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 .
Specification
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 following title is suggested: Method for operating a machine tool and/or production machine for tool retraction control.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “in particular” raises potential issues of scope. The specification recites “in particular” without an apparent standard of measurement. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 25 are objected to for “preferably.” The specification does not quantify the relative scope of “preferably.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 and 26 recite “highly flammable.” The specification does not quantify the scope of highly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-15, 20-23, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al. (USPN 4346444).
Claim 12.
Schneider et al. teaches a method for operating a machine tool and/or production machine which includes a spindle and a tool for processing a workpiece, the method comprising moving the tool, when the spindle rotates and a feed rate of the tool is below a defined feed rate, to a retracted position such that the tool no longer touches the workpiece (e.g. “As the cutting tool is maintained at a constant thrust load through the workpiece, the feed of the cutting tool is adjusted to insure the thrust load remains constant. However, if the thrust load remains constant for a predetermined period of time and the feed rate of the cutting tool is less than a predetermined portion of a predetermined feed rate for the cutting tool, the cutting operation is terminated and the cutting tool is withdrawn since this condition indicates that the cutting tool has been dulled and needs to be either replaced or resharpened.”
Claim 13. The method of claim 12, wherein the tool is moved to the retracted position in such a manner that a tool tip facing the workpiece is at a distance from the workpiece (Figure 1-16 vs. 14)
Claim 14. The method of claim 12, wherein the tool is moved in a direction away from the workpiece, in particular in the Z+ direction (Figure 1-16 vs 14)
Claim 15. The method of claim 12, wherein the tool is moved in a tool orientation direction (Figure 1-14)
Claim 20.
A controller, in particular numerical controller, for a machine tool and/or production machine which includes a spindle and a tool for processing a workpiece, the controller comprising a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands which, when executed by the controller (Figure 1-34, 32, 30), cause the controller to move the tool (Figure 1-14), when the spindle rotates and a feed rate of the tool is below a defined feed rate, to a retracted position such that the tool no longer touches the workpiece, supra claim 12, ABSTRACT)
Claim 21. The controller of claim 20, wherein the controller is designed to move the tool to the retracted position in such a manner that a tool tip facing the workpiece is at a distance from the workpiece (supra claim 13)
Claim 22. The controller of claim 20, wherein the controller is designed to move the tool in a direction away from the workpiece, in particular in the Z+ direction (supra claim 14)
Claim 23. The controller of claim 20, wherein the controller is designed to move the tool in a tool orientation direction (supra claim 5)
Claim 28. A system, comprising:
a machine tool and/or production machine including a spindle and a tool for processing a workpiece; (supra claim 12, Figure 1)
a controller comprising a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands which, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to move the tool, when the spindle rotates and a feed rate of the tool is below a defined feed rate, to a retracted position such that the tool no longer touches the workpiece (ABSTRACT, Figure 12)
Claim 29. A computer program product, embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands which, when executed by a controller, in particular a numerical controller, cause the controller to perform a method as set forth in claim 12, supra claim 12)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (USPN 4346444) in view over Marchman et al. (PG/PUB 20080067369)
Claim 16.
The method of claim 13 but does not teach the “mm” limitations described below. Marchman et al. teaches the “mm” limitations described below
wherein the distance between the tool tip and the workpiece after movement of the tool to the retracted position is at least 0.001 mm and at most 1000 mm, in particular at least 1 mm and at most 10 mm (0010 e.g. see 5mm distance)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Marchman et al., namely quantifying a distance between a tool and workpiece, to the teachings of Schneider, namely retracting a tool from a workpiece, would achieve an expected and predictable result of specifying a retraction distance for minimizing interference. Marchman et al. is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of specifying distances, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 24. The controller of claim 21, wherein the distance between the tool tip and the workpiece after movement of the tool to the retracted position is at least 0.001 mm and at most 1000 mm, in particular at least 1 mm and at most 10 mm (0010 e.g. see 5 mm distance)
Claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale set forth in claim 16
Claim(s) 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (USPN 4346444) in view over Holliday (PG/PUB 20200254534)
Claim 17. The method of claim 12 but does not teach the “mm/min” limitations described below. Holliday teaches the “mm/min” limitations described below
wherein the defined feed rate is at most 1000 mm/min and at least 50 mm/min, preferably at most 500 mm/min and at least 100 mm/min (0030 e.g. see 150 mm/min)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Holliday et al., namely quantifying a feedrate between a tool and workpiece, to the teachings of Schneider, namely applying a tool to/from a workpiece, would achieve an expected and predictable result of specifying a federate for optimal material removal as described, background.
Claim 25.
The controller of claim 20, wherein the defined feed rate is at most 1000 mm/min and at least 50 mm/min, preferably at most 500 mm/min and at least 100 mm/min, supra claim 17
Claim(s) 18-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (USPN 4346444) in view over Magill (USPN 5967712)
Claim 18. The method of claim 1 but does not teach the flammable substance. Magill teaches the flammable substance.
wherein the workpiece comprises a highly flammable or easily flammable or flammable substance, in particular a solid substance (background, see titanium)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Magill., namely providing desired workpiece properties, to the teachings of Schneider, namely applying a tool to/from a workpiece, would achieve an expected and predictable result of accounting for potential fires during machining and associated spring back as described.
Claim 19.
The method of claim 12 but does not expressly teach the deformable limitations. Magill teaches the deformable limitations
wherein the workpiece comprises a substance deformable by heat input (background, see localized melting in the context of flammable material such that titanium is material deformed due to excess temperature)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Magill., namely providing desired workpiece properties, to the teachings of Schneider, namely applying a tool to/from a workpiece, would achieve an expected and predictable result of accounting for potential fires during machining and associated spring back as described.
Claim 26. The controller of claim 20, wherein the workpiece comprises a highly flammable or easily flammable or flammable substance, in particular a solid substance, supra claim 18
Claim 27. The controller of claim 20, wherein the workpiece comprises a substance deformable by heat input, supra claim 19
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1 relevancy
4854786 4723219 4346444 3571834 20150219521 8934998 20120039680 20230191543
Claim 16 relevancy
6225772 4911588 20230140903 20140102268 4882849
Claim 17
6225772 20230211558 10212185
Claims 18 and 19 relevancy
12330253 20240131614 20230191543 20190168335
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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 at 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 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117