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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "115”, “120”, and “125” in Figure 1 have all been used to designate the “spindle” in the specification. The “spindle” is designated as reference character “115” in paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0036], [0037], [0040], [0042], [0043], [0047], [0049], [0054], [0055], [0056], [0057], [0059], [0060]], and [0061], designated as reference character “120” in paragraphs [0046], [0047] and [0049], and designated as reference character “125” in paragraphs [0038], [0039], [0040], [0042], [0044], [0045]. The correct reference character to designate the “spindle” based on Figure 1 is “115.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
Reference character “125” in Figure 1 has been used to designate both the “spindle” and the “controller” in the specification. Reference character “125” is designated as the “spindle” in paragraphs [0038], [0039], [0040], [0042], [0044], and [0045], and designated the “controller” in paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0037], [0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], and [0046]. Based on Figure 1, reference character “125” would be correctly designated as the “controller.”
Reference character “120” in Figure 1 has been used to designate both the “spindle” and the “motor” in the specification. Reference character “120” is designated as the “spindle” in paragraphs [0046], [0047], and [0049], and designated the “motor” in paragraphs [0033], [0037], [0045], [0046], [0047], and [0049]. Based on Figure 1, reference character “120” would be correctly designated as the “motor.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: “245” in FIG 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0018], the sentence “If a spindle runs usually 10 min cycles, then intervals of 30 to to 120 secs may be chosen, and if it runs usually 15 secs cycles, then intervals of 10 to 30 secs may be more appropriate.” has the word “to” repeated when it should only be there once.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a first interface to the cutting machine for determining electric power consumption of the motor” and “a second interface for outputting an indication” in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is 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 limitations “a first interface to the cutting machine for determining electric power consumption of the motor” and “a second interface for outputting an indication” in Claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification teaches "the monitoring device comprises a first interface to the cutting machine...a second interface for outputting an indication" [0023] and further teaches "the first interface 130 may be connected to the controller 125", "the second interface 140 may be connected to a human interface", and “the second interface 140 may also be connected to another system for processing the anomaly signal” [0042]. This language does not clearly define structure for the first interface and second interface. A first interface to the cutting machine does not define that the first interface is part of the cutting machine. A second interface that may be connected to a human interface and that may also be connected to another system for processing is also not adequate structure. This is also shown in Figure 1 of the drawings, as the first interface and second interface as merely nodes which do not show structure and not clearly a part of the cutting machine. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to determine electric power consumption of a motor and output an indication. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for the first interface and the second interface. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See 112b presented above for details on why the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 1 and 11:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method and claim 11 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, and therefore, each of claims 1 and 11 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Nonetheless, claims 1 and 11 are directed to a judicially recognized exception to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 recite the functions of “determining an electric power consumption of the motor during a working cycle of the machine”, “dividing the working cycle into time windows”, “determining, for each time window whether the spindle was at least one of cutting and idling based on associated electric power values”, “determining median and expected deviation of electric power values for cutting and idling operation over the sequence of time windows”, and “determining an anomaly if electric power values during cutting or idling exceed a predetermined relationship to the corresponding median and expected deviation values” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerate a mental concept. For example, if given a visual representation of data in a graph1 as shown below, a human can mentally evaluate the electrical power consumption of a motor within a working cycle by time windows.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on this graph, a human can visually observe and evaluate as follows: the electric power consumption of the motor during the working cycle, the working cycle is divided into time windows, for each time window, determine whether the spindle was one of cutting or idling in the graph based on associated electric power values, determine the median for the electric power values as the sum of the electric power values for each time window divided by the number of time windows and compare with an expected deviation as the standard deviation over a sequence of time windows, and determine if electric power values during cutting or idling exceed a predetermined relationship to corresponding median and expected deviation values. As such, the steps of determining and dividing are no more than abstract mental processes (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Steps 2A prong 2-2B:
Claims 1 and 11 as a whole do not include any additional elements/functions that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), thus further failing to amount to significantly more than the judicially recognized exceptions (Step 2B).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12:
Step 1:
Claims 2-10 are drawn to a method and claim 12 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions, and therefore, each of claims 2-10 and 12 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-10 and 12 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1 and 11.
