DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 (filed 12/28/2023) have been considered in this action. Claims 1-6 are newly filed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The examiner recommends a title that is reflective of the claimed invention, such as “NUMERICAL CONTROL DEVICE PERFORMS POSITION CONTROL OF A ROTATIONAL AXIS OF A POLYGON RELATIVE TO THE ROTATIONAL AXIS OF A ROTARY TOOL”
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “first control unit”, “second control unit” and “third control unit” in claims 1-6 and “setting unit” in claims 4 and 5.
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. Based upon the provided description, the various “units” are a processor and memory with instructions encoded to perform the claimed functionality.
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.
The examiner further notes that “center axis of a polygon” is not a term of the art, and is interpreted as the normal meaning of the center axis which intersects through a workpiece. This term does not account for when the spindle’s rotational axis and the workpiece’s rotational axis (i.e. polygon axis) are in parallel alignment with one another, and thus are commensurate concepts in that rotating around a spindle axis is the same concept as rotating around a polygon axis because they are in alignment (i.e. center of spindle and center of workpiece are the same). The claim does not account for the possibility of these axis being in alignment, and thus is considered based on the BRI of what is presented in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumaru (US 20160045959, hereinafter Matsumaru) in view of Kochsiek (US 6761096, hereinafter Kochsiek).
In regards to Claim 1, Matsumaru teaches “A numerical controller comprising: a first control unit configured to rotate a workpiece around a rotation axis of the workpiece” ([0026] In the control device (NC device 70), the CPU 76 outputs an operation command to the drive control unit 82 based on various kinds of data, machining programs, etc., stored in the ROM 78 or the RAM 80, and the control unit 82 controls the indexing drive source (servomotor) 32 and the rotation drive source (servomotor) 46 of the turret cutter holder 10 and, a drive mechanism 88, such as a main shaft motor that drives the main shaft rotationally, respectively, and causes the turret 14 to revolve and the rotary tool 28 (tool spindle) and the main shaft to rotate. The control device is configured so as to be capable of switching between the synchronous drive and the asynchronous drive of the servomotor 46 (rotational drive of the rotary tool 28) and the main shaft motor (rotational drive of the main shaft); wherein the commands for driving the main shaft is a first control unit) “a second control unit configured to rotate a rotary tool around a rotation axis of the rotary tool at a rotation speed of a constant ratio with respect to a rotation speed of the workpiece, the rotation axis of the rotary tool being parallel to the rotation axis of the workpiece” ([0022] It is possible to form an ellipse, a polygon, etc., on the outer peripheral surface of a workpiece W by carrying out polygon machining on the workpiece W gripped by the main shaft, by revolving the turret 14 to select the polygon cutter 54 and by synchronously rotating the main shaft that is driven rotationally by the main shaft motor and the polygon cutter 54 to maintain the phase relationship between the main shaft and the polygon cutter 54. In the polygon machining, the tool spindle and the main shaft are driven rotationally so that the rotation speed of the workpiece W and the rotation speed of the polygon cutter 54 form a predetermined ratio. For example, in the case where a quadrangle is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is possible to machine the quadrangle by rotating the polygon cutter in which two cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the quadrangle, are arranged twice while rotating the workpiece once. Further, for example, in the case where a hexagon is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is sufficient to rotate the polygon cutter in which three cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the hexagon, are arranged so as to form, for example, a triangle three times while rotating the workpiece once).
Matsumaru fails to teach “and a third control unit configured to control a relative position between the rotation axis of the rotary tool and a center axis of a polygon so that a positional relationship between the center axis of the polygon and the rotation axis of the rotary tool is kept constant, the center axis of the polygon being parallel to the rotation axis of the workpiece and passing through a predetermined position of the workpiece”.
Kochsiek teaches “and a third control unit configured to control a relative position between the rotation axis of the rotary tool and a center axis of a polygon so that a positional relationship between the center axis of the polygon and the rotation axis of the rotary tool is kept constant, the center axis of the polygon being parallel to the rotation axis of the workpiece and passing through a predetermined position of the workpiece” (Fig. 1a-2 shows rotational axis of workpiece (2) (polygon axis) and rotational axis of tool (6) in parallel passing through center of workpiece (predetermined position) [col 3 line 41] The second embodiment shown in FIG. 2 of a device for preforming the method for producing inner and/or outer contours deviating from a circular shape has a tool 5 rotating not only about the rotational axis 6 of the tool but also about an eccentric axis of rotation 7 that is radially displaced relative to axis 6. The spacing between the axis of rotation 6 and the eccentric axis of rotations 7 is indicated as eccentricity e. The revolutions per minute of the rotatably driven components rotating about the rotational axes 2, 6, and 7 is always constant but different with respect to size and/or rotational direction. In, the embodiments represented in the drawings FIGS. 1 and 2 the rotational axes 2 and 6, respectively, 2, 6 and 7 are arranged parallel to one another. However, a spacial offset arrangement of the rotational axes 2 and 6, respectively, 2, 6, and 7 to one another by a predetermined angle is also possible; [col4 line 7] In the drawing FIG. 3 the spacing between the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece and the axis of rotation 6 of the tool is indicated, corresponding to FIG. 1, with x and the one between the active surface of the tool and the axis 6 of the tool with w. In the table they are indicated as radii....FIG. 4b shows a quadrangular polygon contour but with concavely extending sides. As can be taken from the corresponding parameter table, this change of the profile of the sides of the polygon contour has been achieved by changing the spacings x and w; wherein the changed spacing is the constant distance, as each different shape requires a different spacing/distance).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for performing polygon machining using first and second control units that operate at a fixed speed ratio, with the use of a third control unit that sets a spacing between parallel axis that run through the polygon/workpiece, the tool, and the spindle holding the workpiece as taught by Kochsiek, because it would gain the obvious benefit of Kochsiek, namely that polygonal contours can be formed on a workpiece in a variety of different inner and outer contours ([col 1 line 35]). By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known device for operating a numerical controller to form polygonal shapes using a fixed speed ratio between a workpiece spindle and tool motors, and using the methods of Kochsiek by which a fixed spacing between axis of the workpiece/polygon and the tool axis which are parallel is utilized to form different polygonal contours in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Matsumaru and Kochsiek teaches the numerical control device as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kochsiek further teaches “The numerical controller according to claim1, further comprising a setting unit configured to set a phase of the polygon, wherein the third control unit determines, based on the phase set by the setting unit, the relative position between the rotation axis of the rotary tool and the center axis of the polygon” ([col 2 line 24] According to a further embodiment of the invention, the position of the rotational axes relative to one another can be individually adjusted. By adjusting the position of the axes of rotation, the so-called phase angle, screw-shaped outer and/or inner counters can be produced [col 5 line 31] As can be taken from the corresponding parameter table, the helical extension as well as the conical embodiment of the workpiece contour has been achieved in that during movement axially in the longitudinal direction of the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece for every cut preformed by the tool 5 the phase angle of the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece to the axis of rotation 6 of the tool as well as the spacing x have been changed. The helical contour is produced by the changing phase angle. The conical embodiment of the workpiece 8 is achieved by the uniform change of the spacing x between the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece and the axis of rotation 6 of the tool along the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece).
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Matsumaru and Kochsiek teaches the numerical control device as incorporated by claim 1 above. Matsumaru further teaches “The numerical controller according to claim1, further comprising a setting unit configured to set a phase of the polygon, wherein the second control unit determines an initial phase of the rotary tool based on the phase set by the setting unit” ([0022] It is possible to form an ellipse, a polygon, etc., on the outer peripheral surface of a workpiece W by carrying out polygon machining on the workpiece W gripped by the main shaft, by revolving the turret 14 to select the polygon cutter 54 and by synchronously rotating the main shaft that is driven rotationally by the main shaft motor and the polygon cutter 54 to maintain the phase relationship between the main shaft and the polygon cutter 54. ...For example, in the case where a quadrangle is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is possible to machine the quadrangle by rotating the polygon cutter in which two cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the quadrangle, are arranged twice while rotating the workpiece once. Further, for example, in the case where a hexagon is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is sufficient to rotate the polygon cutter in which three cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the hexagon, are arranged so as to form, for example, a triangle three times while rotating the workpiece once. [0034] The phase relationship between the main shaft and the tool spindle becomes constant at all times at a predetermined fixed point, by designing the configuration so that the synchronization ratio is changed when the main shaft is located at a predetermined fixed point, for example, the main shaft origin where the rotation angle of the main shaft becomes 0 degrees, and therefore it is possible to easily match the phase at the time of the first polygon machining with the phase at the time of the second polygon machining at the timing when the main shaft is located at the predetermined fixed point; wherein the phasing between the two axis are set as constant relative to the main axis, and thus the phase of the tool is set via this constant relationship).
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Matsumaru and Kochsiek teaches the numerical control device as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kochsiek further teaches “The numerical controller according to claim1, wherein the third control unit causes at least one of the rotation axis of the workpiece and the rotation axis of the rotary tool to approach, by cutting feed, a position at which the positional relationship therebetween becomes constant” ([col 5 line 31] FIG. 7 shows a workpiece 8 that has a triangular, helical and conically extending polygon contour. As can be taken from the corresponding parameter table, the helical extension as well as the conical embodiment of the workpiece contour has been achieved in that during movement axially in the longitudinal direction of the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece for every cut preformed by the tool 5 the phase angle of the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece to the axis of rotation 6 of the tool as well as the spacing x have been changed. The helical contour is produced by the changing phase angle. The conical embodiment of the workpiece 8 is achieved by the uniform change of the spacing x between the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece and the axis of rotation 6 of the tool along the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumaru and Kochsiek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. (US 5144214, hereinafter Komatsu).
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Matsumaru and Kochsiek teach the numerical controller as incorporated by claim 1 above. Kochsiek further teaches “The numerical controller according to claim 1, wherein the third control unit identifies a position of the center axis of the polygon with respect to a position of the rotation axis of the workpiece based on a rotation angle of the rotation axis of the workpiece and a distance between the rotation axis of the workpiece and the center axis of the polygon” ([col 5 line 31] FIG. 7 shows a workpiece 8 that has a triangular, helical and conically extending polygon contour. As can be taken from the corresponding parameter table, the helical extension as well as the conical embodiment of the workpiece contour has been achieved in that during movement axially in the longitudinal direction of the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece for every cut preformed by the tool 5 the phase angle of the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece to the axis of rotation 6 of the tool as well as the spacing x have been changed. The helical contour is produced by the changing phase angle. The conical embodiment of the workpiece 8 is achieved by the uniform change of the spacing x between the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece and the axis of rotation 6 of the tool along the axis of rotation 2 of the workpiece).
The combination of Matsumaru and Kochsiek fail to teach “and determines at least one of an initial position of the rotation axis of the workpiece and an initial position of the rotation axis of the rotary tool so as to allow an initial position of the center axis of the polygon to be disposed on a line segment connecting the initial position of the rotation axis of the workpiece to the initial position of the rotation axis of the rotary tool”.
Komatsu teaches “and determines at least one of an initial position of the rotation axis of the workpiece and an initial position of the rotation axis of the rotary tool so as to allow an initial position of the center axis of the polygon to be disposed on a line segment connecting the initial position of the rotation axis of the workpiece to the initial position of the rotation axis of the rotary tool” (Fig. 9B and [col 4 line 22] The special pulse counter 13 comprises a switch (SW) 21, a marker pulse generator 22, a subtracter 23, a set value memory 24 and a counter 25. During the normal operation, the switch 21 is connected to a contact a while during the synchronized operation, it is connected to a contact b. During synchronized operation, a set value for the marker pulse generating position is stored in a set value memory 24. The set value may be re-set to an arbitrary value. A marker pulse is outputted from the marker pulse generator 22 when the output from the subtracter 23 satisfies (c-k).gtoreq.0 wherein the set value is denoted as c, and the value stored in the set value memory as k...FIGS. 5A to 5B show the relationship among the values counted by the counter 25, the marker pulse generating position set value stored in the set value memory 24 and the marker pulse to be inputted in the apparatus body. FIG. 5A shows the values counted by the counter 25, which the counted values increase chronologically and are cleared with a marker pulse outputted from the spindle PG 8. FIG. 5B shows a marker pulse inputted in the apparatus body when the switch 21 is connected with the contact a. FIG. 5C shows a marker pulse inputted at the system body when the switch 21 is connected to the contact b. If the switch 21 is connected with the contact b, the marker pulse is outputted when the marker pulse generating position set value becomes equal (or delayed by k) to the counted value shown in FIG. 5A. By changing the marker pulse generating position set value, the marker pulses can be generated at an arbitrary timing (for instance, delayed by k') as shown in the 4th period in FIG. 5A); wherein fig. 9B shows how when the delay is introduced, when starting a new section the phases will align and thus the initial position of each axis will be controlled in alignment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the numerical controller which performs polygon machining by controlling a tool and polygon axis that are parallel to be a set distance between each other as taught by Matsumaru and Kochsiek, with the ability of Komatsu to set a phase difference through a time delay between the two axis so that the initial position of each axis are in alignment when starting a polygonal part of a workpiece because it would gain the obvious benefit of Komatsu, namely that “[col 5 line 52] Even if the starting points of command shapes are continuously changed during operation, the apparatus can process the work at a high rotational speed. Moreover, when at least two forms having the same phase angles and different amplitudes are to be continuously processed, gaps are prevented from being generated to enable smooth and effective turning operations”. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known means of using the methods of Komatsu that include determining the phase offset and introducing a delay to align the initial machining relative to both axis, and using it to improve the numerical controller of Matsumaru and Kochsiek in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Matsumaru, Kochsiek and Komatsu teach the numerical controller as incorporated by claim 2 above. Komatsu further teaches “The numerical controller according to claim 2, wherein the third control unit controls the relative position between the center axis of the polygon and the rotation axis of the rotary tool by using a feedback value of the rotation angle of the rotation axis of the workpiece” ([col 3 line 63] a spindle PG 8 detects a rotational angle of a spindle 7 and generates a marker pulse; a special pulse counter 13 generates a marker pulse at a position arbitrarily set with respect to the above noted marker pulse; a pulse counter 9 counts pulses in A- and B-phases from the reference point which is either the marker pulse from the special pulse counter 13 or the marker pulse directly from the spindle PG 8. A latch circuit 12 reads a actual position of the feed axis which is driven by a servo motor 6 based on the actual position reading signal S1 from the pulse counter 9 via a position detector 10 and a counter 11. The apparatus includes a data table 1 for position command values which stores the positional command values corresponding to pulses equivalent to one rotation of the spindle functionally generated by the spindle PG 8 by generating on off-line the functions thereof).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken 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.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2116