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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 11 objected to as the limitation “a power output” as claimed in claim 11 and “captured power output” as claimed in claim 1 is claimed alternatively as “the captured power output” or “the power output” in subsequent recitations. To reduce potential confusion the same phrasing should be used for each limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites that “the captured power output” is determined using “the vibration amplitude” and “the vibration frequency;” however, “the captured power output” was stated to include “the vibration amplitude” in claim 1 and “the vibration frequency” in claim 3. This would render the claim indefinite as it implies the captured power output is determining itself.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-2, 4, 11, and 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/644934 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 4, 11, and 12 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 18, and 20 of the reference application. Claim comparison below, differences in bold.
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. An ultrasonic impact grinding system comprising: an ultrasonic vibration tool having a tool tip; a slurry component having a slurry nozzle to deliver a slurry having abrasive particles in an area of the tool tip, wherein the tool tip of the ultrasonic vibration tool engages the abrasive particles to machine a workpiece; an ultrasonic power supply to provide power to the ultrasonic vibration tool; and a controller to receive captured power output by the ultrasonic vibration tool and to control a feed rate to the ultrasonic vibration tool from the ultrasonic power supply, wherein the power output includes a vibration amplitude as the tool tip engages the abrasive particles, wherein the controller is configured to determine when the captured power output based on the vibration amplitude reaches a specified level, and modify the feed rate to the ultrasonic vibration tool based on reaching the specified level.
1. An ultrasonic impact grinding system comprising: an ultrasonic vibration tool having a tool tip; a slurry component having a slurry nozzle to deliver a slurry having abrasive particles in an area of the tool tip, wherein the tool tip of the ultrasonic vibration tool engages the abrasive particles to machine a workpiece; a physics-based model configured to optimize a material removal rate for a given particle size for the abrasive particles and a vibration amplitude according to a power level for the ultrasonic vibration tool, wherein the physics-based model receives at least one input parameter including a material property and a tool parameter; and an adaptive profile control having an ultrasonic power generator to receive the vibration amplitude and control the ultrasonic vibration tool according to the vibration level and a vibration frequency.
2. The ultrasonic impact grinding system of claim 1, further comprising an adaptive feed rate control system to monitor a feed rate to the ultrasonic vibration tool based on the vibration amplitude.
4. The ultrasonic impact grinding system of claim 2, wherein the adaptive feed rate control system includes a controller to control the feed rate to the ultrasonic vibration tool.
Claim 11 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 18 of the reference application.
Claim 12 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 20 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. CN 113231898 A (herein Xiong) in view of Levy US 2850854 A.
For all references in Xiong, all page and line numbers will be provided from the English Translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
295
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiong Figure 1
Regarding claim 1, Xiong teaches an ultrasonic impact grinding system (abstract) comprising: an ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract) having a tool tip (1); an ultrasonic power supply (pg. 6, ln 16-20; to adjust the energy level the device must have a power supply) to provide power to the ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract); and a controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22) to receive captured power output (pg. 6 ln 16-17) by the ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract) and to control a feed rate (pg. 6, ln 23-25) to the ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract) from the ultrasonic power supply (pg. 6, ln 16-20; to adjust the energy level the device must have a power supply), wherein the power output (pg. 6 ln 16-17) includes a vibration amplitude (pg. 6 ln 16-17) as the tool tip (1) engages the workpiece (pg. 4, ln 3-6), wherein the controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22) is configured to determine when the captured power output (pg. 6 ln 16-17) based on the vibration amplitude (pg. 6 ln 16-17) reaches a specified level (pg. 6 ln 16-20), and modify (pg. 6, ln 21-22; feed rate in x-y plane changes when specified level is reached) the feed rate (pg. 6, ln 23-25) to the ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract) based on reaching the specified level (pg. 6 ln 16-20).
Xiong does not teach a slurry component or slurry nozzle.
However, in a related device, Levy teaches an ultrasonic impact grinding tool (col 1, ln 15-17; col 2, ln 3) having a slurry component (24) having a slurry nozzle (end of tube 23) to deliver a slurry (24) having abrasive particles (col 1, ln 40-43) in an area of a tool tip (21), wherein the tool tip (21) of the ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract) engages the abrasive particles (col 1, ln 40-43) to machine a workpiece (22). Levy further teaches that this advantageously allows a material softer than a workpiece to machine the workpiece (col 2, ln 30-33). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the slurry and slurry nozzle of Levy to the tool of Xiong to advantageously allow a material softer than a workpiece to machine the workpiece (col 2, ln 30-33). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches the captured power output (pg. 6 ln 16-17 of Xiong) includes a vibration frequency (pg. 6, ln 19 of Xiong).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches the controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong) is further configured to determine (pg. 6 ln 16-20 of Xiong) the captured power output (pg. 6 ln 16-17 of Xiong) using the vibration amplitude (pg. 6 ln 16-17 of Xiong) and the vibration frequency (pg. 6 ln 19 of Xiong).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches the controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong) is a computer numerical control controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches the vibration amplitude (pg. 6 ln 16-17 of Xiong of Xiong) of the tool tip (1 of Xiong) is captured using a data acquisition device (pg. 6, ln 16 of Xiong).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches an on-machine tool measurement system (pg. 6, ln 31-32 of Xiong) to measure a tool length (pg. 6, ln 31-32 of Xiong) of the tool tip (1 of Xiong) of the ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract of Xiong).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches the on-machine tool measurement system (pg. 6, ln 31-32 of Xiong) is configured to measure the tool length (pg. 6, ln 31-32 of Xiong) when the vibration amplitude reaches the specified level (pg. 4, ln 9-12 of Xiong).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches the controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong) is configured to capture a position (pg. 6, ln 1-2) of the tool tip (1 of Xiong).
Regarding claim 11, Xiong teaches a method (abstract) comprising: machining a workpiece using an ultrasonic vibration tool (abstract); capturing a power output from the ultrasonic vibration tool (pg. 6 ln 16-17), wherein the power output is related to a vibration amplitude of a tool tip of the ultrasonic vibration tool (pg. 6 ln 16-20); receiving the captured power output at a controller connected to an ultrasonic power supply that supplies power to the ultrasonic vibration tool (pg. 3, ln 21-22); determining the captured power output has reached a specified level (pg. 6, ln 18-20); and modifying power to the ultrasonic vibration tool by a control signal from the controller to the ultrasonic power supply (pg. 6, ln 18-20).
Xiong does not teach a slurry component or slurry nozzle.
However, in a related device, Levy teaches using an ultrasonic impact grinding tool (col 1, ln 15-17; col 2, ln 3) to engage abrasive particles (col 1, ln 40-43) in a slurry (24). Levy further teaches that this advantageously allows a material softer than a workpiece to machine the workpiece (col 2, ln 30-33). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the use of an ultrasonic tool to engage a slurry of Levy to the method of Xiong to advantageously allow a material softer than a workpiece to machine the workpiece (col 2, ln 30-33). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches using the control signal to control a feed rate for the ultrasonic vibration tool (pg. 6, ln 21-22 of Xiong; feed rate in x-y plane changes when specified level is reached).
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. CN 113231898 A (herein Xiong) in view of Levy US 2850854 A as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of “Every G Code for Your CNC [The Complete List]” by Brandon Fowler (herein Fowler).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches that the controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong) is a computer numerical control controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong).
The combination of Xiong and Levy does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to turn off power to the ultrasonic vibration tool based on the position of the tool tip.
However, in an explanation of the most common control code for computer numerical control controllers, Fowler teaches that one of the standard commands for most computer numerical control controllers is “G76 - Fine Boring Canned Cycle Bores a hole then stops the spindle, retracts the tool from the surface and rapid retracts the tool out of the hole” (Printed Webpage, pg. 9, ln 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to use the controller to turn off power to the ultrasonic vibration tool based on the position (at the bottom of the hole) of the tool tip as taught by Fowler as each element merely preforms the same function it does individually and would have had predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches that the controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong) is a computer numerical control controller (pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Xiong).
The combination of Xiong and Levy does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to turn off power to the ultrasonic vibration tool based on the position of the tool tip.
However, in an explanation of the most common control code for computer numerical control controllers, Fowler teaches that one of the standard commands for most computer numerical control controllers is “G76 - Fine Boring Canned Cycle Bores a hole then stops the spindle, retracts the tool from the surface and rapid retracts the tool out of the hole” (Printed Webpage, pg. 9, ln 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to use the control signal to stop the ultrasonic vibration tool as taught by Fowler as each element merely preforms the same function it does individually and would have had predictable results.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. CN 113231898 A (herein Xiong) in view of Levy US 2850854 A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. US 20090198369 A1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Xiong and Levy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
The combination of Xiong and Levy does not teach modifying the feed rate by either lowering the feed rate to meet a set power level or increasing the feed rate to achieve desired material remove rates.
However, in a related device, Wu teaches an ultrasonic tool (22) a controller (26) is configured to modify a feed rate (30) by either lowering the feed rate (30) to meet a set power level (para 27, ln 8-12) or increasing the feed rate to achieve desired material remove rates (para 6, ln 3-6). Wu further teaches that lowering the feed rate to meet a set power level can advantageously allow the device to “maintain a predefined level of power consumption” (para 26, ln 10-12). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to modify the controller of the combination of Xiong and Levy with the feed rate changing system of Wu to advantageously allow the device to “maintain a predefined level of power consumption” (para 26, ln 10-12). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. as it relates to feed rate of an ultrasonic cutting tool and controlling said tool based on amplitude and frequency.
Duran et al. as it relates to an ultrasonic cutting tool that utilizes a slurry with abrasive particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights