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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 02/02/2024 and 06/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Claim 1 recites “a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4).” The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “dimension E” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations use the word “means” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) the wors “means” is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 2 and 9 recite “means” coupled to the functional language “perform the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) during machining … [via] an adjustment of a relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4)” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed limitation. While the specification discloses a machining tool 1 with control unit 10 (see, e.g., Fig. 1), the structure to perform the claimed “compensation” is not disclosed.
Claim 5 recites “means” coupled to the functional language “perform the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) during machining …[via] a correction of a tool path (7)” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed limitation. While the specification discloses a machining tool 1 with control unit 10 (see, e.g., Fig. 1), the structure to perform the claimed “compensation” is not disclosed.
Claim 12 recites “means” coupled to the functional language “adjusting the values for the correction constants continuously … [via] a learning system of the control unit (10)” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed limitation. While the specification discloses a machining tool 1 with control unit 10 (see, e.g., Fig. 1), the structure of the learning system to perform the claimed “adjusting the values for the correction constants continuously” is not disclosed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed above, claims 2 and 9 recite “by means of an adjustment of a relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4),” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because the specification does not describe the corresponding structure, claims 2 and 9 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
As discussed above, claim 5 recites “by means of a correction of a tool path (7),” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because the specification does not describe the corresponding structure, claim 5 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
As discussed above, claim 12 recites “by means of a learning system of the control unit (10),” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because the specification does not describe the corresponding structure, claim 12 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “FK is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant.” Other than stating that the correction values “can be determined empirically” (see Specification at par. [0035]), the specification provides no further guidance to one skilled in the art on how to calculate the correction values without undue experimentation. Accordingly, claims 3 and 4 fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 6 and 7 recite “SR is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant.” Other than stating that the correction values “can be determined empirically” (see Specification at par. [0035]), the specification provides no further guidance to one skilled in the art on how to calculate the correction values without undue experimentation. Accordingly, claims 6 and 7 fail to comply with the enablement requirement. Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at line 5 recites “a dimension E of engagement conditions,” at lines 8-9 recites “a formula E=R1/R2,” and at line 14 recites “a formula E=L/LG.” It is unclear and thus indefinite if “E” refers to “a dimension” or to “a formula.” Claims 2-15 are rejected based on their respective dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “on a basis of one or more of … E=R1/R2 … and … E=L/LG.” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to how “E” can equal both “R1/R2” and “L/LG.” Claims 2-15 are rejected based on their respective dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “one or more of … “FB=FBO+FK*Ek … and … FB=FBO+FK*(1-E)k ….” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to how “FB” can equal both recited formulas. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “one or more of … “FB =FBO-FK*Ek … and … FB =FBO-FK*(E-1)k ….” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to how “FB” can equal both recited formulas. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “one or more of … “S=SG-SR*Ek … and … S=SG-SR*(1-E)k ….” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to how “S” can equal both recited formulas. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is rejected based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “one or more of … “S=SG+SR*Ek … and … S=SG+SR*(E-1)k ….” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to how “S” can equal both recited formulas. Appropriate correction is required.
As discussed above, claims 2 and 9 recite “by means of an adjustment of a relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4),” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because the specification does not describe the corresponding structure, the claimed “means of an adjustment” is indefinite and claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
As discussed above, claim 5 recites “by means of a correction of a tool path (7),” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because the specification does not describe the corresponding structure, the claimed “means of a correction of a tool path (7)” is indefinite and claim 5 is rejected under 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
As discussed above, claim 12 recites “by means of a learning system of the control unit (10),” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because the specification does not describe the corresponding structure, the claimed “means of a learning system of the control unit (10)” is indefinite and claim 12 is rejected under 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 1 falls within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claim 1 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 1 recites “balancing, via a control unit (10) of the machine tool (1), the compensation of the deflection differently in straight portions (41) and in curved portions (42, 43) depending on a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4), on a basis of one or more of: a) a ratio of a tool radius R1 and a radius of curvature R2 of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E= R1/R2 and b) a ratio of a current engagement length L of the tool (2) in a circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) and an engagement length LG of the tool (2) in the circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) during machining of a straight portion (41) of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E = L/LG.” The claimed “balancing” is merely a comparison between a deflection compensation for a straight portion of the workpiece and a deflection compensation for a curved portion of the workpiece based on the recited formulas. The claimed “balancing” is, therefore, an abstract idea because it can be performed mentally (e.g., by using a pen and paper) and/or is a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I and III.
