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 .
In a Preliminary Amendment filed on December 22, 2023, claims 3-13 were amended.
Claims 1-13 are pending, of which claim 1 is an independent claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023, 12/27/2024, and 08/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because of the following informalities: according to MPEP 608.01(b), the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprises” should be avoided in the abstract of the disclosure. In this instance, the abstract includes legal phraseology such as “…a machine tool comprises:…”, which should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 2, line 5, replace “a specifiable” with “the specifiable”.
Claim 3, line 2, replace “a specifiable” with “the specifiable”.
Claim 7, line 2, replace “a specifiable” with “the specifiable”.
Claim 8, line 5, replace “a specifiable” with “the specifiable”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
35 USC § 112(f) Analysis
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.
Independent claims 1-13 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as reciting means for performing a specified function.
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.
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.
Referring to independent claim 1, this claim recites the claim limitations “a control parameter setting unit”, “a shaft motion control unit”, “a trigger receiving unit”, and “a specifiable range setting unit”.
Paragraph [0022] of the published Specification describes “The machine tool control device 1 is configured using a computer including a memory such as ROM (read only memory) or RAM (random access memory), a CPU (control processing unit), and a communication control unit, which are connected to each other via a bus. As illustrated in FIG. 1 , the machine tool control device 1 includes a control parameter setting unit 11, a setting value storage unit 12, a specifiable range setting unit 13, an operational state allowable range setting unit 14, a shaft motion control unit 15, an operational state acquisition unit 16, a control parameter setting history storage unit 17, and a trigger receiving unit 18; and the functions and operations of these units can be achieved by the cooperation of the CPU, the memory, and the control program stored in the memory installed in the computer.”
Accordingly, for purposes of examination and in accord with the description of Paragraph [0022], the “control parameter setting unit” is construed as a functional block of a computer or a CPU that sets control parameters also in accord with Paragraph [0031] of the published Specification; the “a shaft motion control unit” is construed as a functional block of a computer or a CPU that operates an operating shaft, based on the control parameters also in accord with Paragraph [0034] of the published Specification; “a trigger receiving unit” is construed as a functional block of a computer or a CPU that receives a trigger during a shaft motion operated by the shaft motion control unit also in accord with Paragraphs [0046]-[0048] of the published Specification; and “a specifiable range setting unit” is construed as a functional block of a computer or a CPU that sets a specifiable range of the control parameters in response to the trigger receiving unit having received a trigger also in accord with Paragraphs [0031]-[0034] of the published Specification.
Referring to claim 2, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the operational state acquisition unit and the specifiable range setting unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 3, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the specifiable range setting unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 4, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the operational state allowable range setting unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 5, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the operational state acquisition unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 6, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the operational state acquisition unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 7, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the specifiable range setting unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 8, for purposes of examination and in accord with the description of Paragraph [0022], the “control parameter setting history storage unit” is construed as a functional block of a computer or a CPU that sets control parameters also in accord with Paragraph [0033] of the published Specification
Referring to claim 9, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the control parameter setting unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 10, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the shaft motion control unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 11, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the control parameter setting unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 12, the recitations of this claim simply adds more detail to or are cumulative to the trigger receiving unit of independent claim 1.
