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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 12/21/2023.
Claims 1-6 are pending and presented for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites language which can be implied (e.g., “A disclosed display device …”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit for entering an input parameter …” and “a display unit for showing a graph” in claim 1.
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.
Paragraph 0035 of the specification recites “The display device 14 receives an input of an input parameter for vibration cutting, and shows a graph showing allowable values for setting parameters for vibration cutting to the operator. The display device of this embodiment is configured with a touchscreen type control panel, but it is not limited thereto.”
Accordingly, “an input unit for entering an input parameter” and “a display unit for showing a graph” are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in paragraph 0035.
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 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 1-6 are 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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “an allowable value.” However, “allowable” is subjective term. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Dependent claims 2-5 are likewise rejected.
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.
(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 1-2 and 5-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by MURAMATSU (US20200094327A1) (hereinafter – “MURAMATSU”).
Regarding claim 1
MURAMATSU teaches a display device ([0110]: displaying section 186) comprising:
an input unit for entering an input parameter for vibration cutting ([0013]: “user can easily select the desired vibration conditions and allow the machine to perform vibration cutting”; [0111]: “setting means 184 includes, for example, a touch panel of a display. The user selects a desired combination by touching a combination candidate displayed in the displaying section 186, and the selected combination can be set in the control section 181 as parameters of vibration conditions including the vibration frequency f”), and
a display unit for showing a graph showing an allowable value for a setting parameter for vibration cutting based on the input parameter ([0113]: “user can easily recognize the vibration conditions selectable for the machine tool 100”; [0014]: “If a graph that graphically reflects the vibration operation, which corresponds to the combination of each parameter, is displayed, the user can easily confirm the vibration operation in cutting operation in relation to the user's inputs to the inputting means”), wherein
the input parameter includes at least one of a vibration frequency rate, a vibration amplitude rate, and a vibration direction ([0114]: “user inputs a desired number of rotations or a desired number of vibrations”), and
the setting parameter includes a revolution number of a workpiece or a tool, and a feeding speed of the workpiece or the tool ([0115]: “In case of the configuration in which the number of vibrations N is set as an argument in the program block of the machining program, the number of rotations S of the spindle 110, which is written in the machining program, and the number of vibrations N, which is called as an argument by executing the program block, are generally input to the presenting means 183”; [0116]: “In the example described above, the presenting means 183 (calculating section 183a) calculates the number of rotations and the number of vibrations on the basis of vibration frequencies f and the input number of rotations or the input number of vibrations”).
Regarding claim 2
MURAMATSU teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MURAMATSU also teaches a memory unit storing a plurality of input patterns of the input parameter, wherein in the input unit, the input parameter is entered by selecting one input pattern from the plurality of the patterns ([0108]: “a memory 185, which stores a combination table in advance showing the relationship of the numbers of rotations S (or the numbers of vibrations N) with each vibration frequency f of the vibration frequency group f and any number of vibrations N (or number of rotations S) is provided in the control device 180”; [0109]: “The combination table may limit the numbers of vibrations N that are set in the control section 181 to a plurality of predetermined values, and limit the number of combinations of each predetermined vibration frequency f and the number of rotations S, which is calculated from the plurality of the limited number of vibrations N. A plurality of combination candidates of each parameter may be selected, and only one candidate may be selected”; [0126]: “If there are a plurality of combination candidates to be presented, each combination candidate is displayed on the displaying section 186 so that one of the plurality of combination candidates can be selected as the vibration condition”).
Regarding claim 5
MURAMATSU teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MURAMATSU also teaches a machine tool for performing vibration cutting, comprising the display device of claim 1 ([0013]: advantageous effect of invention is “the user can easily select the desired vibration conditions and allow the machine tool to perform vibration cutting”).
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6 is a method claim reciting substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected as per claim 1.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURAMATSU in view of SHIMIZU (US4617635A).
Regarding claim 3
MURAMATSU teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MURAMATSU is not relied on for wherein the input parameter further includes a load factor of a motor that allows feeding of the workpiece or the tool included in a machine tool.
However, SHIMIZU in analogous teaches this claim limitation (Col. 2, ll. 15-24: “the load current of a spindle motor or a feed motor in an NC machining apparatus is detected during machining, the detection signal is applied to the input unit of an NC to obtain the load output, and the load output is compared with an allowable value, so that the comparison signal is utilized to control the feed speed of the feed motor”, i.e., SHIMIZU teaches utilizing a load factor (i.e., the obtained “load output compared with an allowable value”) as an input parameter to produce a feed speed setting of a feed motor (i.e., “comparison signal is utilized to control the feed speed of the feed motor”)).
SHIMIZU is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of numerical control devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of SHIMIZU to the teachings of MURAMATSU such that SHIMIZU’s parameterization of a feed speed of a feed motor based on a load factor could be used with MURAMATSU’s user selection method for the purposes of allowing a user to configuring a machining device such that the device could be operated at a higher load factor (i.e., more machining operations per unit time at the expense of device/tool health) or a lower load factor (i.e., reduce wear per unit machined at the expense of machining operations per unit time).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURAMATSU in view of UEMATSU (US20180267972A1).
Regarding claim 4
MURAMATSU teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MURAMATSU also teaches an electric current flowing in a motor that allows feeding of the workpiece or the tool, and that is included in a machine tool for performing vibration cutting ([0046], [0055]: linear servo motor 165 and linear servo motor 155 provided on the Z- and X- axes, respectively, for directional feeding).
MURAMATSU is not relied on for wherein the graph shows the setting parameter within a range in which an average value of an electric current does not exceed 100% of a rated output.
However, UEMATSU in analogous art teaches accepting a setting parameter within a range in which an average value of an electric current does not exceed 100% on a display device from a user ([0007]: “motor selection method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure includes: referring to a database containing data pertaining to rated speeds, continuous rated torques, and upper limit values of load inertia moment of a plurality of motors; dividing the data contained in the database into a plurality of groups, based on the upper limit values of load inertia moment; obtaining information pertaining to a rotation speed, a continuous rated torque, and a load inertia moment required of a necessary motor; selecting one group from the plurality of groups; and selecting a motor meeting conditions: rotation speed required of motor ≤ rated speed, continuous torque required of motor ≤ continuous rated torque”; [0090]: “the maximum torque required of the servo motor is inputted in the input unit 31 of the display device 30”, i.e., UEMATSU teaches that the continuous current required of a motor should be less than or equal to the maximum rated torque; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that motor torque is typically modeled as being proportional to motor current and thus UEMATSU implies that the continuous current required of a motor should be less than or equal to the maximum rated current as the).
UEMATSU is analogous art to the claimed invention because the field of motor selection and controls is reasonably pertinent to the field of numerical control devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of UEMATSU to the teachings of MURAMATSU such UEMATSU’s maximum current selection could be used with MURAMATSU’s parameterization device for the purposes of preventing machine tool damage and/or motor failure due to operating a motor over its rated capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsui (US20220155750A1) teaches a machine tool with a display comprising a data selector.
Sagasaki (US20210247734A1) teaches control of a machine tool using vibration commands.
Xu (US20180341244A1) teaches controlling a feed speed according to vibration data.
Oho (US20190324425A1) teaches calculating a feed command for vibration cutting.
Nath, C., et al., (“Effect of machining parameters in ultrasonic vibration cutting”, published 2/15/2008, retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890695508000254, retrieved on 3/3/2026).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115