While claim 1 recites that the “balancing” is “via a control unit (10) of the machine tool (1),” the recitation is merely using a computer or tool to perform the judicial exception, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. While the claim recites certain formulas/equations, the formulas do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Finally, claim 1 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed “balancing” using the claimed formulas is a new idea, this balancing is still an abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus does not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Although claim 2 recites that “the control unit (10) is configured to perform the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) during machining by means of an adjustment of a relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4),” claim 2 does not positively recite that the claimed “compensation of the deflection” is actually performed. Accordingly, claim 2 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application. Similar reasoning as that given for claim 2 applies in the rejection of claims 3-15, i.e., claims 3-15 do not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0246052 to Coleman et al. (“Coleman”).
Regarding claim 1, Coleman discloses:
A method for compensating deflection of a tool (2) during machining of a workpiece (4) using a machine tool (1) (Coleman discloses that “variations in tool engagement cause spikes in tool load producing undesirable effects such as shorter tool life, chatter [(“deflection of a tool”)] and even tool breakage.” See Coleman at par. [0005]. To correct this, Coleman discloses a “method for generating, by a direct process, a tool path for milling a region of a workpiece by a milling cutter … [that] includes the steps of storing a maximum engagement of the milling cutter and defining each one of the one or more passes such that a value of the engagement … does not exceed the maximum value of engagement.” See Coleman at Abstract. Thus, Coleman discloses a method for compensating deflection of a tool (2) during machining of a workpiece (4) using a machine tool (1).”), the method comprising:
balancing, via a control unit (10) of the machine tool (1), the compensation of the deflection differently in straight portions (41) and in curved portions (42, 43) depending on a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4) (Coleman discloses a CAM system 10 for a milling cutter (“control unit (10) of the machine tool (1)”) that provides instructions for “a tool path consisting of one or more passes [(“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”)], for milling a region of a workpiece by a milling cutter [and] … storing a maximum engagement of the milling cutter … [so as to] not exceed the maximum value of engagement.” See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0010] and [0079]-[0082] and Fig. 1. For example, Coleman discloses a tool path having multiple passes (“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”) where each tool pass has a curved portion and a straight portion. See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0156]-[0159] and Fig. 14. Coleman also discloses an engagement angle (“engagement conditions”) corresponding “to the portion of the periphery of a rotating milling cutter that is in contact, at any given moment, with the workpiece” (“engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4)”). See, e.g., Coleman at par. [0085]. Coleman further discloses that the engagement angle E (engagement angle E corresponds to part of “dimension E of engagement conditions”) for a straight tool path (see Eq. 1) is different from an engagement angle E (engagement angle E corresponds to part of “dimension E of engagement conditions”) for a curved tool path (see Eq. 2). See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0086]-[0091]. Because the engagement angles E are different, the balancing of the compensation of the deflections between straight and curved portions of a tool pass will be different (see equations 1 and 2 of Coleman). Thus, Coleman discloses the claimed “balancing, via a control unit (10) of the machine tool (1), the compensation of the deflection differently in straight portions (41) and in curved portions (42, 43) depending on a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4).”),
on a basis of one or more of: a) a ratio of a tool radius R1 and a radius of curvature R2 of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E=R1/R2 and b) a ratio of a current engagement length L of the tool (2) in a circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) and an engagement length LG of the tool (2) in the circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) during machining of a straight portion (41) of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E=L/LG (Coleman discloses that the peripheral feed rate (PFR) of the milling cutter can be based on the center-line feed rate (CFR) using the formula PFR=CFR (1+(r/R)) for a concave tool path and PFR=CFR (1-(r/R)) for a convex tool path, where R is the radius of curvature of the tool path (“R2”) at the point of calculation (”engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4)”) and r is the tool radius (“R1”). See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0099] and [0109]. Accordingly, Coleman discloses that, along with different an engagement angles E (which represents part of “dimension E”), the straight and curved portions of each tool pass of a tool path (“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”) will have a feed rate based on a ratio of r/R (representing part of “dimension E”). That is, Coleman discloses that balancing of the compensation of the deflection at the point of contact (“engagement conditions”) will include the engagement angle E and the ratio r/R (collectively “dimension E”). Thus, Coleman discloses “a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4) on a basis of one or more of: a) a ratio of a tool radius R1 and a radius of curvature R2 of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E=R1/R2.”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Coleman discloses:
wherein the control unit (10) is configured to perform the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) during machining by means of a correction of a tool path (7) (Coleman discloses an “embodiment [that] generates a tool path of one or more parallel passes [(“correction of a tool path (7)”)] separated by a predetermined value of a stepover.” See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0156]-[0159] and Fig. 14.).