Referring to claim 13, this claim recites “an input device” and “a trigger input unit”. Paragraph [0026] of the published Specification describes “The machine tool control device 1 is connected to an input device 2. The input device 2 includes a trigger input unit 22 and a control parameter input unit 21. The input device 2 preferably includes a display unit composed of a display screen (not illustrated), and an operation unit composed of a keyboard, a touch panel, etc. (not illustrated). The operator inputs control parameters while operating the operation unit and checking the input values on the display screen.” Also, Paragraph [0027] of the published Specification describes “The input device 2 may be provided in a computer numerical controller (not illustrated) or provided in an external computer or the like (not illustrated). A machine tool control system 10 according to the present embodiment is configured with the machine tool control device 1 and the input device 2.” Thus, for purposes of examination and in accord with the description of Paragraphs [0026]-[0027], the “input device” is construed as a display unit or screen and a keyboard, a touch panel, etc. The “trigger input unit” is construed as a functional block of the display unit or screen.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (WO 2020/235106 A1) (“Gao”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gao teaches:
A machine tool control device that controls a machine tool, the device comprising: Gao: Abstract (“A numerical control device (1) according to the present invention, which controls the operation of a machine tool (2) for machining a workpiece with a tool,…”)
a control parameter setting unit that sets control parameters; Gao: Page 16, first full paragraph (“As shown in FIG. 13, the numerical control device 1a is different from the first embodiment except that the identification unit 13a and the identification motion generation unit 14a are provided instead of the identification unit 13 and the identification motion generation unit 14 of the first embodiment. The same is true. The identification unit 13a and the identification motion generation unit 14a are realized by a processing circuit in the same manner as the identification unit 13 and the identification motion generation unit 14 of the first embodiment.”) Gao: Page 13, sixth paragraph (“First, in step S1, the identification unit 13 sets initial values for the set of parameters. The set of parameters at this time is a combination of the equivalent mass, the damping coefficient, and the natural frequency, which are the dynamic characteristic parameters, and the specific cutting resistance, the edge force, and the tool eccentricity, which are the machining characteristic parameters.”)
a shaft motion control unit that operates an operating shaft, based on the control parameters; and Gao: Page 16, fourth full paragraph (“Similar to the identification motion generation unit 14 of the first embodiment, the identification motion generation unit 14a generates an identification motion command for changing the spindle speed and the feed rate of the machine tool, and outputs the identification motion command to the drive control unit 15. To do.”) Gao: Page 8, eighth paragraph (“The drive control unit 15 controls the machine tool 2 so that the spindle and the feed shaft of the machine tool 2 operate in the operation specified by the identification operation command based on the identification operation command generated by the identification operation generation unit 14. Generate a control signal to do so. Here, the control signal is a command for the spindle and the feed shaft of the machine tool 2, and includes at least one of a position command, a speed command, and a current command for each motor of the spindle and the feed shaft. The drive control unit 15 is based on the machining path and the reference spindle speed and the reference feed rate in the machining path when the identification motion command is not input from the identification motion generation unit 14, that is, during normal machining operation. Generates a control signal for the machine tool 2. Further, the drive control unit 15 acquires a correction signal from the correction unit 11 described later, corrects the control signal for the machine tool 2 based on the correction signal, and outputs the corrected control signal to the machine tool 2.”)
a trigger receiving unit that receives a trigger during a shaft motion operated by the shaft motion control unit, wherein the control parameter setting unit includes a specifiable range setting unit that sets a specifiable range of the control parameters in response to the trigger receiving unit having received a trigger, and the control parameter setting unit sets the control parameters, based on the specifiable range. Gao: Page 16, second full paragraph (“Similar to the identification unit 13 of the first embodiment, the identification unit 13a selects an identifiable parameter from the dynamic characteristic parameter and the processing characteristic parameter by using the vibration determination result input from the vibration determination unit 12.”) Gao: Page 14, third paragraph (“In step S12, the vibration determination unit 12 acquires identification data. Specifically, the data acquisition unit 16 acquires a control signal from the drive control unit 15, acquires an operation state signal from the sensor of the machine tool 2, and generates identification data in which the time lag between the two is compensated. Then, it is output to the vibration determination unit 12 and the identification unit 13.”) Gao: Page 14, fourth paragraph (“In step S13, the vibration determination unit 12 determines the vibration state based on the identification data. Specifically, the vibration
determination unit 12 determines whether or not vibration is generated based on the operation state signal of the identification data, and if it is determined that vibration is not generated, the vibration state is stabilized. It is determined that. Further, when the vibration determination unit 12 determines that vibration is occurring, it determines whether it is forced vibration or chatter vibration based on the frequency of vibration. The vibration determination unit 12 outputs the determination result of the vibration state to the identification unit 13 as the vibration determination result.”) Gao: Page 16, fifth full paragraph (“Further, the identification motion generation unit 14a modifies the identification motion command pattern based on the identification motion correction signal output from the identification unit 13a. Similar to the identification unit 13, the identification unit 13a can identify the most types of parameters when chatter vibration occurs in the machine tool. Therefore, the identification motion generation unit 14a modifies the identification motion so that chatter vibration occurs in the process of the identification motion by changing the range in which the spindle rotation speed or the feed rate is changed. Specifically, the identification motion generation unit 14a changes at least one of the above-mentioned maximum value S1 and minimum value S2 of the spindle rotation speed, maximum value F1 and minimum value F2 of the feed rate at a predetermined ratio. Generate an identification action command pattern. Specifically, for example, the maximum value S1 and the minimum value of the spindle rotation speed so that at least one of the spindle rotation speed and the feed rate is in a range different from the range of change set in the previous identification operation. At least one of S2, the maximum value F1 and the minimum value F2 of the feed rate is changed.”) [The occurrence of chatter vibration during shaft motion reads on “a trigger during a shaft motion” and the maximum and minimum value of the spindle rotation speed and/or the feed rate reads on “a specifiable range of the control parameters”.]
Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Gao further teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an operational state acquisition unit that acquires shaft motion state information, Gao: Page 16, fourth full paragraph [As described in claim 1.] Gao: FIG. 13 and Page 14, fourth paragraph (“Specifically, the vibration determination unit 12 determines whether or not vibration is generated based on the operation state signal of the identification data, and if it is determined that vibration is not generated, the vibration state is stabilized. It is determined that. Further, when the vibration determination unit 12 determines that vibration is occurring, it determines whether it is forced vibration or chatter vibration based on the frequency of vibration. The vibration determination unit 12 outputs the determination result of the vibration state to the identification unit 13 as the vibration determination result.”) [The operation state signal of the spindle reads on “shaft motion state information”.]
wherein the specifiable range setting unit includes an operational state allowable range setting unit that sets an operational state allowable range, in which an operation is allowed by the shaft motion control unit, based on the shaft motion state information acquired by the operational state acquisition unit, and Gao: Page 16, fifth full paragraph [As described in claim 1.]
the specifiable range setting unit sets a specifiable range of the control parameters, based on the operational state allowable range. Gao: Page 16, seventh full paragraph (“In steps S22 to S25, the same processing as in steps S12 to S15 of FIG. 11 described in the first embodiment is performed. In step S26, the identification unit 13a determines whether or not a predetermined parameter to be identified has been identified, and if the identification is completed (step S26 Yes), the process proceeds to step S28. If any of the predetermined identification target parameters have not been identified (step S26 No), the numerical control device 1a modifies the identification operation command in step S27 and repeats the process from step S21. Specifically, in step S27, the identification unit 13a outputs the identification operation correction signal to the identification operation generation unit 14a, and the identification unit 13a changes the range of change of at least one of the shaft rotation speed and the feed rate. The identification operation command is modified, and the modified identification operation command is output to the drive control unit 15. In the second and subsequent steps S21, the drive control unit 15 generates a control signal for the machine tool 2 based on the modified identification operation command and outputs the control signal to the machine tool 2.”) Gao: Page 16, last partial paragraph, to Page 17, first partial paragraph (“In step S28, the numerical control device 1a corrects the operation of the machine tool 2 based on the identification result. Specifically, similarly to the correction unit 11 of the first embodiment, the correction unit 11 generates a correction signal based on the identification result calculated by the identification unit 13a and outputs the drive control unit 15 after the identification operation is completed. .. The drive control unit 15 generates a control signal based on the machining path, the reference spindle speed and the reference feed rate in the machining path, and the correction signal, and outputs the control signal to the machine tool 2.”)
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Gao further teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim 1, wherein the specifiable range setting unit sets a specifiable range of at least one of vibration frequency or vibration amplitude of the operating shaft. Gao: Page 14, third paragraph and fourth paragraph [As described in claim 1.] Gao: Page 9, fifth full paragraph (“The vibration determination unit 12 determines the type of vibration when it is determined that vibration is occurring. Specifically, the vibration determination unit 12 determines whether the generated vibration is a forced vibration or a chatter vibration as a determination of the type of vibration. The determination of the type of vibration is performed based on whether or not the determined vibration frequency is an integral multiple of the basic cutting frequency. That is, if the vibration frequency is an integral multiple of the basic cutting frequency, the vibration determination unit 12 determines that it is a forced vibration, and if the frequency is a non-integer multiple of the basic cutting frequency, it determines that it is a chatter vibration.”)
