1-6DETAILED 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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Drawings
Figure 4 and 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim limitation “cutting edge angle acquisition unit”, “oscillation amplitude calculation unit”, “oscillation direction determination unit”, and “oscillation control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FIG. 1 shows that those unit are software and it’s not modified by hardware, specification paragraph 0013-0018 discloses those terms but without any indication that it’s a hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YAMAMOTO USPGPUB 2019/0310601 (hereinafter “YAMAMOTO”).
As to claim 1, YAMAMOTO teaches a control device for a machine tool for performing oscillation cutting by relative oscillation of a tool and a workpiece (abstract “a controller for a machine tool capable of shredding chips in any thread cutting method. A controller for a machine tool comprises: an oscillation condition calculation unit that calculates an oscillation amplitude” and FIG. 1, paragraph 0022), comprising: a cutting edge angle acquisition unit that acquires a cutting edge angle of the tool (paragraph 0059 “thread cutting methods including radial infeed (right angle infeed), flank infeed (single edge infeed), alternate infeed (staggered infeed), etc”); an oscillation amplitude calculation unit that calculates, based on the cutting edge angle of the tool, an oscillation amplitude necessary for chip shredding in an arbitrary oscillation direction (paragraph 0058-0059 “oscillation condition calculation unit 102 calculates the amplitude of oscillation and the direction of the oscillation. Thus, even if various types of machining methods are to be applied, an area of idling can be provided reliably on a machining path to allow reliable shredding of chips” and paragraph 0040-0043); an oscillation direction determination unit that determines an oscillation direction based on a calculation result of the oscillation amplitude calculation unit (paragraph 0040-0045 “oscillation condition calculation unit 102, machining paths are compared to calculate the amplitude of oscillation and the direction of the oscillation. This makes it possible to shred chips caused by lathe-turning machining reliably. As a result, it becomes possible to apply oscillation responsive to various types of machining methods flexibly compared to the conventional technique by which oscillation is controlled”); and an oscillation control unit that controls, based on a machining condition, oscillation in the oscillation direction determined by the oscillation direction determination unit (paragraph 0040-0051 “amplitude and the direction of oscillation are controlled in response to a machining direction to allow more reliable shredding of chips”).
As to claim 2, YAMAMOTO teaches wherein the oscillation direction determination unit determines, in an oscillation direction range in which a chip is shreddable, an oscillation direction with an oscillation amplitude smaller than an oscillation amplitude of oscillation in a direction along a machining course (paragraph 0054-0058 “amplitude of oscillation and the direction of the oscillation are determined based on a tool path 220 on a first path and a tool path 222 on the second path. According to the conventional technique (see FIG. 9), oscillation is always applied only in the X-axis direction (the radial direction of the work 214) in any machining method. By contrast, in the embodiment, the amplitude of oscillation and the direction of the oscillation are determined based on the tool path 220 on the first path and the tool path 222 on the second path. This allows the machine tool to perform oscillating cutting under conditions in terms of an oscillation direction and an oscillation amplitude allowing reliable shredding of chips”).
As to claim 3, YAMAMOTO teaches wherein the oscillation direction determination unit determines, as the oscillation direction, a direction perpendicular to a flank surface of the tool, which is a workpiece-side surface of a blade edge of the tool in a machining direction (paragraph 0053-0059 “cutting tool 216 as a v-shaped blade moves so as to make sliding motion of one surface of a tool nose of the cutting tool 216 (the work 214 is not cut with the moving cutting tool 216). More specifically, the cutting tool 216 is brought to a deeper position while being shifted in the Z-axis direction”).
As to claim 4, YAMAMOTO teaches wherein the oscillation control unit changes oscillation in only a specific axis of a plurality of feed axes to oscillation in the oscillation direction determined by the oscillation direction determination unit (paragraph 0054-0059 “amplitude of oscillation and the direction of the oscillation are determined based on the tool path 220 on the first path and the tool path 222 on the second path”).
As to claim 5, YAMAMOTO teaches wherein the oscillation control unit changes oscillation in only a specific axis of a plurality of feed axes to oscillation in the oscillation direction determined by the oscillation direction determination unit (paragraph 0054-0059 “amplitude of oscillation and the direction of the oscillation are determined based on the tool path 220 on the first path and the tool path 222 on the second path”).
As to claim 6, YAMAMOTO teaches wherein the oscillation control unit changes oscillation in only a specific axis of a plurality of feed axes to oscillation in the oscillation direction determined by the oscillation direction determination unit (paragraph 0054-0059 “amplitude of oscillation and the direction of the oscillation are determined based on the tool path 220 on the first path and the tool path 222 on the second path”).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishiwari USP 10, 437235 a numerical controller enabling prediction of a machining time considering a machine delay occurring in a machine. The numerical controller configured for predicting a reference machining time corresponding to a machining time not considering acceleration/deceleration of an predicting the number of times of acceleration/deceleration of the axis in machining storing information related to a deviation time corresponding to a difference between an actual machining time corresponding to a machining time required for actual machining by the machine and the reference machining time predicted in the machining, calculating a correction time for correcting the reference machining time based on the number of times of acceleration/deceleration predicted and the information related to the deviation time stored, and calculating a predicted machining time obtained by correcting the reference machining time using the correction time.
KAWASHIMA USPGPUB 2014/0288692 teaches numerical controller controls a spindle and/or a movable axis of a finishing machine based on a machining program. A cutting condition display device configured to display a cutting condition for the numerical controller calculates cutting conditions including a cutting speed, a feed per spindle revolution per cutting edge of a tool, and a depth of cut for each fixed time during an operation of the finishing machine, based on any or a combination of data on the spindle, the movable axis, a cutting tool, and an object to be cut, which are held by the numerical controller. The calculated cutting condition is stored for each tool and displayed in a graph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119