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication JP2018112893 to Masumiya et al. (“Masumiya”) (submitted in Applicant’s IDS of 02/02/2024) in view of Coleman.
Regarding claim 1, Masumiya in view of Coleman render obvious (see attached machine-language translation for citations to Masumiya):
A method for compensating deflection of a tool (2) during machining of a workpiece (4) using a machine tool (1) (Masumiya discloses that “[i]n order to solve the above-described problems [e.g., deforming of tool – see p.1, 3rd par.], according to the present invention, in a machining method for machining a workpiece having a curved surface whose curvature is changed by relatively moving the rotary tool and the workpiece….” See, e.g., Masumiya at p.6, 2nd par.), the method comprising:
balancing, via a control unit (10) of the machine tool (1), the compensation of the deflection differently in straight portions (41) and in curved portions (42, 43) (Masumiya discloses that “the magnitude of the contact angle ∠PcOD and the length of the arc PcD is a parameter representative of the cutting resistance.” See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 4th par. Masumiya also discloses that the contact angle ∠PcOD is a function of the curvature c of the workpiece and that the contact angle ∠PcOD = e(c(t)) that the speed correction unit 28 (“control unit (10) of the machine tool (1)”) sets the contact angle. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Fig. 2. Masumiya further discloses that the equation F=FB*e(0)/e(c(t)) is used to calculate feed speed F (“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”) and that, at curvature c=0 (“straight portion”), the feed speed F equals Fb. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. It follows that a non-zero curvature c of the workpiece will be a “curved portion.” Because e(c(t)) is dependent on the curvature c of the workpiece, Masumiya discloses that the feed speed F (“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”) will be different between straight portions and curved portions. Thus, Masumiya discloses “balancing, via a control unit (10) of the machine tool (1), the compensation of the deflection differently in straight portions (41) and in curved portions (42, 43).,
depending on a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4) on a basis of one or more of: a) a ratio of a tool radius R1 and a radius of curvature R2 of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E=R1/R2 (Masumiya does not explicitly disclose “a dimension E of engagement conditions” that corresponds to “R=R2/R2.” However, in a same field of endeavor, milling workpieces, and thus analogous art, Coleman discloses that the peripheral feed rate (PFR) (“compensation of the deflection”) of the milling cutter can be based on the center-line feed rate (CFR) using the formula PFR=CFR (1+(r/R)) for a concave tool path and PFR=CFR (1-(r/R)) for a convex tool path, where R is the radius of curvature of the tool path (“R2”) at the point of calculation (“engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4)”)] and r is the tool radius (“R1”). See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0099] and [0109]. Note that, when the curve R is very large (i.e., a straight workpiece), PFR equals CFR. Accordingly, Coleman discloses that the feed rate/speed (“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”) will be based on a ratio of r/R (“a dimension E”). Accordingly, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious the feature “a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4) on a basis of one or more of: a) a ratio of a tool radius R1 and a radius of curvature R2 of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E=R1/R2.” It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to control the feed rate of the tool based on the PFR using the above equations because Coleman discloses to use PFR as a means to “control the load on the milling cutter to be approximately equal to a predetermined value over a tool path….” See, e.g., Coleman at par. [0098]. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as disclosed in Coleman, the PFR formulas compensate for the load along a curved cutter path. See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0098]-[0109]. See MPEP §2143.I.G; see also, MPEP §2143.I.D.) and
depending on a dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4) on a basis of one or more of: … b) a ratio of a current engagement length L of the tool (2) in a circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) and an engagement length LG of the tool (2) in the circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) during machining of a straight portion (41) of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E=L/LG (Masumiya discloses that “the magnitude of the contact angle ∠PcOD and the length of the arc PcD (“engagement length L”, “engagement length LG”) is a parameter representative of the cutting resistance” (“engagement conditions”). See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 4th par. Masuumiya also discloses that e(0) corresponds to the contact angle PcOD (and arc PcD) when the curve is zero (i.e., straight portion) and that, at non-zero curvature c, e(c(t)) corresponds to the contact angle PcOD (and arc PcD) when there is a curvature c (i.e., curved portion). See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5. Thus, e(0) corresponds to the claimed “engagement length LG” and e(c(t)) at a non-zero curvature c of the workpiece corresponds to the claimed “current engagement length L.” Masumiya also discloses a ratio e(0)/e(c(t)) (“a dimension E”) for use in equation F=FB*e(0)/e(c(t)) for compensating the feed speed (“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”) between straight portions and curved portions of a cutting path. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5. Thus, in Masumiya, the feed speed (“balancing … the compensation of the deflection”) corresponding to the cutting resistance (“engagement conditions”) will be based on a ratio of e(0)/e(c(t)) (“a dimension E … on a basis of … E=L/LG”). While Masumiya’s ratio is the inverse of the recited ratio, Masumiya still discloses the claimed ratio because the claim language only requires “dimension E” to be “on a basis of” of the recited ratio and not the exact recited ratio. Accordingly, Masumiya discloses the claimed “dimension E of engagement conditions in a contact point (6) between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4) on a basis of one or more of: … b) a ratio of a current engagement length L of the tool (2) in a circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) and an engagement length LG of the tool (2) in the circumferential direction on the workpiece (4) during machining of a straight portion (41) of the workpiece (4) according to a formula E=L/LG.”).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
wherein the control unit (10) is configured to perform the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) during machining by means of an adjustment of a relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4) (Masumiya discloses compensating for deformation of a tool (“deflection of the tool”) by adjusting the feed speed (“relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4)”) of the curved portions of the cutting path. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.1, 3rd par. and p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5. Thus, Masumiya discloses the claimed “perform[ing] the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) during machining by means of an adjustment of a relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (4).”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
calculating a speed (FB) of the contact point (6), during the machining of an external radius (42) of the workpiece (4)See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5. Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious the claimed “calculating.”):
using one or more of a) a formula FB=FBO+FK*Ek with the dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2, wherein FBO is a value for the speed of the contact point (6) on the straight portion (41), FK is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant (Coleman discloses that, “for a convex tool path” (“an external radius”) the PFR =CFR (1-(r/R)) (“formula FB=FBO+FK*Ek with the dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2”). See, e.g., Coleman at par. [0109]. Because PFR (“FB”) equals CFR when the radius of the workpiece is large (i.e., straight), CFR corresponds to “FBO [which] is a value for the speed of the contact point (6) on the straight portion (41).” Thus, Coleman discloses the general conditions of claim 3(a), i.e., to correct the feed speed of the cutting tool due to a convex tool path (“external radius”) based on an engagement condition corresponding to the claimed “dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2.” "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP §2144.05.II.A (emphasis added). Here, if the claimed “first correction constant” FK equals “-FB0” and the claimed “second correction constant” k equals “1,” then FB= FB0(1 - (R1/R2)), which is the same formula as that disclosed in Coleman, PFR = CFR(1 - (r/R)). See claim 1 for reasons for combining Masumiya and Coleman. Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders the claimed formula obvious.) and
b) a formula FB=FBO+FK*(1-E)k with the dimension E as the ratio of the current engagement length L to the engagement length LG on the straight portion (41), wherein FBO is a value for the speed of the contact point (6) on the straight portion (41), FK is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant (Masumiya discloses an equation, F=FB*e(0)/e(c(t)), for compensating the feed speed F for curved portions (for both an external radius and an internal radius) of the cutting path. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5. Thus, Coleman discloses the general conditions of claim 3(b), i.e., to correct the feed speed of the cutting tool due to a convex tool path (“external radius”) based on an engagement condition corresponding to a ratio of engagement lengths. Accordingly, while the formula FB=FBO+FK*(1-E)k is not explicitly disclosed, it is mere routine optimization. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP §2144.05.II.A (emphasis added). Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders the claimed formula obvious.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
calculating the speed (FB) of the contact point (6), during the machining of an internal radius (43) of the workpiece (4) (Masumiya discloses compensating the feed speed F for curved portions (for both an external radius and an internal radius) of the cutting path. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5. Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious the claimed “calculating.”))