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Gao further teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim l, wherein the specifiable range setting unit sets a specifiable range of the control parameters, based on the control parameters that were set by the control parameter setting unit when the trigger receiving unit received the trigger. Gao: Page 13, sixth paragraph, Page 14, fourth paragraph, and Page 16, seventh full paragraph and last partial paragraph, to Page 17, first partial paragraph [As described in claim 1.]
Regarding claim 9, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. Gao further teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim l, wherein the control parameter setting unit sets the control parameters so as to continuously change. Gao: Page 13, sixth paragraph [As described in claim 1.] Gao: Page 13, ninth paragraph (“In step S4, the identification unit 13 determines whether or not the error between the measured value of the force detected by the force sensor and the calculated value of the force calculated in step S3 is equal to or less than the allowable value. If the error is equal to or less than the permissible value (step S4 Yes), the identification unit 13 sets the value of the set of parameters at that time as the identification result and ends the identification process. When the error exceeds the permissible value (step S4 No), the identification unit 13 updates the value of the parameter set in step S5 and returns to the process of step S2.”) Gao: Page 13, tenth paragraph (“As a method of updating the parameters in step S5, for example, a method of increasing or decreasing each parameter by a predetermined amount can be used. The identification process in the identification unit 13 when the vibration determination unit 12 determines that the vibration is chattering is not limited to the processes in steps S1 to S5 described above.”)
Regarding claim 11, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Gao further teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim l, wherein the control parameter setting unit changes the control parameters that have been set, in response to the trigger receiving unit having received the trigger. Gao: Page 16, fifth full paragraph [As described in claim 1.]
Regarding claim 12, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. Gao further teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim l, wherein the trigger receiving unit receives the trigger in response to a detection signal of a sensor provided in the machine tool. Gao: Page 16, first and second full paragraphs [As described in claim 1.] Gao: Page 9, second full paragraph (“The vibration generation determination performed by the vibration determination unit 12 is executed by a known means. For example, it is determined that vibration has occurred when the force or torque indicated by the force information output from the force sensor exceeds a predetermined amplitude in the time domain. The type of signal used for vibration determination is not limited to force information. For example, the vibration determination unit 12 may determine whether or not vibration is generated by using a current feedback signal included in an operating state signal. Further, the vibration determination unit 12 converts a signal used for determining whether or not vibration is generated into a signal in the frequency domain, and when the vibration component having the maximum amplitude in the frequency domain exceeds a predetermined amplitude. It may be determined that vibration has occurred in the frequency.”) Gao: Page 13, ninth paragraph (“…the identification unit 13 determines whether or not the error between the measured value of the force detected by the force sensor and the calculated value of the force calculated in step S3 is equal to or less than the allowable value.”) Gao: Page 9, tenth paragraph (“As a method of updating the parameters in step S5, for example, a method of increasing or decreasing each parameter by a predetermined amount can be used. The identification process in the identification unit 13 when the vibration determination unit 12 determines that the vibration is chattering…”)
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs 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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of Ando et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0095724 A1) (“Ando”).
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 2, from which claim 4 depends. Gao does not expressly teach the features of claim 4. However, Ando describes operating history management of a machine tool. Ando teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim 2, wherein the operational state allowable range setting unit sets at least one of a vibration speed upper limit, a vibration acceleration upper limit, or a vibration jerk upper limit for the operating shaft, as the operational state allowable range. Ando: Paragraph [0013] (“According to the first aspect, at least the rotation speed of the rotary shaft and the vibration acceleration in the frequency domain are stored as the operating history, and the operating history is stored not only when the rotation speed of the rotary shaft varies, but also when the maximum value of the vibration acceleration in the frequency domain exceeds the predetermined threshold. Therefore, variation in the rotation speed of the rotary shaft and a chatter vibration occurrence state can be stored in association with each other. Hence, an operator can learn the rotation speed of the rotary shaft and the chatter vibration occurrence state in association with each other. As a result, chatter vibration can be suppressed easily and effectively.” Which reads on “a vibration acceleration upper limit”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gao and Ando before them, for the operational state allowable range setting unit sets at least one of a vibration speed upper limit, a vibration acceleration upper limit, or a vibration jerk upper limit for the operating shaft, as the operational state allowable range because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on determining vibration of a machine tool.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would improve suppressing chatter vibration easily and effectively. Ando Paragraph [0013].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of Katoh et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0066622 A1) (“Katoh”).
Regarding claim 6, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 2, from which claim 6 depends. Gao does not expressly teach the features of claim 6. However, Katoh describes a friction stir welding attachment includes a body configured to be attached to a spindle supported by a spindle head of a machine tool. Katoh teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim 2, wherein the operational state acquisition unit acquires the shaft motion state information from a detection signal of a sensor provided in the machine tool. Katoh: Paragraph [0073] (“As depicted in FIG. 3, the rotation drive unit 15 includes a plurality of (e.g. two) air motors 151, 152, a transmission mechanism 153, a drive air distributor 154 configured to distribute the drive air supplied through the extension air channel 114 to the air motors 151, 152, and a rotation sensor 155 configured to detect a rotation state of the metalworking shaft 14.”) Katoh: Paragraph [0080] (“The rotation sensor 155, which is provided by an optical counter(s) and/or a rotary encoder(s) provided at position(s) facing a circumferential surface of the metalworking shaft 14, is configured to detect a rotation state of the metalworking shaft 14 and output the rotation state in a form of an external signal.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gao and Katoh before them, for the operational state acquisition unit acquires the shaft motion state information from a detection signal of a sensor provided in the machine tool because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on controlling a machine tool.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would improve friction and rotation sensor is selectable from among any existing devices such as rotary encoders, angle sensors, and rotation counters. It is only necessary to detect the rotation of one of the air motors because the air motors and the metalworking shaft are coupled via the transmission mechanism. Katoh Paragraphs [0017] and [0035].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of Matsukura et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0033825 A1) (“Matsukura”).
Regarding claim 8, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. Gao does not expressly teach the features of claim 8. However, Matsukura describes a parameter setting support device for a machine tool. Matsukura teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a control parameter setting history storage unit that stores control parameters that were set by the control parameter setting unit in the past, Matsukura: Paragraph [0034] (“The parameter setting support device 1 of the present embodiment comprises a parameter setting interface unit 100, a related parameter identification unit 110, and setting range identification unit 120. Moreover, a function table 200, setting range table 202, conditional expression table 204, and parameter setting storage unit 210 for storing set values of parameters are secured on the non-volatile memory 13.”)
wherein the specifiable range setting unit sets a specifiable range of the control parameters, based on the control parameters stored in the control parameter setting history storage unit. Matsukura: Paragraph [0042] (“Moreover, the setting range identification unit 120 performs a logical operation for each conditional expression by using the set value for the parameter of the settable function received from the related parameter identification unit 110, the parameter values of the set functions stored in the parameter setting storage unit 210, and the like. Then, the setting range identification unit 120 outputs, as valid setting ranges, the setting ranges of the set values included in the setting range data corresponding to the conditional expression IDs that enable the logical operation results to the parameter setting interface unit 100, along with the function ID of the related function and the parameter number of the parameter of the related function concerned.”) Matsukura: Paragraph [0061] (“The setting range table 202 may be further provided with an InitValue (initial value) column in which an initial value can be set. In this way, the initial value concerned can be acquired and used for a parameter value of a function that is not yet set in the parameter setting storage unit 210 as the setting range identification unit 120 performs the logical operation of a conditional expression included in the conditional expression data stored in the conditional expression table 204.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gao and Matsukura before them, for a control parameter setting history storage unit that stores control parameters that were set by the control parameter setting unit in the past, wherein the specifiable range setting unit sets a specifiable range of the control parameters, based on the control parameters stored in the control parameter setting history storage unit because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on controlling a machine tool.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to provide a parameter setting support device capable of facilitating setting of another parameter related to a parameter set by an operator. Matsukura Paragraph [0011].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, in view of Kamiya (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0033821) (“Kamiya”).
Regarding claim 10, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Gao does not expressly teach the features of claim 10. However, Kamiya describes a numerical control device of a machine tool. Kamiya teaches:
The machine tool control device according to claim l, wherein the shaft motion control unit stops the shaft motion in response to the trigger receiving unit having received the trigger. Kamiya: Paragraph [0037] (“When determining that the amplitude of the acquired vibration is equal to or greater than a predetermined amplitude, the vibration acquisition unit 64 determines that the tool 22 is in a chatter vibration state, and gives notice of the occurrence of chattering to the machining stopping unit 66, the compensation plan calculating unit 70 and the display control unit 72.”) Kamiya: Paragraph [0038] (“When a vibration of a predetermined amplitude or greater occurs in the tool 22, or when the tool 22 is placed in a chatter vibration state, the machining stopping unit 66 stops machining by the machining control unit 62. The machining stopping unit 66 outputs a machining stop signal to the machining control unit 62 to thereby stop machining.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gao and Kamiya before them, for the shaft motion control unit stops the shaft motion in response to the trigger receiving unit having received the trigger because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on controlling a machine tool.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification to easily assist the operator in changing the machining conditions in order to suppress chatter vibration, while taking into consideration machining efficiency, the loss of the spindle motor, the amount of heat generation and the like. Kamiya Paragraph [0008].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao.
Regarding claim 13, Gao teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 13 depends. The second embodiment of Gao does not provide an input device, however, the third embodiment of this reference includes the input unit attached to the numerical control device of the second embodiment. The cited portions of Gao as provided in independent claim 1 are incorporated herein. In addition, Gao teaches:
A machine tool control system, Gao: Page 9, sixth paragraph (“…the tooling system 34…”) comprising: the machine tool control device according to claim l; and an input device including a control parameter input unit that inputs setting values of the control parameters, and a trigger input unit that inputs the trigger. Gao: Page 17, fourth paragraph (“As shown in FIG. 15, the numerical control device 1 b of the third embodiment has an input unit 17 added to the numerical control device 1 a of the second embodiment. The input unit 17 can accept the input of the parameter to be identified from the outside. The input unit 17 can
receive at least one input of a dynamic characteristic parameter and a processing characteristic parameter as parameters to be identified from, for example, an external device or an operator. The input unit 17 may be a communication circuit that communicates with an external device, an interface circuit of an external medium that reads data from an external medium, or an input means such as a keyboard or a mouse ... Further, when the input unit 17 receives an input from an operator, a display means such as a display or a monitor is also used as the input unit 17. The parameter to be identified may be input to the input unit 17 as a numerical control program, or may be input to the input unit 17 interactively by the operator.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gao before them, to include in the numerical control device of the second embodiment an input unit and a display because the embodiments are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on controlling a machine tool.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would to provide an interactive mechanism to an operator. Gao Page 17, fourth full paragraph.
It is noted that any citations to specific paragraphs 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2017/0293862 A1 to Kamiya et al. describes a state monitoring device for a machine tool which measures vibration data using an AE sensor, an amplifier, and a band-pass filter in response to a reception of a main shaft rotate command and a feed shaft drive command. Then, a level counting circuit is used to count the number of measured vibration data which exceed a threshold obtained from main shaft rotation information, the state of the main shaft is determined by a comparison between the obtained count number and the alarm level, and an alarm is displayed on an alarm indicator as appropriate.
US Patent Publication No. 2022/0186670 A1 to Blake et al. describes a method including determining a level of vibrations at the apparatus. The level of vibrations may then be compared with a predetermined threshold. Controlling rotation of the at least one of the shafts depending on the speed ratio of the speeds of the shafts can then be performed (in particular triggered) when (e.g., only when) the level of vibrations exceeds the predetermined threshold. By this it is possible to reduce interventions, e.g. in cases where a relative level of vibrations is increased (e.g. at a peak value), but at a low absolute value. Tolerable vibrations may thus be allowed. Alternatively or in addition, integer shaft speed ratios may be tolerated (e.g. do not trigger an adjustment of a control parameter) when one or more shafts rotate at a predetermined range of speeds, e.g. speeds that were proven to not be prone to strong vibrations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights