20180356793 (Kanemaru) – discloses machine learning device that performs reinforcement learning on a controller that controls a machine tool.
US 20190351512 (Izumi) – discloses machine learning device for a cutting condition adjustment apparatus.
US 20220121183 (Kuhn) – discloses method and device for simulating machining process of a machine tool by using self-learning artificial neural network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118