using one or more of: a) the formula FB =FBO-FK*Ek with the dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2, wherein FBO is a value for the speed of the contact point (6) on the straight portion (41), FK is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant (Coleman discloses that, “for a concave tool path” (“an internal radius”) the PFR =CFR (1+(r/R)) (“formula FB=FBO-FK*Ek with the dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2”). See, e.g., Coleman at par. [0109]. Because PFR (“FB”) equals CFR when the radius of the workpiece is large (i.e., straight), CFR corresponds to “FBO [which] is a value for the speed of the contact point (6) on the straight portion (41).” Thus, Coleman discloses the general conditions of claim 4(a), i.e., to correct the feed speed of the cutting tool due to a concave tool path (“internal radius”) based on an engagement condition corresponding to the claimed “dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2.” "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP §2144.05.II.A (emphasis added). Here, if the claimed “first correction constant” FK equals “-FB0” and the claimed “second correction constant” k equals “1,” then FB= FB0(1 + (R1/R2)), which is the same formula as that disclosed in Coleman, PFR = CFR(1 + (r/R)). See claim 1 for reasons for combining Masumiya and Coleman. Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders the claimed formula obvious.), and
b) the formula FB =FBO-FK*(E-1)k with the dimension E as the ratio of the current engagement length L to the engagement length LG on the straight portion (41), wherein FBO is a value for the speed of the contact point (6) on the straight portion (41), FK is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant (Masumiya discloses an equation, F=FB*e(0)/e(c(t)), for compensating the feed speed F for curved portions (for both an external radius and an internal radius) of the cutting path. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5. Thus, Coleman discloses the general conditions of claim 4(b), i.e., to correct the feed speed of the cutting tool due to a concave tool path (“internal radius”) based on an engagement condition corresponding to a ratio of engagement lengths. Accordingly, while the formula FB=FBO-FK*(E-1)k is not explicitly disclosed, it is mere routine optimization. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP §2144.05.II.A (emphasis added). Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders the claimed formula obvious.).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
wherein the control unit (10) is configured to take into account, during the compensation of the deflection of a tool (2), a course of a workpiece surface which is still to be machined by the tool (2) (Masumiya discloses that “the processing speed optimum for the curvature of curvature of the curved surface to be processed [(“course of a workpiece surface which is still to be machined by the tool (2)”)] is calculated in real time [(“take into account”)] in the speed correction unit 28 as described below to solve these problems. First, the contour of the curved surface to be processed [(“course of a workpiece surface which is still to be machined by the tool (2)”)] is defined as the position of the function p at time t (0 ≦ t ≦ 1) [(“take into account”)].” See, e.g., Masumiya at p. 4, 3rd and 4th pars.).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
wherein the control unit (10) is further configured to perform one or more of: the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) taking into account the length of the tool (2) in an axial direction of the tool (2), the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) taking into account a geometry of a tool shaft (20) of the tool (2), and the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) taking into account an axial engagement length of the tool (2) on the workpiece (4) in the axial direction of the tool (2) (Masumiya discloses that “the magnitude of the contact angle ∠PcOD and the length of the arc PcD is a parameter representative of the cutting resistance.” See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 4th par. and Figs. 3-5. The contact angle ∠PcOD and the arc length of the arc PcD are based on the radius of the tool T (“taking into account a geometry of a tool shaft (20) of the tool (2)”). In addition, Coleman discloses that the PFR is based on a ratio of r/R, where r is the tool radius (“taking into account a geometry of a tool shaft (20) of the tool (2)”). See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0099] and [0109]. Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman render obvious at least the claimed “taking into account a geometry of a tool shaft (20) of the tool (2).”).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 3, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
wherein the correction constants are dependent on one or more of: a type of the tool (2), a quality of a cutting edge, a material and a granulation of the tool (2), an oversize (40) of the workpiece (4), a rotational speed of the tool (2), a speed of the contact point (6), and the material of the workpiece (4) (Masumiya discloses an equation, F=FB*e(0)/e(c(t)), for compensating the feed speed (“speed of the contact point (6)”)for curved portions of the cutting path. See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. Masuumiya also discloses that the e(0) corresponds to the contact angle PcOD (and arc PcD) when the curve is zero (i.e., straight portion) and that e(c(t)) corresponds to the contact angle PcOD (and arc PcD) when there is a curvature c (i.e., curved portion). See, e.g., Masumiya at p.5, 5th par. and Figs. 3-5.).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 3, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
wherein the control unit (10) comprises a memory, in which values for the correction constants are stored (Masumiya discloses a control device 10 that receives a NC machining program 40 for performing the machining and includes a speed correction unit 28 that sets the contact angle e(0) with corresponding feed speed Fb and calculates equation (5), F=FB*e(0)/e(c(t)). See, e.g., Masumiya at pp. 3 and 5 and Fig. 2. Masumiya also discloses that “the speed correction unit 28 is incorporated in the NC device and the optimum machining speed is calculated in real time….” See, e.g., Masumiya at p. 5, 6th par. In equation 5, feed speed Fb is a correction constant, but Masumiya does not explicitly disclose that control unit 10 includes a memory for storing correction constants. However, Coleman discloses a CAM system having a computer architecture, including memory to store the CNC program, that can be integrated into an NC machine. See, e.g., Coleman at par. [0080]. Because use of memory in control units for NC machining was known, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to include memory in control unit 10 of Masumiya to store feed speed Fb. Because both Maumiya and Coleman disclose computerized control systems, incorporating memory in to the system of Masumiya would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP §2143.I.A.),
wherein the method further comprises adjusting the values for the correction constants continuously, in particular by means of a learning system of the control unit (10) (Masumiya discloses that “the processing speed optimum for the curvature of curvature of the curved surface to be processed is calculated in real time [(“adjusting the values for the correction constants continuously”)] in the speed correction unit 28 [(“by means of a learning system of the control unit (10)”)] as described below to solve these problems.” See, e.g., Masumiya at p. 4, 3rd pars.).
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 1, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
measuring a thickness D of an oversize (40) of the workpiece (4) at any number of locations on the workpiece (4) prior to final machining (Coleman discloses that the “engagement can be measured or expressed as an engagement angle, an engagement arc, or an engagement chord” and that the engagement angle depends on the radial depth of cut S (“thickness D of an oversize (40)”). See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0086]-[0092]. See claim 1 for reasons for combining Masumiya and Coleman. Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious “measuring a thickness D of an oversize (40) of the workpiece (4) at any number of locations on the workpiece (4) prior to final machining.”
In addition, Masumiya discloses a cut thickness Rc (“thickness D of an oversize(40)”) that represent the amount of material to removed. See, e.g., Masumiya at p. 5, 4th par. and Figs. 3-5. While not explicitly stated, it is reasonable and thus obvious to measure the thickness of the material to remove prior to cutting the workpiece. Further, under a broad but reasonable interpretation “any number of locations” can include zero locations or greater than zero locations. Thus, the claimed “measurement” is inherent to the disclosures of Masumiya and Coleman.
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 1, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
wherein, when the dimension E is calculated as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2 of the workpiece (4), the control unit (10) is configured to take into account a thickness D of an oversize (40) for the compensation of the deflection (As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Coleman discloses the relationship r/R (“dimension E”) when calculating PFR for a curved too path.” Coleman also discloses that that an engagement angle can depend on the radial depth of cut S (“thickness D of an oversize (40)”). See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0086]-[0092]. Thus, Coleman discloses “tak[ing] into account a thickness D of an oversize (40) for the compensation of the deflection” “when the dimension E is calculated as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2 of the workpiece (4).” See claim 1 for reasons for combining Masumiya and Coleman. Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman render obvious this claimed feature.), or
wherein the control unit (10) is configured to take into account the thickness D of the oversize (40) for calculating the current engagement length L of the tool (2) (Masumiya discloses a cut thickness Rc (“thickness D of an oversize(40)”) that represent the amount of material to removed. See, e.g., Masumiya at p. 5, 4th par. and Figs. 3-5. As discussed above in claim 1, Masuiya discloses an angle e(c(t)), which relates to the contact angle PcOD (and arc PcD), that corresponds the claimed “current engagement length L.” From Figs. 3-5, it is clear that cut thickness Rc (“thickness D of the oversize (40)”) is taken into account when calculating angle e(c(t)) (“calculating the current engagement length L of the tool (2)”). Thus, Masumiya in view of Coleman render obvious this claimed feature.).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Masumiya in view of Coleman renders obvious:
A machine tool (1) which is configured to carry out a method according to claim 1 (Masumiya discloses a machine tool 100 (“machine tool (1)”). See, e.g., Masumiya at p. 2, 2an full par. and Fig. 1.).
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Coleman renders obvious:
calculating a correction value S for the tool path (7) during machining of an external radius (42) is using one or more of: a) a formula S=SG-SR*Ek with the dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2, wherein SG is the correction value for the tool path (7) on straight portions (41) of the workpiece (4), SR is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant, and b) a formula S=SG-SR*(1-E)k with the dimension E as the ratio of the current engagement length L to the engagement length LG on the straight portion (41), wherein SG is a correction value for the tool path (7) on straight portions (41) of the workpiece (4), SR is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant (Coleman discloses “a tool path [with] one or more parallel passes separated by a predetermined value of a stepover [and] …. [e]ach pass comprises a first arc and a tangent continuous second circular arc.” See, e.g., Coleman at par. [0157] and Fig. 14. Coleman also discloses that the “shape of the tool path is based on the radius of the milling cutter to be used for milling, and a maximum engagement of the milling cutter … [and that] [s]ince each first arc blends into a circular arc of a known radius, the engagement angle during any given pass is greatest at the point where the first arc joins the second arc.” See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0157]-[0158] and Fig. 14. Although Fig. 14c relates to an internal radius, similar reasoning would apply to an external radius. In addition, although Coleman does not disclose the exact formulas that are recited in claim 6, Coleman discloses changing the tool path based on the engagement angle, which would be depend on the tool radius R1 and the radius of curvature of the workpiece R2. Thus, Coleman discloses the general conditions of claim 6(a), i.e., to modify the tool path based on an engagement angle corresponding to a ratio of the tool radius to a radius of curvature of the workpiece. Accordingly, while the formula S=SG-SR*Ek is not explicitly disclosed, it is mere routine optimization. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP §2144.05.II.A (emphasis added). Thus, the disclosure in Coleman renders the claimed formula obvious.)
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 5, Coleman renders obvious:
comprising calculating a correction value S for the tool path (7) during machining of an internal radius (43) using one or more of: a) a formula S=SG+SR*Ek with the dimension E as the ratio of the tool radius R1 to the radius of curvature R2, wherein SG is the correction value for the tool path on straight portions (41) of the workpiece (4), SR is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant, and b) a formula S=SG+SR*(E-1)k with the dimension E as the ratio of the current engagement length L to the engagement length LG on the straight portion, wherein SG is a correction value for the tool path (7) on straight portions (41) of the workpiece (4), SR is a first correction constant, and k is a second correction constant (Coleman discloses “a tool path [with] one or more parallel passes separated by a predetermined value of a stepover [and] …. [e]ach pass comprises a first arc and a tangent continuous second circular arc.” See, e.g., Coleman at par. [0157] and Fig. 14. Coleman also discloses that the “shape of the tool path is based on the radius of the milling cutter to be used for milling, and a maximum engagement of the milling cutter … [and that] [s]ince each first arc blends into a circular arc of a known radius, the engagement angle during any given pass is greatest at the point where the first arc joins the second arc.” See, e.g., Coleman at pars. [0157]-[0158] and Fig. 14. Although Coleman does not disclose the exact formulas that are recited in claim 7, Coleman discloses changing the tool path based on the engagement angle, which would be depend on the tool radius R1 and the radius of curvature of the workpiece R2. Thus, Coleman discloses the general conditions of claim 7(a), i.e., to modify the tool path based on an engagement angle corresponding to a ratio of the tool radius to a radius of curvature of the workpiece. Accordingly, while the formula S=SG+SR*Ek is not explicitly disclosed, it is mere routine optimization. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP §2144.05.II.A (emphasis added). Thus, the disclosure in Coleman renders the claimed formula obvious.)
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 6, Coleman renders obvious:
wherein the control unit (10) is configured to perform the compensation of the deflection of the tool (2) during machining by means of an adjustment of a relative speed FB between the tool (2) and the workpiece (Coleman disclose that “the feed rate is adjusted to control the load on the milling cutter to be approximately equal to a predetermined value over a tool path as long as the peripheral feed rate is within an acceptable range.” See, e.g., Coleman at [0098]. Thus, Coleman discloses the claimed adjustment.) , and
wherein the control unit (10) is configured to determine transition points (8) at which a geometry of the workpiece surface changes from a straight portion (41) into a curved portion (42, 43) and vice versa, or the curvature of a curved portion (42, 43) changes, and to begin a continuous change in the compensation prior to reaching a transition point (8) through the contact point (6), such that one or more of the speed FB and the correction value S for a portion behind the transition point (8) is reached in the transition point (8), and jump-like changes in the speed FB or the correction value S are prevented (Coleman at pars. [0156]-[0158] discloses an embodiment with a tool path has parallel passes and each pass has a straight section and a curved section that is contiguous with the straight section. The shape of the tool path is based on the maximum engagement angle. Thus, Coleman discloses the claimed “transition points.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116