DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is taken in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 8/11/2025 regarding Application No. 18/392,296 originally filed on 12/21/2023. Claims 1-2 and 7 are pending for consideration:
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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues: “According to claim 1, the method can utilize a data acquisition unit to capture the motion information of a physical component (a processing unit)… Then, the motion information of this physical component is transformed into the stop position of this physical component, which is a transformation of an article to a different state or thing… In addition, the method can utilize the collision detection unit to perform an anticollision detection according to the stop position… Thus, the calculation mechanism recited in claim 1 is applied to a particular useful application (anti-collision detection) and not conventional… Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention of claim 1 contains an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.” [Remarks, p. 16]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While applicant characterizes the claim as “transforming” a physical component, the claim as written only recites collecting numerical motion information (coordinates, feed, response time), performing mathematical calculations (deceleration distance, differential distance, response-time distance, stop position), and then comparing the computed stop position to a workpiece boundary. No step actually commands or changes the physical motion of the machine tool or workpiece based on that result. The recited computer, controller, data acquisition unit, arithmetic unit, and collision detection unit are claimed generically and used in their ordinary capacity to perform these calculations and comparisons. As explained in the 101 rejection, such generic use of conventional control hardware to implement an otherwise abstract mathematical/mental process does not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” under Step 2A/2B. Accordingly, the traversal is unpersuasive.
The applicant argues: “However, Lin merely teaches the stop distance instead of the stop position. Besides, Lin fails to [teach that] the stop distance is calculated according to the motion information. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Lin fails to reveal the limitation ‘according to the motion information, utilizing an arithmetic unit to calculate a stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated’ recited in claim 1.” [Remarks, p. 18]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lin discloses calculating a stop distance for the processing unit to decelerate from a current speed to zero based on block information including feed rate, velocity, acceleration, and NC command points PA1–PA3 (¶30, ¶41, ¶45). Lin further discloses useing stop distance, together with the current NC command point and delay distance, to derive a safety distance along the tool path for collision checking (¶34, ¶41–43). A person of ordinary skill would understand that applying a calculated stopping distance along the known toolpath from a known coordinate yields a corresponding stop position in machine coordinates. Thus, even if Lin emphasizes “stop distance” in the text, it inherently teaches or at least renders obvious calculating a stop position from motion information. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
The applicant argues: “Examiner states that Lin fails to reveal the limitation, but the abstract and Paragraph [0065] of the disclosure of Takashi disclose the limitation… Takashi only teaches determining whether the stop position enters the interference zone instead of comparing the stop position with the workpiece position. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Takashi fails to disclose the limitation ‘according to the stop position of the at least one processing unit, utilizing a collision detection unit to perform an anti-collision detection, comparing the stop position of the at least one processing unit with a workpiece position of a workpiece’.” [Remarks, p. 19]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Takashi discloses an interference region derived from the finished shape of the workpiece using CAD or equivalent contour data (P2¶1–¶6, P5¶3). The interference check unit then determines whether the tool shape at the estimated stop position lies within that region and outputs a stop command when the stop position “enters the interference region”. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, comparing whether a tool at a given stop position lies inside or outside a region defined by the finished workpiece shape is a comparison between the stop position and the workpiece boundary/position. Therefore, he claim language “comparing the stop position… with a workpiece position of a workpiece” reasonably reads on Takashi’s comparison. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
The applicant argues: “By contrast, according to claim 1 of the disclosure of Lin, Lin teaches that the method estimates the stop distance based on the block information calculated by a computing device, which requires certain hardware to perform the speed calculation… In contrast, according to amended claim 1, the stop position can be calculated based on the current machine coordinate parameter, motion axial feed parameter and system response time parameter and acceleration/deceleration parameters. In this way, if the motion axial feed parameter and system response time parameter remain unchanged, the deceleration distance (which is a fixed value) can be calculated… In contrast, Lin teaches that it is necessary to perform a calculation for each block when processing short blocks… Although Lin also teaches that the feed parameters are included in the block information, the information required by amended claim 1 is different... In contrast, amended claim 1 allows the user to operate and control the movement direction and speed, and uses the established detection mechanism to prevent interference and collision.” [Remarks, p. 22–24]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the supposed advantages are not positively recited in claim 1. The claim does not preclude recalculating for each block, does not forbid using NC block information, and does not require any specific reduction in computational load. Second, Lin’s “block information” explicitly includes NC command points, feed rates, velocities, accelerations, and the system response time used to compute delay distance and stop distance (¶30, ¶34, ¶38, ¶41), which falls squarely within the claimed “motion information”. Nozawa and KorkortOnline further teach using standard acceleration/deceleration formulas and reaction/response time to compute differential distances and stopping distances per cycle. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to calculate a stop position from the current coordinate, command speed, acceleration, and response time using these known relationships, whether the data is labeled as “block information” or “motion information.” Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) (namely limitation(s): “wherein the equal-speed mode is deemed present when an instant command speed is equal to a previous command speed, while the acceleration/deceleration mode is deemed present when the instant command speed is not equal to the previous command speed;”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
1. A method for predicting collision detection of moving path of machine tool, performed after being read by a computer, the computer being applicable to connect a machine tool, the machine tool including a controller, the controller including at least one processing unit, comprising the steps of:
utilizing a data acquisition unit to capture a motion information of the at least one processing unit, the motion information including a current machine coordinate parameter, a motion axial feed parameter and a system response time parameter, wherein the system response time parameter is obtained by estimating a signal transmission time between the at least one processing unit and a system for predicting collision detection of moving path of machine tool;
according to the motion axial feed parameter of the motion information, utilizing an arithmetic unit to calculate a deceleration distance for the at least one processing unit to decelerate to zero from a speed value;
when a command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within an equal-speed mode, calculating a response time distance according to the command speed and the system response time parameter, or when the command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within an acceleration/deceleration mode, estimating a differential distance according to an axial acceleration in the acceleration/deceleration parameter, wherein the equal-speed mode is deemed present when an instant command speed is equal to a previous command speed, while the acceleration/deceleration mode is deemed present when the instant command speed is not equal to the previous command speed;
according to the current machine coordinate parameter, obtaining a machine coordinate, the deceleration distance and the response time distance so as to derive correspondingly a stop position when the command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within the equal-speed mode, or according to the command speed, the system response time parameter and the differential distance, calculating the response time distance, and according to the current machine coordinate parameter, obtaining a machine coordinate, the deceleration distance and the response time distance so as to derive correspondingly the stop position when the command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within the acceleration/deceleration mode;
according to a contour information of the at least one processing unit, comparing the stop position of the at least one processing unit with the workpiece position of the workpiece so as to obtain a workpiece boundary position of the workpiece corresponding to the at least one processing unit; and
according to the stop position of the at least one processing unit, detecting whether or not the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated and the workpiece boundary position are interfering with each other.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recites a method including at least one step. The claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claims recite the limitations “predicting…”, “utilizing…”, “capturing…”, “calculating/comparing…”, “etc.”. The “predicting…”, “utilizing…”, “capturing…”, and “calculating/comparing…” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of computer, controller, machine tool, processing unit, data acquisition/arithmetic unit, workpiece, etc., nothing in the claims precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “computer, controller, machine tool, processing unit, data acquisition/arithmetic unit, workpiece, etc.” language, the claim encompasses looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, computer, data acquisition/arithmetic unit(s) and do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
The claims recite the additional elements of computer, controller, machine tool, processing unit, data acquisition/arithmetic unit, workpiece, etc., that performs the “predicting…”, “utilizing…”, “capturing…”, “calculating/comparing…” steps. The steps by the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements are claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. (i.e. data acquisition/arithmetic unit(s), computer, controller, processing unit)
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: - No
The claim(s) are evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claims.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be
patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception and/or generic additional elements that do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2 and 7 recite limitations that are
insignificant extra-solution activity as they are nominally or tangentially related to the invention
and well-known. Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2 and 7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub. No. 20200324413) in view of Gen (JP Pub. No. 2020013433) in view of Nozawa (US Pub. No. 4543625) in view of KorkortOnline (NPL Title: Stopping distance = reaction distance + braking distance, Year 2018) in view of Takashi (JP Pub. No. 2005321890).
As per Claim 1, Lin discloses predicting collision of a machining path, comprising:
performed after being read by a computer, the computer being applicable to connect a machine tool, the machine tool including a controller, (as per ¶6, as per “applicable to a machine tool including a controller, the controller including a processing unit, the system for predicting collision of a machining path” in Claim 11) the controller including at least one processing unit, comprising the steps of:
utilizing a data acquisition unit to capture a motion information of the at least one processing unit, the motion information including a current machine coordinate parameter, (as per “The NC program can be consisted of G codes (such as G00 and G01), M codes, S codes, T codes, N codes and F codes. For example, G01 stands for Move at feed rate, Z44.5 stands 44.5 units (inches for example) in the Z-axial direction" in ¶30, as per “tilizes the block information of the NC program to perform the anti-collision detection, thus prior to individual block information can be interpolated, based on the velocity of the next block information, the number of the block information needed for satisfying the safety distance can be submitted in advance to proceed collision detection through 3D simulations” in ¶10) a motion axial feed parameter(as per “the plurality of block information are program codes of the NC program, and the block information include line numbers, spindle speeds, machining feed rates, velocities, accelerations and the like codes. These codes are in correspondence with at least one component within the processing unit 521” in ¶30, as per “codes of the block information are transformed into three corresponding NC command points PA1˜PA3” in ¶45) and a system response time parameter; (as per “signal transmission time between the controller 52 and the processing unit 521 is estimated to be a system response time” in ¶38) wherein the system response time parameter is obtained by estimating a signal transmission time between the at least one processing unit (as per “The response-time estimating unit 110 estimates a signal transmission time for an alarm signal issued by the collision-detecting unit 130 to be transmitted to the processing unit 521 as the system response time. In other words, the system response time is estimated by judging the transmission performance of the system for predicting collision of a machining path 100” in ¶32) and a system for predicting collision detection of moving path of machine tool;
(as per “the system for predicting collision of a machining path 100 can utilize directly an internal counter or clock of the controller 52 to estimate a duration of time from a generation time of the alarm signal at the collision-detecting unit 130 to a receipt time of the alarm signal by the processing unit 521. This time duration is defined as the signal transmission time for being provided to the response-time estimating unit 110 as a reference” in ¶32)
according to the motion axial feed parameter of the motion information, (as per “the plurality of block information are program codes of the NC program, and the block information include line numbers, spindle speeds, machining feed rates, velocities, accelerations and the like codes. These codes are in correspondence with at least one component within the processing unit 521. The NC program can be consisted of G codes (such as G00 and G01), M codes, S codes, T codes, N codes and F codes. For example, G01 stands for Move at feed rate, Z44.5 stands 44.5 units (inches for example) in the Z-axial direction, and F200 stands for 200 units (mm/min for example) of the feed speed” in ¶30) utilizing an arithmetic unit to calculate a deceleration distance for the at least one processing unit to decelerate to zero from a speed value; (as per “In performing step S132, a stop distance is calculated for a speed value of the next block information with respect to the instant block information to decelerate to zero. For example, in the case that the instant block information to be interpolated is the third block information, then, according to machining parameters such as the machining feed rate, velocity and acceleration at the initial point of the fourth block information, the calculation unit 120 calculates the stop distance for the fourth block information to stop from the instant speed value, and the stop distances for the individual block information would vary in accordance with the individual speed values” in ¶41)
calculating a response time distance according to the command speed and the system response time parameter, (as per “The safety distance is obtained by calculating the system response time and a stop distance of the corresponding block information. The stop distance is the distance for the velocity of individual block information to decelerate to zero. A delay value is obtained by evaluating the system response time and the velocity of the corresponding block information. The safety distance is obtained by adding the delay distance and the stop distance” in ¶34, as per “step S134 is performed to add a delay distance and the corresponding stop distance so as to obtain the safety distance, in which the delay distance is obtained by evaluating the speed values with respect to individual block information and the system response time” in ¶41)
according to the current machine coordinate parameter, (as per “The NC program can be consisted of G codes (such as G00 and G01), M codes, S codes, T codes, N codes and F codes. For example, G01 stands for Move at feed rate, Z44.5 stands 44.5 units (inches for example) in the Z-axial direction" in ¶30, as per “utilizes the block information of the NC program to perform the anti-collision detection, thus prior to individual block information can be interpolated, based on the velocity of the next block information, the number of the block information needed for satisfying the safety distance can be submitted in advance to proceed collision detection through 3D simulations” in ¶10) obtaining a machine coordinate, (as per “codes of the block information are transformed into three corresponding NC command points PA1˜PA3” in ¶45) the deceleration distance (as per “In performing step S132, a stop distance is calculated for a speed value of the next block information with respect to the instant block information to decelerate to zero. For example, in the case that the instant block information to be interpolated is the third block information, then, according to machining parameters such as the machining feed rate, velocity and acceleration at the initial point of the fourth block information, the calculation unit 120 calculates the stop distance for the fourth block information to stop from the instant speed value, and the stop distances for the individual block information would vary in accordance with the individual speed values” in ¶41) and the response time distance so as to derive correspondingly a stop position (as per “In addition, based on the system response time caused by a signal communication delay or a network transmission delay between two transmission interfaces, step S134 is performed to add a delay distance and the corresponding stop distance so as to obtain the safety distance, in which the delay distance is obtained by evaluating the speed values with respect to individual block information and the system response time. In other words, since the safety distance is varied in accordance with the stop distance of the corresponding block information, thus the aforesaid safety distance is not simply obtained by giving a constant or fixed distance” in ¶41, as per “in the case that the third block information is treated as the instant block information to be interpolated, the calculation unit 120 calculates the stop distance for the fourth block information to stop from a current speed value to be 5 mm, and the delay distance is defined as 5 mm, then the safety distance would be 10 mm” in ¶43)
Lin fails to expressly disclose:
when a command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within an equal-speed mode,
when the command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within the equal-speed mode,
estimating a differential distance according to an axial acceleration in the acceleration/deceleration parameter,
wherein the equal-speed mode is deemed present when an instant command speed is equal to a previous command speed,
while the acceleration/deceleration mode is deemed present when the instant command speed is not equal to the previous command speed;
or according to the command speed, the system response time parameter and the differential distance, calculating the response time distance, and
when the command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within the acceleration/deceleration mode;
according to a contour information of the at least one processing unit, comparing the stop position of the at least one processing unit with the workpiece position of the workpiece so as to obtain a workpiece boundary position of the workpiece corresponding to the at least one processing unit; and
according to the stop position of the at least one processing unit, detecting whether or not the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated and the workpiece boundary position are interfering with each other.
Gen discloses of numerical control device, comprising:
when a command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within an equal-speed mode, (as per “the CPU 31 calculates the Z-axis position command p for the time period t1 to t2 using the position information "Z-10" and the movement speed information "F200" between the time periods t1 and t2,” in ¶37, as per “for determining that the motor is running at a constant speed when the absolute value of the acceleration information is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold value” in ¶6)
when the command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within the equal-speed mode, (as per “the CPU 31 calculates the Z-axis position command p for the time period t1 to t2 using the position information "Z-10" and the movement speed information "F200" between the time periods t1 and t2,” in ¶37, as per “for determining that the motor is running at a constant speed when the absolute value of the acceleration information is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold value” in ¶6)
when the command speed of the motion axial feed parameter is within the acceleration/deceleration mode; (as per “second determination means for determining that the motor is accelerating or decelerating when the absolute value of the acceleration information calculated by the calculation means is greater than a predetermined threshold value,” in ¶6, as per “The CPU 31 determines that the Z-axis motor 51 is accelerating or decelerating during periods d21 and d22 in which the absolute value of the calculated acceleration information is greater than a predetermined first threshold value Th1” in ¶38)
wherein the equal-speed mode is deemed present when an instant command speed is equal to a previous command speed, (as per “a fifth determination means for determining that the motor is running at a constant speed from the time when the third determination means determines that the speed command and the measurement information are identical until the fourth determination means determines that the stored command and the speed command are not identical” in Claim 1, as per “When the CPU 31 determines that the comparison speed information and the speed information are the same (S101: YES), the CPU 31 advances the process to S105” in ¶51, as per “The CPU 31 determines that the spindle motor 52 is moving at a constant speed during the period d32 from when it determines that the speed information and the measurement information are identical to when it determines that the nth (n is an integer greater than or equal to 1) speed information and the n+1th speed information are not identical” in ¶40)
while the acceleration/deceleration mode is deemed present when the instant command speed is not equal to the previous command speed; (as per “and for determining that the motor is accelerating or decelerating from the time when the fourth determination means determines that the stored command and the speed command are not identical until the third determination means determines that the speed command and the measurement information are identical;” in Claim 1, as per “When the CPU 31 determines that the comparison speed information and the speed information are not the same (S101: NO), it determines that the spindle motor 52 is accelerating or decelerating” in ¶51)
In this way, Gen operates to improve the accuracy of detecting abnormalities in a tool of a numerical control device (¶7). Like Lin, Gen is concerned with numerical control devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the collision prediction as taught by Lin with the numerical control device of Gen to enable another standard means of determining when a motor is accelerating/decelerating or at a constant speed based on acceleration information (Abstract).
Lin and Gen fail to expressly disclose:
estimating a differential distance according to an axial acceleration in the acceleration/deceleration parameter,
or according to the command speed, the system response time parameter and the differential distance, calculating the response time distance, and
according to a contour information of the at least one processing unit, comparing the stop position of the at least one processing unit with the workpiece position of the workpiece so as to obtain a workpiece boundary position of the workpiece corresponding to the at least one processing unit; and
according to the stop position of the at least one processing unit, detecting whether or not the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated and the workpiece boundary position are interfering with each other.
Nozawa discloses of compensating for servo delay, comprising:
estimating a differential distance according to an axial acceleration in the acceleration/deceleration parameter, (as per “This is followed by a format check, decoding, calculation of an amount of movement (incremental values), and by other preprocessing, after which machining or movement is controlled based upon the succeeding block” in C1L15-25, as per “f we assume that the path data is given on the basis of an absolute command, then the processor 102c uses the following formula to obtain the differences (incremental values) .DELTA.X, .DELTA.Y, .DELTA.Z between commanded position data Xc, Yc, Zc and present position data Xa, Ya, Za, along the respective axes” in C5L10-20, as per “an NC device uses an acceleration/deceleration circuit for increasing and decreasing commanded speed exponentially,” in C4L45-50, as per “T1: acceleration/deceleration time constant” in C4L15)
In this way, Nozawa operates to provide a numerical control method wherein machining error caused by servo delay in cutting a corner or arc need not be taken into consideration (C2L10-20). Like Lin and Gen, Nozawa is concerned with numerical control systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the collision prediction as taught by Lin and the numerical control device of Gen with the servo delay compensation of Nozawa to enable another standard means of determining the differences ΔX, ΔY, ΔZ – which are per-cycle differential distances – by taking into account commanded path and acceleration (C4L15-65).
Lin, Gen, and Nozawa fail to expressly disclose:
or according to the command speed, the system response time parameter and the differential distance, calculating the response time distance, and
according to a contour information of the at least one processing unit, comparing the stop position of the at least one processing unit with the workpiece position of the workpiece so as to obtain a workpiece boundary position of the workpiece corresponding to the at least one processing unit; and
according to the stop position of the at least one processing unit, detecting whether or not the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated and the workpiece boundary position are interfering with each other.
KorkortOnline discloses of a stopping distance calculation, comprising:
or according to the command speed, the system response time parameter and the differential distance, calculating the response time distance, (as per first figure, pasted below)
PNG
media_image1.png
431
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this way, KorkortOnline operates to calculate stopping distances (Abstract). Like Lin, Gen, and Nozawa, KorkortOnline is concerned with system improvement.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the collision prediction as taught by Lin, the numerical control device of Gen, and the servo delay compensation of Nozawa with the stopping distance calculation of KorkortOnline to enable another standard means of calculating stopping distances based on reaction and distance (as per first figure).
Lin, Gen, Nozawa, and KorkortOnline fail to expressly disclose:
according to a contour information of the at least one processing unit, comparing the stop position of the at least one processing unit with the workpiece position of the workpiece so as to obtain a workpiece boundary position of the workpiece corresponding to the at least one processing unit; and
according to the stop position of the at least one processing unit, detecting whether or not the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated and the workpiece boundary position are interfering with each other.
Takashi discloses of a misworking preventing device, comprising:
according to a contour information of the at least one processing unit, (as per “the interference area is set based on CAD data. However, as long as the shape of the tool or the work is represented by an arbitrary figure in which line segments are connected, image data or other data is used” in P5¶3, as per “the tool shape file unit 24 is a storage unit in which data indicating the correspondence between the tool shape file name and the tool number created based on the tool shape file name / tool number correspondence table (including setting accuracy data) data 47 is stored” in P4¶6) comparing the stop position of the at least one processing unit with the workpiece position of the workpiece so as to obtain a workpiece boundary position of the workpiece corresponding to the at least one processing unit; (as per “Position estimation means for estimating a stop position at which the tool is predicted to stop when the command output means outputs a stop command based on the moving speed calculated by the speed calculation means; The interference check means determines whether or not the tool shape of the tool at the stop position estimated by the position estimation means interferes with the finished shape of the workpiece, The command output means outputs a stop command to stop the movement of the tool to the machining apparatus when the determination result of the interference check means indicates interference” in P2¶4-¶6)
according to the stop position of the at least one processing unit, detecting whether or not the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated and the workpiece boundary position are interfering with each other. (as per “and outputs the stop instruction to an NC machine 30 when the stop position of the tool enters the interference region, and decides whether or not the tool and the finish shape of the work interfere with each other after the tool stops” in Abstract, as per “. In step S7, it is determined whether or not the tool interferes with the finished shape of the workpiece depending on whether or not the tool position is within the interference region” in P6¶6)
In this way, Takashi operates to determine whether or not the tool shape at the tool position of the tool moved by a processing device that moves the tool to a predetermined finish shape by moving the tool interferes with the finish shape of the workpiece (P2¶1). Like Lin, Gen, Nozawa, and KorkortOnline, Takashi is concerned with numerical control systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the collision prediction as taught by Lin, the numerical control device of Gen, the servo delay compensation of Nozawa, and the stopping distance calculation of KorkortOnline with the misworking preventing device of Takashi to enable another standard means of determining interference between a tool position and the shape of a workpiece, with movement commands to aid given the determination (P2¶2).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Lin, Gen, Nozawa, KorkortOnline, and Takashi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Lin further discloses utilizing an alarm output unit to output an alarm information to the processing unit correspondingly. (as per “The response-time estimating unit 110 estimates a signal transmission time for an alarm signal issued by the collision-detecting unit 130 to be transmitted to the processing unit 521 as the system response time” in ¶32, as per “If an interference is detected (i.e., an occurrence of a collision), the collision-detecting unit 130 would issue an alarm signal to the processing unit 521, such that the processing unit 521 can stop the machining permanently or temporarily” in ¶35)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub. No. 20200324413) in view of Gen (JP Pub. No. 2020013433) in view of Nozawa (US Pub. No. 4543625) in view of KorkortOnline (NPL Title: Stopping distance = reaction distance + braking distance, Year 2018) in view of Takashi (JP Pub. No. 2005321890) in further view of Haraguchi (US Pub. No. 20160085232).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Lin, Gen, Nozawa, KorkortOnline, and Takashi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Lin further discloses before the step of utilizing the arithmetic unit to calculate the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated, further including the steps of:
upon when an alarm information exists, then stopping the method; (as per “If an interference is detected (i.e., an occurrence of a collision), the collision-detecting unit 130 would issue an alarm signal to the processing unit 521, such that the processing unit 521 can stop the machining permanently or temporarily” in ¶35)
when an alarm information does not exist, continuing to utilizing the arithmetic unit to calculate the stop position of the at least one processing unit after being decelerated. (as per “(c1) calculating the stop distance for the next block information to decelerate to zero from a speed value with respect to the block information to be interpolated; and (c2) adding a delay distance to the stop distance so as to obtain the safety distance, wherein the delay distance is derived from the system response time and the speed values with respect to the individual block information.” in Claim 2, as per “calculating a safety distance of a next block information with respect to a block information to be interpolated, wherein the safety distance is obtained by calculating a system response time and a stop distance with respect to the each of the plurality of block information” in ¶7, as per “If no collision is detected, the instant block information is sent to the interpolator 5211 for performing an interpolation. Then, corresponding interpolation commands are sent to the spindle motor, the servo motor and the driver of the processing unit 521 for executing thereof the machining upon the workpiece” in ¶35)
Lin, Gen, Nozawa, KorkortOnline, and Takashi fail to expressly disclose a move command exists in a manual mode.
Haraguchi discloses of a numerical control device, comprising a move command exists in a manual mode. (as per “a manual operation approach command unit configured to receive a manual operation approach instruction by an operator, and an approaching operation switching unit configured to switch automatic operation approach and manual operation approach” in ¶10, as per “and the manual operation approach is conducted according to the input from the console panel 71” in ¶49)
In this way, Haraguchi operates to provide a numerical control device which enables easy and safe approach to the restarting machining point when restarting the machining for an operator (¶9). Like Lin, Gen, Nozawa, KorkortOnline, and Takashi, Haraguchi is concerned with numerical control devices.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the systems of Lin, Gen, Nozawa, KorkortOnline, and Takashi with the numerical control device of Haraguchi to enable another standard means of manually controlling the numerical control device (¶49).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ramón Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658