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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMARU, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0045959 A1 (hereinafter: ‘959) in view of Fukaya et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0103741 A1 (hereinafter: ‘741).
As per claim 1, ‘959 in view of ‘741 discloses an estimation device that, when a machine tool machines a polygon by controlling a relative position between a rotation axis of a rotary tool and a center axis of the polygon which is parallel to a rotation axis of a workpiece and passes through a predetermined position in the workpiece so that a positional relationship between the center axis of the polygon and the rotation axis of the rotary tool is kept constant, estimates whether interference will occur in the machine tool (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to a device that makes a multiple sided shape by spinning the workpiece and the cutter in sync with each other, while controlling and maintaining a constant positional relationship between the spinning tool axis and the polygon center axis during the machining, whereby the system further predicts (estimates) whether any machine tool interference (collision) will occur during the polygon machining; See ‘959; [0002], [0019], [0021] and [0022], which disclose machining a workpiece by spinning the workpiece and the cutter in sync at a set ratio so their phase stays matched to each other. Further, the turret is locked in an indexed position with the cutter mounted on the spindle, so the cutter’s axis stays in a fixed spatial relationship relative to the workpiece during machining. However, ‘959 does not teach estimating machine tool interference via a machine model simulation. ‘741 discloses this feature and is incorporated into ‘959; See ‘741; [0005] and [0023] which disclose using a simulation to check for interference of machine tool movements and provides a warning if a potential collision is detected);
a reception unit that receives model information regarding a structure that constitutes the machine tool (e.g., See ‘741; [0010], which discloses using stored shape models of machine tool components (tool rest, main spindle, table) which represent model information that describe the machine’s tool structure);
a determination unit that, at a start of machining of the polygon, determines an initial position of the center axis of the polygon, an initial phase of the rotary tool, and a positional relationship between the center axis of the polygon and the rotation axis of the rotary tool (e.g., See ‘959; [0034], which discloses using a fixed start point to sets the tool’s initial phase at the start of machining. Also See ‘741; [0012], [0015] and [0021], which disclose setting the initial workpiece positions and tool setup positions and placing their models in the simulation, thereby establishing the initial workpiece axis and the optional relationship between the tool axis and the workpiece center axis);
a calculation unit that calculates a moving range of at least one of the rotation axis of the rotary tool and the rotation axis of the workpiece, based on the initial position of the center axis of the polygon, the initial phase of the rotary tool, and the positional relationship between the center axis of the polygon and the rotation axis of the rotary tool which are determined by the determination unit (e.g., See ‘741; [0020] - [0022], which disclose reading the machining program and, starting from the initial workpiece position and tool setup positions in the simulation, simulating the axis motions to determine how far the machine axes move. Also See ‘959; [0034], which discloses using a fixed start point to set the tool’s initial phase so that the rotary motion can be initialized at the start of machining); and
an estimation unit that estimates whether interference will occur in the machine tool, based on the model information received by the reception unit and the moving range calculated by the calculation unit (e.g., See ‘741; [0010] and [0023], which discloses using stored shape models and determining whether simulated movements would cause interference, and outputting a warning if interference is possible).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of ‘741 into ‘959 for the purpose of using a machine model to predict potential collisions during machining, thereby improving safety and avoiding machine damage, and reducing scrap and downtime by detecting interference before it occurs.
As per claim 2, and as best understood, ‘959 in view of ‘741 adequately disclose a feature whereby if a collision is predicted, then either the starting polygon position is changed or their alignment at the beginning of machining is changed, in order to reduce the interference (e.g., See ‘741; [0012], [0015], [0021] and [0023], which disclose setting the workpiece setup position and tool setup position used to locate the models for simulation, and then predicting possible interference. I also cited ‘741, [0007] and [0008], which discloses using corrected conditions when performing the machining simulation. Therefore, if the simulation predicts a collision, it would be obvious to adjust at least one of the initial workpiece setup position or the tool setup position before machining in order to avoid the collision.
As per claim 3, the rationale as applied to the rejection of claim 1, from above, is incorporated herein. Further, ‘959 discloses machining programs stored in ROM/RAM and executed by a CPU (e.g., See ‘959; [0025] – [0026]). Further, ‘741 discloses storing computer machining simulation data in memory (e.g., [0005] and [0006]). Therefore, providing a computer readable storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed, perform the combined functions would have been an obvious implementation of the combined system of ‘959 in view of ‘741.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2015/0045941 A1, which discloses using virtual 2D/3D models of the machine, tool and workpiece during machining to check interference and reduce collision risk;
(2) US 2010/0087948 A1, which discloses a numerical control collision prevention feature that runs interreference checks and can stop machine motion before a collision to protect the equipment;
(3) US 2013/0103180 A1, which discloses a system that avoids tool or workpiece collisions by computing motion from the parts program and checking whether a tool model overlaps a workpiece model, and if, slowly stopping;
(4) US 9,342,065 B2, which discloses CAM tool path generation using 3D models to check and visualize interference between the tool and workpiece during tool path creation and verification; and
(5) US 4,538,945 A, which discloses a system that machines polygon profiles by driving the tool spindle and workpiece spindle in sync, with adjustable offsets to form different polygon shapes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 February 7, 2026; /RDH/