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.
Examiner decided to withdraw abstract objection because applicant’s submitted corrected abstract.
Examiner decided to with draw 112 rejection because applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the objections.
Examiner decided to withdraw drawing objection because applicants corrected the drawing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page , applicants argue “Yamamoto does not disclose calculating the oscillation amplitude based on the cutting edge angle of the tool." Examiner respectfully disagree because YAMAMOTO paragraph 0022-0025 teaches calculates an oscillation amplitude and an oscillation direction allowing shredding of chips occurring from the lathe-turning machining on an infeed amount (infeed amount L1 described later, for example) in a radial direction of the work and a shift amount (shift amount L2 described later, for example) in a circumferential direction of the work relative to a last machining path of a tool (cutting tool 16, 216 described later, for example) used for the lathe-turning machining on the work; an oscillation command calculation unit (oscillation command calculation unit 104 described later, for example) that calculates an oscillation command for causing the work and the tool to oscillate relative to each other based on the oscillation amplitude and the oscillation direction calculated by the oscillation condition calculation unit; and an adder (second adder 110 described later, for example) that adds a movement command for moving the work and the tool relative to each other for the lathe-turning machining on the work and the oscillation command” .
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: acquire 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”); calculate, based on the cutting edge angle of the tool, an oscillation amplitude necessary for chip shredding in an arbitrary oscillation direction (paragraph 0022-0025 “calculates an oscillation amplitude and an oscillation direction allowing shredding of chips occurring from the lathe-turning machining based on an infeed amount (infeed amount L1 described later, for example) in a radial direction of the work and a shift amount (shift amount L2 described later, for example) in a circumferential direction of the work relative to a last machining path of a tool (cutting tool 16, 216 described later, for example) used for the lathe-turning machining on the work; an oscillation command calculation unit (oscillation command calculation unit 104 described later, for example) that calculates an oscillation command for causing the work and the tool to oscillate relative to each other based on the oscillation amplitude and the oscillation direction calculated by the oscillation condition calculation unit; and an adder (second adder 110 described later, for example) that adds a movement command for moving the work and the tool relative to each other for the lathe-turning machining on the work and the oscillation command” and paragraph 0058-0059, 0040-0043); determine an oscillation direction based on a calculation result of the calculated oscillation amplitude (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 control, based on a machining condition, oscillation in the determined oscillation direction (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 processor 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 processor 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 processor changes oscillation in only a specific axis of a plurality of feed axes to oscillation in the determined oscillation direction (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 processor changes oscillation in only a specific axis of a plurality of feed axes to oscillation in the determined oscillation direction (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 processor changes oscillation in only a specific axis of a plurality of feed axes to oscillation in the determined oscillation direction (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
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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights