DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muramatsu et al. (US 20200094327, hereinafter ‘Muramatsu’).
Regarding claim 1, Muramatsu discloses a vibration-cutting condition setting device for a machine tool. The device is provided with a rotation driving unit 110A adapted to rotate a spindle 110 gripping a workpiece W and a feed driving unit 155 adapted to feed an object. The object is at least one of the spindle and a tool 130 for cutting the workpiece. The machine tool controls the object to be fed with a vibration along a cutting direction to cut the workpiece, the vibration comprising an advancing feed of the object in a direction toward the workpiece and a returning feed of the object in a direction opposite to the direction of the advancing feed (see e.g. Fig. 2). The device further comprises a display unit 186 and a control unit adapted to accept a setting for controlling the object to be fed with the vibration. The setting comprises a feed speed without the vibration of the object, a first parameter regarding a cycle of the vibration and a second parameter regarding an amplitude of the vibration (see e.g. Fig. 11). The control unit calculates a maximum feed speed of the object according to the feed speed without the vibration, the first parameter and the second parameter, and then displays a value representing the calculated maximum feed speed on the display unit (see e.g. Fig. 12, particularly the illustrated ‘maximum actual feed’ line which has been calculated and displayed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al. (US 20200094327) in view of Jang (KR 20200131734).
Regarding claim 2, Muramatsu does not explicitly disclose the control unit accepting an operation for changing the maximum feed speed and changing the feed speed, first and second parameters according to the updated maximum feed speed.
Jang discloses a similar cutting device, wherein two operating modes are disclosed, a speed mode and limit mode. When the machine is placed into the limit mode, the user can input a desired maximum feed, and the cycle time is reduced.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the controller of Muramatsu by allowing the inputting of a maximum feed speed as taught by Jang, in order to reduce the machining time required. As illustrated in Fig. 12 of Muramatsu, if the maximum feed speed (maximum actual feed) is altered, the feed speed without the vibration (cutting feed), first parameter (frequency) and second parameter (amplitude) are also then changed and updated values of the respective variables are displayed on the display unit.
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al. (US 20200094327) in view of Zaima (US 20200401108).
Regarding claim 3, Muramatsu discloses the control unit accepting an operation for changing the maximum feed speed (by way of changing the other parameters), but does not explicitly disclose calculating and displaying the cutting time on the display unit.
Zaima discloses a similar machining controller, wherein the controller calculates the cutting time to complete the machining operation(s) involved in the machining program and displays a value representing the calculated cutting time on the display unit (e.g. Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the cutting time calculation taught by Zaima to the controller of Muramatsu, as well as display the calculated cutting time as taught by Zaima in order to provide the operator of the machine with the time remaining in the machining operation in order to ensure a timely part change.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Muramatsu does not disclose the controller accepting an operation for changing a cutting time and then changing feed/speed parameters of the machining operation and displaying them on the display unit.
Zaima discloses a similar machining controller, wherein the controller enables a user to set and change a target cutting time, and the feed/speed parameters of the machining operation are changed to accommodate the new cutting time parameter (Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to accept the cutting time changing operation (including the resulting feed and speed parameter changes) into the control unit of Muramatsu, as taught by Zaima, in order to allow a user to speed up or slow down a cycle time based on the desired time of completion to align with shift changes for example. The resulting feed/speed changes would be displayed on the display unit of Muramatsu (e.g. Fig. 12).
Claims 4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al. (US 20200094327) in view of Jang (KR 20200131734) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Zaima (US 20200401108).
Regarding claim 4, Muramatsu discloses the control unit accepting an operation for changing the maximum feed speed (by way of changing the other parameters), but neither Muramatsu nor Jang explicitly disclose calculating and displaying the cutting time on the display unit.
Zaima discloses a similar machining controller, wherein the controller calculates the cutting time to complete the machining operation(s) involved in the machining program and displays a value representing the calculated cutting time on the display unit (e.g. Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the cutting time calculation taught by Zaima to the controller of Muramatsu in view of Jang, as well as display the calculated cutting time as taught by Zaima in order to provide the operator of the machine with the time remaining in the machining operation in order to ensure a timely part change.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, neither Muramatsu nor Jang disclose the controller accepting an operation for changing a cutting time and then changing feed/speed parameters of the machining operation and displaying them on the display unit.
Zaima discloses a similar machining controller, wherein the controller enables a user to set and change a target cutting time, and the feed/speed parameters of the machining operation are changed to accommodate the new cutting time parameter (Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to accept the cutting time changing operation (including the resulting feed and speed parameter changes) into the control unit of Muramatsu in view of Jang, as taught by Zaima, in order to allow a user to speed up or slow down a cycle time based on the desired time of completion to align with shift changes for example. The resulting feed/speed changes would be displayed on the display unit of Muramatsu (e.g. Fig. 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sonoda et al. (US 20180297164) discloses elements of or similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights