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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/24/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Status of Claims/Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Prior claim objections have been withdrawn due to amendment. Prior 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Prior double patenting has been withdrawn as the limitations of claim 1 of reference application 18/644,846 are broader in scope than amended claim 1 of instant application and the limitations of claim 11 of reference application are broader in scope than amended claim 18 of instant application.
Prior 101 rejection has been withdrawn due to amendment as applicant has amended claim to be directed to abstract ideas that do add an additional element or practical application that would amount to significantly more as a whole. Specifically, applicant amended claim 11 to recite that the adaptive profile control for the ultrasonic vibration tool controls the ultrasonic vibration tool according to the power level.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites “determining a particle size for abrasive particles to be used with the ultrasonic vibration tool using the physics-based model based on the input signal” in lines 1-11; the input signal is claimed as “an input signal corresponding the electrical power level” in line 6. The specification describes the physics based model 1106 receiving input parameters 1102 to estimate a particle size 1108; however, the inputs 1102 are described on page 14 of the specification as:
“For example, input parameters 1102 includes material properties 1102A. Material properties 1102A may include CMC fiber, matrix pores and their distribution, and the like. Input parameters 1102 also include feature and tool geometries 1102B and process path and cutting conditions 1102C. A process path may be related to features to be machined, and cutting conditions include vibration amplitude, feed rates, and the like. Input parameters 1102, through parameters 1102A, 1102B, and 1102C, may provide a material property, such as a density of the work material for workpiece 23 in system 800. Input parameters 1102 also may provide a tool parameter, such as frequency vibration.”
1102 does not include electrical power level as an input parameter for determining particle grit size.
Claims 19-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. “Parameter Optimization of Ultrasonic Machining Process Using Nontraditional Optimization Algorithms” (herein Rao) in view of Zhang et al. CN 116619481 A (herein Zhang).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rao Figure 1, annotated
Regarding independent claim 1, Rao teaches an ultrasonic impact grinding system (fig 1) comprising: an ultrasonic vibration tool (fig 1) having a tool tip (“Tool” of fig 1); a slurry component (“Abrasive Slurry” of fig 1) having a slurry nozzle (See Annotated Figure 1) to deliver a slurry (see fig 1) having abrasive particles (pg. 1, col 1, ln 20-22) in an area of the tool tip (“Tool” of fig 1) of the ultrasonic vibration tool (fig 1), wherein the tool tip (“Tool” of fig 1) of the ultrasonic vibration tool (fig 1) engages the abrasive particles (pg. 1, col 1, ln 22) to machine a workpiece (“Workpiece” of fig 1); a physics-based model (Three models are proposed in the Application Examples section of the paper on pages 3-5; “Three nontraditional optimization algorithms are considered in the present work for the USM process parameter optimization” pg. 3, col 2, ln 12-14) configured to optimize a material removal rate (equation 1) by determining a particle size for the abrasive particles (pg. 3, col 2, ln 10-16) and by determining a vibration amplitude (pg. 3 col 1, ln 14) for the ultrasonic vibration tool (fig 1) wherein the physics-based model (Three models are proposed in the Application Examples section of the paper on pages 3-5; “Three nontraditional optimization algorithms are considered in the present work for the USM process parameter optimization” pg. 3, col 2, ln 12-14) receives plurality of input parameters including a material property (pg. 3, col 1, ln 24 “flow stress of work material”) and a tool parameter (pg. 3, col 1, ln 23 “cross-section area of cutting tool”).
Rao does not teach the physics-based model optimizing a vibration amplitude according to a power level for the ultrasonic vibration tool, or an adaptive profile control having an ultrasonic power generator to receive the vibration amplitude and control the ultrasonic vibration tool according to the power level and a vibration frequency.
However, in a related device, Zhang teaches a physics-based model (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 37-38) for calculating a vibration amplitude (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 14-15) according to a power level for the ultrasonic vibration tool (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 19-21), and an adaptive profile control (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 17) having an ultrasonic power generator (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 36-37) to control the ultrasonic vibration tool according to the power level (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 36-37) and a vibration frequency (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 19-21). Zhang further teaches that this system advantageously allows for an ultrasonic tool to normalize the axial force on the tool without need for an additional sensor (English Translation, pg. 2, ln 37-40). A person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, would have been able to combine the tool and physic-based model of Rao to optimize a start condition of the ultrasonic tool with the power-based amplitude measurement system and adaptive power control system of Zhang to advantageously allow for a tool to optimize material removal rate based off power and amplitude without need for additional sensors (English Translation, pg. 2, ln 37-40). 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 5, the combination of Rao and Zhang teaches the physics-based model (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 37-38 of Zhang) is configured to determine an ultrasonic impact grinding power based on the vibration amplitude (English Translation, pg. 6, ln 28-30 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rao and Zhang teaches a controller (“controller” in English Translation abstract of Zhang) to control the power level to the ultrasonic vibration tool using the ultrasonic impact grinding power as a starting point (English Translation, pg. 6, ln 28-30; pg. 4, ln 28-29 of Zhang).
Claim(s) 2-4, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. “Parameter Optimization of Ultrasonic Machining Process Using Nontraditional Optimization Algorithms” (herein Rao) in view of Zhang et al. CN 116619481 A (herein Zhang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. US 20090198369 (herein Xu).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rao and Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
The combination of Rao and Zhang does not teach an adaptive feed rate control system. However, in a related device, Xu teaches an adaptive feed rate control system (26) to monitor a feed rate (31) to an ultrasonic vibration tool (12). Xu further teaches that this feed rate control system advantageously optimizes productivity based on tool conditions (para 6, ln 4-6). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, combine the tool and physical model of the combination of Rao and Zhang with the adaptive feed rate control of Xu to enable the tool to advantageously change its feed rate based on power/amplitude feedback and increase productivity (para 6, ln 4-6). 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 Rao, Zhang, and Xu teaches the feed rate (27 of Xu) is provided to the physics-based model to update an attribute related to the power level (English Translation pg. 4, ln 28-29 of Zhang teaches updating a physics based model according to a power level, para 24, ln 2-5 of Xu describe using feedback of the tool to adjust parameters of the cutting process, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the data collected by the process of Xu to update the power level parameter of Zhang).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rao, Zhang, and Xu teaches the adaptive feed rate control system (26 of Xu) includes a controller (para 21 ln 3-4 of Xu) to control the feed rate to the ultrasonic vibration tool (para 21, ln 3-7 of Xu).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rao, Zhang, and Xu teaches load sensors (32 of Xu) to provide a load profile (34 of Xu) of operations by the ultrasonic vibration tool (12 of Xu) according to the vibration amplitude.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rao, Zhang, and Xu teaches the load profile is provided to the physics-based model (English Translation pg. 4, ln 28-29 of Zhang teaches updating a physics based model according to a power level, para 24, ln 2-5 of Xu describe using feedback of the tool to adjust parameters of the cutting process, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the data collected by the process of Xu to update the power level parameter of Zhang).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. “Parameter Optimization of Ultrasonic Machining Process Using Nontraditional Optimization Algorithms” (herein Rao) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. CN 113231898 A (herein Xiong).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rao and Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
The combination of Rao and Zhang does not teach an on-machine tool measurement system.
However, in a related device, Xiong teaches an on-machine tool measurement system (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 11-12) to measure a tool length of the tool tip of the ultrasonic vibration tool (English Translation, pg. 4, ln 13-15). Xiong further teaches that this system allows for advantageously removing the tool for resurfacing prior to causing more extensive damage, prolonging the life of the tool (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 24-27). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, combine the sensing system of Xiong with the ultrasonic tool of the combination of Rao and Zhang to advantageously monitor the wear of tools to allow for more ideal refinishing and lower costs (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 24-27). 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 7, the combination of Rao, Zhang, and Xiong the tool length is provided to the physics-based model (English Translation pg. 4, ln 28-29 of Zhang teaches updating a physics based model according to a power level, English Translation, pg. 4, ln 11-12 of Xiong describes using automated systems to monitor the tool length, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the data collected by the process of Xiong to the model of Zhang).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. CN 116619481 A (herein Zhang) in view of Rao et al. “Parameter Optimization of Ultrasonic Machining Process Using Nontraditional Optimization Algorithms” (herein Rao).
Regarding independent claim 11, Zhang teaches a method (abstract) comprising: receiving a input parameter for an ultrasonic impact grinding system (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 11), wherein the input parameter includes a tool parameter (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 40); applying a physics-based model to the at least one input parameter (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 37-38); estimating a vibration amplitude (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 14-15) using the physics based model to optimize a power level to an ultrasonic vibration tool of the ultrasonic impact grinding system to be used with the ultrasonic vibration tool (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 19-21); and providing the power level to an adaptive profile control for the ultrasonic vibration tool (English Translation, pg. 4 ln 28-29) and controlling the ultrasonic vibration tool according to the power level by the adaptive profile control (English Translation, abstract, “applying the updated excitation signal to the ultrasonic device”).
Zhang does not teach using a material property of a workpiece as an input parameter or estimating a particle size with the physical model.
However, in a related field of research Rao teaches an ultrasonic impact grinding system (fig 1) comprising: wherein a physics-based model (Three models are proposed in the Application Examples section of the paper on pages 3-5; “Three nontraditional optimization algorithms are considered in the present work for the USM process parameter optimization” pg. 3, col 2, ln 12-14) optimizes a material removal rate (equation 1) by estimating a particle size for abrasive particles to be used within the ultrasonic impact grinding system (pg. 3, col 2, ln 10-16) and by determining a vibration amplitude (pg. 3 col 1, ln 14) for the ultrasonic vibration tool (fig 1) wherein the physics-based model (Three models are proposed in the Application Examples section of the paper on pages 3-5; “Three nontraditional optimization algorithms are considered in the present work for the USM process parameter optimization” pg. 3, col 2, ln 12-14) receives plurality of input parameters including a material property (pg. 3, col 1, ln 24 “flow stress of work material”) and a tool parameter (pg. 3, col 1, ln 23 “cross-section area of cutting tool”). Rao further teaches that this ensures quality of product, reduces cost, and increases productivity (pg. 10, col 1, ln 44-46). A person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, would have been able to combine the amplitude based adaptive control system of Zhang with the amplitude and particle size optimization of Rao to ensure quality of product, reduce cost, and increase productivity (pg. 10, col 1, ln 44-46). 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 Zhang and Rao teaches monitoring an actual power output of the ultrasonic vibration tool (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 21-22 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zhang and Rao teaches providing the actual power to the physics-based model (English translation, pg. 3, ln 5 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhang and Rao teaches updating the physics-based model with the actual power output (English translation, pg. 3, ln 5-7 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zhang and Rao teaches estimating the power level using a vibration frequency (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 19-21 of Zhang) along with the vibration amplitude (English Translation pg. 3, ln 15 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhang and Rao teaches optimizing a material removal rate for a given particle size for abrasive particles to be used with the ultrasonic vibration tool (equation 1 of Rao, note that the given particle size is bounded by equation 5).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Zhang et al. CN 116619481 A (herein Zhang) in view of Rao et al. “Parameter Optimization of Ultrasonic Machining Process Using Nontraditional Optimization Algorithms” (herein Rao) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Xu et al. US 20090198369 (herein Xu).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as claimed.Zhang does not teach adjusting a feed rate.
However, in a related device, Xu teaches adjusting a feed rate (27) provided by an adaptive profile control (26) to an ultrasonic vibration tool (12). Xu further teaches that this feed rate control system advantageously optimizes productivity based on tool conditions (para 6, ln 4-6). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, combine the tool and physics-based model of the combination of Rao and Zhang with the adaptive feed rate control of Xu to enable the tool to advantageously change its feed rate based on power/amplitude feedback and increase productivity (para 6, ln 4-6). 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. “Parameter Optimization of Ultrasonic Machining Process Using Nontraditional Optimization Algorithms” (herein Rao) in view of Zhang et al. CN 116619481 A (herein Zhang) and Lugg et al. CN 105579194 B (herein Lugg).
Regarding independent claim 18, Rao teaches a method comprising: providing an ultrasonic vibration tool (fig 1) for impact grinding a workpiece (“Workpiece” of fig 1) using a slurry having abrasive particles (pg. 1, col 1, ln 20-22) in an area of a tool tip (“Tool”) of the ultrasonic vibration tool (fig 1); providing electrical power having an electrical power level to the ultrasonic vibration tool to induce vibration in the tool tip in a direction of the workpiece (“Lead” and vibration direction arrows of fig 1, note that pg. 2, col 1, ln 28 refers to this style of tool being optimized for power level in other experiments, meaning it does have a power level despite not being an optimized variable in this study), and determining a particles size for abrasive particles to be used with the ultrasonic vibration tool using a physics based model (pg. 3, col 2, ln 10-16).
Rao does not teach receiving an input signal corresponding to the electrical power level to control the tool.
However, in a related device, Zhang teaches receiving an input signal corresponding the electrical power level (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 23-24); applying a physics-based model to the input signal (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 37-38); determining a desired vibration amplitude of a power level of the ultrasonic vibration tool based on the input signal (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 14-15); and using the desired vibration amplitude to control the electrical power level to the ultrasonic vibration tool (English Translation pg. 4, ln 28-29). Zhang further teaches that this system advantageously allows for an ultrasonic tool to normalize the axial force on the tool without need for an additional sensor (English Translation, pg. 2, ln 37-40). A person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, would have been able to combine the tool and physic-based model of Rao to optimize a start condition of the ultrasonic tool with the power-based amplitude measurement system and adaptive power control system of Zhang to advantageously allow for a tool to optimize material removal rate based off power and amplitude without need for additional sensors (English Translation, pg. 2, ln 37-40). 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.
The combination of Rao and Zhang does not teach an input signal of the physical model for determining particle size as a power level.
However, in a related device, Lugg teaches selecting particle size based on power level (English Translation, pg. 15, last 3 lines of the page). A person skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, would have been able to apply the additional input parameter of power level as taught by Lugg to the physical model of the combination of Rao and Zhang to further improve particle size selection, and applying this technique would have had predictable results creating an improved system.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. “Parameter Optimization of Ultrasonic Machining Process Using Nontraditional Optimization Algorithms” (herein Rao) in view of Zhang et al. CN 116619481 A (herein Zhang) and Lugg et al. CN 105579194 B (herein Lugg) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Xu et al. US 20090198369 (herein Xu).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rao, Zhang, and Lugg teaches the limitations of claim 18 as claimed.
The combination of Rao, Zhang, and Lugg does not teach using power level to control a rate of speed of the workpiece. However, in a related device, Xu teaches an adaptive feed rate control system (26) to monitor a feed rate (31) to an ultrasonic vibration tool (12). Xu further teaches that this feed rate control system advantageously optimizes productivity based on tool conditions (para 6, ln 4-6). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to filing date of instant application, combine the method and physical model of the combination of Rao, Zhang, and Ludd with the adaptive feed rate control of Xu to enable the tool to advantageously change a rate of speed the tool is moved based on power/amplitude feedback and increase productivity (para 6, ln 4-6). 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 20, the combination of Rao, Zhang, Ludd, and Xu teaches adaptively controlling (26 of Xu) the feed rate (27 of Xu) of the vibrating tool (12 of Xu).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that claims 11-17 have been amended to recite limitations that are not directed to a mental process or mathematical operations. Specifically, amending claim 11 to recite “controlling the ultrasonic vibration tool according to the power level by the adaptive profile control.”
Examiner finds this argument convincing and has withdrawn the prior 101 rejection of claims 11-17.
Applicant has argued that amended claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended to include limitations regarding estimating or determining a particle size to be used with the ultrasonic vibration tool, and that the provided references fail to teach this limitation. However, these arguments have been considered moot because the new ground of rejection as provided above relies on a different combination of references, and does not rely on any references used in the prior rejection for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure follows:
Li et al. “A cutting force model based on kinematics analysis for C/SiC in rotary ultrasonic face machining” is made of record as it relates to using amplitude and power to correct each other.
Singh et al. US20230127590 as it relates to optimizing grain size for ultrasonic tools.
Zou et al. CN 11690087 A as it relates to fluid nozzles with adjustable feed rates for ultrasonic tools.
Huang et al. US 20230286106 as it relates to adjustable feed rates of a slurry.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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