Steps 2A-2B:
Claims 3 and 6 both recite further an abstract mathematical and/or mental concept of using a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM). The GMM is well known in the art for being useful for clustering, density estimation, and modeling data distributions. Claim 3 is using the GMM to determine whether the spindle is either cutting or idling, and claim 6 is using the GMM to determine different rotating speeds of the spindle. Clustering data into groups with similar power values/spindle speeds is how the GMM can identify either cutting or idling/ different rotating speeds. A human can also cluster data into groups and the example graph above clusters data into groups and one can interpret the time windows where the spindle is idling, and the time windows where the spindle is cutting (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 5 further recites an abstract mental process of determining spindle rotational speed with the electric power values; and determining median and expected deviation of electric power values for matching rotating speeds. For example, if given a visual representation of data in a graph that shows both the rotational speed of the spindle and electric power values plotted over time together, a human can mentally match rotational speeds and electric power values at the same times and mentally determine median and expected deviation for the electric power values with matching rotating speeds. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 7 further recites an abstract mental process of considering relative frequencies of cutting and idling of the spindle in anomaly determination. For example, if given the visual representation of data in the graph shown above, a human can consider that cutting occurs more frequently than idling when determining anomalies, as cutting power values occur at more time windows than idling power values. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 8 recites further an abstract mental process of determining an impending spindle failure based on occurrences of anomalies of the spindle. For example, if given a visual representation of data in a graph, a human can observe the number of anomalies of the spindle and based on that evaluate impending spindle failure (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 9 recites further an abstract mental process of time windows that are of similar length. For example, if given the visual representation of data in the graph shown above, a human can observe that there are time windows dividing the working cycle that are similar in length. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 10 recites further an abstract mental process of excluding portions of the working cycle in which the spindle is accelerated from a standstill or decelerated to a standstill from the time windows. For example, if given a visual representation of data shown above, a human can evaluate standstills as no electric power consumption, evaluate idling and cutting electric power consumption values, and exclude the portions of the graph between no electric power consumption and idling/cutting as the portions where the spindle is accelerated/decelerated. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 12 recites an additional element of a storage device that is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that these additional steps to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data storing and collecting (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015))).
Claims 2 and 4/2 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but appear to include an additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, such that if the limitation “wherein the cutting machine operates after a pattern in which there are times when the spindle is cutting and other times during which the spindle is rotating idly” gets integrated with claim 1 as a whole will provide a practical application to the judicial exception.
Independent claim 13:
Step 1:
Claim 13 is drawn to a monitoring device, and therefore, claim 13 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Nonetheless, claim 13 is directed to a judicially recognized exception to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 13 recites the functions of “determine electric power consumption of the motor during a working cycle of the machine”, “divide the working cycle into time windows”, “determine, for each time window, whether the spindle was at least one of cutting and idling based on associated electric power values”, “determine median and expected deviation of electric power values for cutting and idling operation over the sequence of time windows”, and “determine an anomaly if electric power values during cutting or idling exceed a predetermined relationship to the corresponding median and expected deviation values” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerate a mental concept. Other than reciting a generic “processor”, nothing in claim 13 precludes the steps from the mental thought processes evaluation. For example, if given a visual representation of data in a graph2 as shown below, a human can mentally evaluate the electrical power consumption of a motor within a working cycle by time windows.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on this graph, a human can visually observe and evaluate as follows: the electric power consumption of the motor during the working cycle, the working cycle is divided into time windows, for each time window, determine whether the spindle was one of cutting or idling in the graph based on associated electric power values, determine the median for the electric power values as the sum of the electric power values for each time window divided by the number of time windows and compare with an expected deviation as the standard deviation over a sequence of time windows, and determine if electric power values during cutting or idling exceed a predetermined relationship to corresponding median and expected deviation values. As such, the steps of determining and dividing are no more than abstract mental processes. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Steps 2A, Prong 2:
Claim 13 recites additional elements: “a first interface3 to the cutting machine for determining electric power consumption of the motor” and “a second interface4 for outputting an indication” that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The first and second interfaces are interpreted as forms of insignificant extra-solution activities, such that the first interface is for data gathering (to gather electric power consumption data) and the second interface is for data outputting (to output an indication) are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The additional steps that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that these additional steps to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data gathering and outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)(I); (Also for court decision on generic steps on data gathering, data manipulation, and data outputting, See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). As such, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-16:
Step 1:
Claims 14-16 are drawn to a monitoring device, and therefore, each of claims 14-16 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 14-16 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claim 13.
Steps 2A-2B:
Claim 14 recites further an abstract mental process of the indication heralds an impending spindle failure. For example, a human can observe the indication output data and be the one that alerts about the impending spindle failure. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 15 and 16/14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being dependent upon a rejected base claim 13, but appear to include an additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, such that if the limitation “wherein the cutting machine comprises a depaneling machine” gets integrated with claim 13 as a whole, will provide a practical application to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (EP-0842006-B1)
Regarding Claim 1, Jones teaches a method for anomaly detection (“The inventive tool monitoring system 10 is generally based upon the observation that the machine tool 18 will consume more power to perform the same work when it reaches a worn condition.” [0016]) in a cutting machine (Fig-1, “such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24” [0015]) with a spindle which is driven by an electric motor (“which immediately ceases the machining operation and disengages the motor 20 and spindle 22.” [0039]), the method comprising:
determining an electric power consumption of the motor during a working cycle of the machine (“current transducer 12 continuously indicates the power consumption of the motor 20…the analog-to-digital converter 14, which converts the power consumption signal into…a digital signal representing the amplitude of the power consumption signal at a series of current time segments” [0014] ; “Figure 2 shows one cycle of the power consumption signal 28 of the machine tool 18 of Figure 1, as received by the CPU 16.” [0015]);
dividing the working cycle into time windows (“a digital signal representing the amplitude of the power consumption signal at a series of current time segments. The digitized power consumption signal is stored in the CPU 16 and associated with its particular time segment, relative to the machine tool cycle.” [0014]; Figure 2 shows one cycle of the power consumption signal 28 being divided by time segment);
determining, for each time window, whether the spindle was at least one of cutting and idling based on associated electric power values (“At the beginning of the cycle, the tool 22 is not engaging the workpiece 24 and the power consumption signal 28 is at idling power 30. During the initial engagement 32 of the tool 22 with the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 rises. When the tool 22 is fully engaged in the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 reaches full engagement consumption 34. At full engagement 34, the power consumption signal 28 reaches a level and remains relatively unchanged, though there are fluctuations caused by various noise, such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24. Due to this fluctuation, it has been difficult to use a power signal to accurately predict tool condition. A high "spike" in the signal from an unworn tool might be sometimes interpreted as a worn tool. The present invention overcomes this problem. After completion of machining the tool is withdrawn. During withdrawal 36 the power consumption signal 28 decreases steadily and finally returns to idling power 38.” [0015]);
determining median and expected deviation of electric power values for cutting and idling operation over the sequence of time windows (“The mean and standard deviation of the reconstructed power signals 76 are calculated at each time segment relative to the machine tool cycle.” [0035]) ; and
determining an anomaly if electric power values during cutting or idling exceed a predetermined relationship to the corresponding median and expected deviation values. (“The CPU 16 then determines whether the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78 in 96. If the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78, the CPU increments the counter, Crossings, in step 98. In step 100, during a cutting cycle, as soon as the counter indicates that the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28 of the power threshold 78 is more than of crossings calculated in the learning mode, the CPU 16 indicates an alarm 92.” [0041]; “The thresholds are selected to be some function of the mean and standard deviation of the learning cycles signals. In this embodiment upper limit 80 and lower limit 82 are preferably calculated as plus and minus a certain number of standard deviations from the mean of the reconstructed power consumption signals 76 of the learning cycles.” [0035]; the CPU evaluates the trend of the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28. If the number of crossings is increasing steadily over the previous predetermined number of cycles, this would indicate that the machine tool 18 is worn and heading towards failure” [0043])
Regarding Claim 2, Jones teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cutting machine operates after a pattern in which there are times when the spindle is cutting and other times during which the spindle is rotating idly. (“As will become apparent, the tool monitoring system 10 of the present invention can be used with any selected tool type using an electric motor and performing a repetitive, cyclical task.” [0013]; “At the beginning of the cycle, the tool 22 is not engaging the workpiece 24 and the power consumption signal 28 is at idling power 30. During the initial engagement 32 of the tool 22 with the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 rises. When the tool 22 is fully engaged in the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 reaches full engagement consumption 34. At full engagement 34, the power consumption signal 28 reaches a level and remains relatively unchanged, though there are fluctuations caused by various noise, such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24. Due to this fluctuation, it has been difficult to use a power signal to accurately predict tool condition. A high "spike" in the signal from an unworn tool might be sometimes interpreted as a worn tool. The present invention overcomes this problem. After completion of machining the tool is withdrawn. During withdrawal 36 the power consumption signal 28 decreases steadily and finally returns to idling power 38.” [0015])
Regarding Claim 7, Jones teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein anomaly determination considers relative frequencies of cutting and idling times of the spindle. (“The wavelet transform can be considered as signal decomposition. It decomposes a signal f(t) into a family of wavelet bases, and the weighting coefficients, Ws[f(t)], represent the amplitudes at given location t and frequency s. The wavelet transform is a time-frequency function which describes the information of f(t) in various time windows and frequency bands.” [0024]; “In step 94, the CPU 16 monitors whether the power consumption signal 28 fails to rise above the idling power 30 in the time segments of the cycle corresponding to the initial engagement of the tool with the workpiece 24. This indicates that the workpiece 24 is missing or that the tool 22 is broken. If so, the CPU 16 signals an alarm 92. This threshold can be based upon the data gathered in the learning mode 40 or can be determined beforehand.” [0040])
Regarding Claim 8, Jones teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein an impending spindle failure is determined based on occurrences of anomalies of the spindle. (“The CPU 16 then determines whether the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78 in 96. If the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78, the CPU increments the counter, Crossings, in step 98. In step 100, during a cutting cycle, as soon as the counter indicates that the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28 of the power threshold 78 is more than of crossings calculated in the learning mode, the CPU 16 indicates an alarm 92.” [0041]; “the CPU evaluates the trend of the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28. If the number of crossings is increasing steadily over the previous predetermined number of cycles, this would indicate that the machine tool 18 is worn and heading towards failure” [0043])
Regarding Claim 10, Jones teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein portions of the working cycle in which the spindle is accelerated from a standstill or decelerated to a standstill are excluded from the time windows. (“The power consumption signal of the machine tool is decomposed into its time-frequency components and reconstructed based upon certain selected components in order to reduce the effects of noise. “ [0008]; “The system selects the components that contain the bulk of the information about the overall signal, when using wavelet transforms, the selected components are the "feature wavelet packets." The selected components contain sufficient information about the original signal but not unnecessary or unwanted components such as noise. The feature wavelet packets of the power consumption signals of the learning cycle are then calculated.” [0009]; “At full engagement 34, the power consumption signal 28 reaches a level and remains relatively unchanged, though there are fluctuations caused by various noise, such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24. Due to this fluctuation, it has been difficult to use a power signal to accurately predict tool condition. A high "spike" in the signal from an unworn tool might be sometimes interpreted as a worn tool.” [0015])
Regarding Claim 11, Jones teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which, when executed by at least one of an electronic device and electronic control system, (CPU 16) cause the electronic device and/or electronic control system to detect anomalies (“The inventive tool monitoring system 10 is generally based upon the observation that the machine tool 18 will consume more power to perform the same work when it reaches a worn condition.” [0016]) in a cutting machine with a spindle which is driven by an electric motor, (“which immediately ceases the machining operation and disengages the motor 20 and spindle 22.” [0039]) the instructions comprising:
program code for determining an electric power consumption of the motor during a working cycle of the machine; (“current transducer 12 continuously indicates the power consumption of the motor 20…the analog-to-digital converter 14, which converts the power consumption signal into…a digital signal representing the amplitude of the power consumption signal at a series of current time segments” [0014]; “Figure 2 shows one cycle of the power consumption signal 28 of the machine tool 18 of Figure 1, as received by the CPU 16.” [0015])
program code for dividing the working cycle into time windows; (“a digital signal representing the amplitude of the power consumption signal at a series of current time segments. The digitized power consumption signal is stored in the CPU 16 and associated with its particular time segment, relative to the machine tool cycle.” [0014])
program code for determining, for each time window, whether the spindle was at least one of cutting and idling based on associated electric power values; (“Figure 2 shows one cycle of the power consumption signal 28 of the machine tool 18 of Figure 1, as received by the CPU 16. The machining operation is in the form of a cycle starting from tool engagement and ending with tool withdrawal. At the beginning of the cycle, the tool 22 is not engaging the workpiece 24 and the power consumption signal 28 is at idling power 30. During the initial engagement 32 of the tool 22 with the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 rises. When the tool 22 is fully engaged in the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 reaches full engagement consumption 34. At full engagement 34, the power consumption signal 28 reaches a level and remains relatively unchanged, though there are fluctuations caused by various noise, such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24. Due to this fluctuation, it has been difficult to use a power signal to accurately predict tool condition. A high "spike" in the signal from an unworn tool might be sometimes interpreted as a worn tool. The present invention overcomes this problem. After completion of machining the tool is withdrawn. During withdrawal 36 the power consumption signal 28 decreases steadily and finally returns to idling power 38.” [0015])
program code for determining median and expected deviation of electric power values for cutting and idling operation over the sequence of time windows; and (“In step 52, the CPU 16 generates a power threshold 78, as shown in Figure 6, which is based upon statistical properties from the reconstructed power consumption signals 76 from the learning cycles. The mean and standard deviation of the reconstructed power signals 76 are calculated at each time segment relative to the machine tool cycle. [0035])
program code for determining an anomaly if electric power values during cutting or idling exceed a predetermined relationship to the corresponding median and expected deviation values. (“The CPU 16 then determines whether the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78 in 96. If the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78, the CPU increments the counter, Crossings, in step 98. In step 100, during a cutting cycle, as soon as the counter indicates that the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28 of the power threshold 78 is more than of crossings calculated in the learning mode, the CPU 16 indicates an alarm 92.” [0041]; “The thresholds are selected to be some function of the mean and standard deviation of the learning cycles signals. In this embodiment upper limit 80 and lower limit 82 are preferably calculated as plus and minus a certain number of standard deviations from the mean of the reconstructed power consumption signals 76 of the learning cycles.” [0035]; the CPU evaluates the trend of the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28. If the number of crossings is increasing steadily over the previous predetermined number of cycles, this would indicate that the machine tool 18 is worn and heading towards failure [0043]))
Regarding Claim 12, Jones teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is a storage device. (“The digitized power consumption signal is stored in the CPU 16 and associated with its particular time segment, relative to the machine tool cycle.” [0014])
Regarding Claim 13, Jones teaches a monitoring device (“Figure 1 shows a tool monitoring system 10 according to the present invention including a current transducer 12 connected to an analog-to-digital converter 14 and a CPU 16.” [0013]) for a cutting machine (Fig-1, “such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24” [0015]) with a spindle which is driven by an electric motor, (“which immediately ceases the machining operation and disengages the motor 20 and spindle 22.” [0039]) the monitoring device comprising: a first interface5 to the cutting machine for determining electric power consumption of the motor; (“Figure 1 shows a tool monitoring system 10 according to the present invention including a current transducer 12 connected to an analog-to-digital converter 14 and a CPU 16.” [0013], “The current transducer 12 continuously indicates the power consumption of the motor 20 by sending a power consumption signal to the analog-to-digital converter 14, which converts the power consumption signal into a format readable by the CPU 16.” [0014]
a second interface6 for outputting an indication; (“If the power consumption signal 28 crosses the catastrophic threshold at any time, the CPU 16 signals an alarm in step 92 which immediately ceases the machining operation and disengages the motor 20 and spindle 22. [0039])
a processor (CPU 16) which is configured to:
determine electric power consumption of the motor during a working cycle of the machine; (“current transducer 12 continuously indicates the power consumption of the motor 20…the analog-to-digital converter 14, which converts the power consumption signal into…a digital signal representing the amplitude of the power consumption signal at a series of current time segments” [0014]; “Figure 2 shows one cycle of the power consumption signal 28 of the machine tool 18 of Figure 1, as received by the CPU 16.” [0015])
divide the working cycle into time windows; (“a digital signal representing the amplitude of the power consumption signal at a series of current time segments. The digitized power consumption signal is stored in the CPU 16 and associated with its particular time segment, relative to the machine tool cycle.” [0014])
determine, for each time window, whether the spindle was at least one of cutting and idling based on associated electric power values; (“Figure 2 shows one cycle of the power consumption signal 28 of the machine tool 18 of Figure 1, as received by the CPU 16. The machining operation is in the form of a cycle starting from tool engagement and ending with tool withdrawal. At the beginning of the cycle, the tool 22 is not engaging the workpiece 24 and the power consumption signal 28 is at idling power 30. During the initial engagement 32 of the tool 22 with the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 rises. When the tool 22 is fully engaged in the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 reaches full engagement consumption 34. At full engagement 34, the power consumption signal 28 reaches a level and remains relatively unchanged, though there are fluctuations caused by various noise, such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24. Due to this fluctuation, it has been difficult to use a power signal to accurately predict tool condition. A high "spike" in the signal from an unworn tool might be sometimes interpreted as a worn tool. The present invention overcomes this problem. After completion of machining the tool is withdrawn. During withdrawal 36 the power consumption signal 28 decreases steadily and finally returns to idling power 38.” [0015])
determine median and expected deviation of electric power values for cutting and idling operation over the sequence of time windows (“In step 52, the CPU 16 generates a power threshold 78, as shown in Figure 6, which is based upon statistical properties from the reconstructed power consumption signals 76 from the learning cycles. The mean and standard deviation of the reconstructed power signals 76 are calculated at each time segment relative to the machine tool cycle.” [0035]); and
determine an anomaly if electric power values during cutting or idling exceed a predetermined relationship to the corresponding median and expected deviation values. (“The CPU 16 then determines whether the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78 in 96. If the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78, the CPU increments the counter, Crossings, in step 98. In step 100, during a cutting cycle, as soon as the counter indicates that the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28 of the power threshold 78 is more than of crossings calculated in the learning mode, the CPU 16 indicates an alarm 92.” [0041]; “The thresholds are selected to be some function of the mean and standard deviation of the learning cycles signals. In this embodiment upper limit 80 and lower limit 82 are preferably calculated as plus and minus a certain number of standard deviations from the mean of the reconstructed power consumption signals 76 of the learning cycles.” [0035]; “the CPU evaluates the trend of the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28. If the number of crossings is increasing steadily over the previous predetermined number of cycles, this would indicate that the machine tool 18 is worn and heading towards failure” [0043])
Regarding Claim 14, Jones teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein the indication heralds an impending spindle failure. (“The CPU 16 then determines whether the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78 in 96. If the power consumption signal 28 crosses the power threshold 78, the CPU increments the counter, Crossings, in step 98. In step 100, during a cutting cycle, as soon as the counter indicates that the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28 of the power threshold 78 is more than of crossings calculated in the learning mode, the CPU 16 indicates an alarm 92.” [0041]; “the CPU evaluates the trend of the number of crossings by the power consumption signal 28. If the number of crossings is increasing steadily over the previous predetermined number of cycles, this would indicate that the machine tool 18 is worn and heading towards failure” [0043])
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (EP-0842006-B1), in view of Zhang (NPL “Idle Duration Prediction for Manufacturing System Using a Gaussian Mixture Model Integrated Neural Network for Energy Efficiency Improvement”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Jones teaches determining whether the spindle was at least one of cutting and idling during a time window (Jones: “At the beginning of the cycle, the tool 22 is not engaging the workpiece 24 and the power consumption signal 28 is at idling power 30. During the initial engagement 32 of the tool 22 with the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 rises. When the tool 22 is fully engaged in the workpiece 24, the power consumption signal 28 reaches full engagement consumption 34. At full engagement 34, the power consumption signal 28 reaches a level and remains relatively unchanged, though there are fluctuations caused by various noise, such as cutting a hard spot in the workpiece 24. Due to this fluctuation, it has been difficult to use a power signal to accurately predict tool condition. A high "spike" in the signal from an unworn tool might be sometimes interpreted as a worn tool. The present invention overcomes this problem. After completion of machining the tool is withdrawn. During withdrawal 36 the power consumption signal 28 decreases steadily and finally returns to idling power 38.” [0015]).
But Jones does not appear to teach using a GMM1 to determine the spindle was cutting or idling.
However, Zhang teaches wherein said determining whether the spindle was at least one of cutting and idling during a time window is performed using a first Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM1). (“In this article, a GMM integrated neural network prediction model is proposed to forecast the duration for the idle machines in a typical multi-machine and multi-buffer manufacturing system. Optimal actions in terms of energy state adjustment can be identified based on the predicted idle duration with the concerns of energy saving and throughput maintaining. The time required and energy consumed by the machines when switching its energy state from a lower level to the state of “ready for operation” are considered. A numerical case based on a five-machine-and-four-buffer production line from a real autoassembly system considering two different initial work-in-process part levels is used to verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Compared to an existing energy control method, the proposed method can catch more wasted energy during the idle period due to a higher accurate estimation of the idle duration.” [V. Conclusion])
Jones and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of machine cutting tools. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to use the GMM of Zhang to determine cutting and idling in Jones as they serve the same purpose. Doing so would be in order to identify optimal energy control actions more accurately. (Zhang “The optimal energy control actions (i.e., the optimal hibernation state) can thus be identified based on the predicted idle duration. “ [Section III.]; “Compared to an existing energy control method, the proposed method can catch more wasted energy during the idle period due to a higher accurate estimation of the idle duration.” [Section V.])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (EP-0842006-B1) in view of Kohring (US-20100063609-A1)
Regarding Claim 5, Jones teaches the method according to claim 1,
Jones fails to teach, wherein a rotational speed of the spindle is determined along with the electric power values; and wherein median and expected deviation of electric power values are determined for matching rotating speeds.
However, Kohring teaches wherein a rotational speed of the spindle is determined along with the electric power values; and wherein median and expected deviation of electric power values are determined for matching rotating speeds. (“The 840D drive signal analysis software can measure motor current, torque command, motor speed, and power. These variables can be obtained using an 840D servo trace data capture feature carried by the 840D drive analysis software. In addition, the motor current, torque command, motor speed, and other variables can be recorded using the 840D drive analysis software or any other suitable device for recording data.” [0025]; “In another embodiment, the frequency of cutting tooth impacts can be determined by measuring the speed of the spindles rather than the current… The comparisons of FIGS. 4 and 5 can illustrate that the position of individual spindles can be determined not only from measuring the current supplied to the spindles but also from measuring spindle speed, such as revolutions per minute, for a period of time… In yet another embodiment, the frequency of cutting tooth impacts can be determined by measuring the power supplied to the motors driving the spindles rather than by measuring the current.” [0027])
Jones and Kohring are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of machine tools with motor driven spindles. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Jones to incorporate the teachings of Kohring by also collecting spindle rotational speed data with electric power values and following the methods for electric power values with spindle rotational speed as the two are analogous. Doing so would be in order to account for different materials as spindle speed depends on the type of material of the workpiece. (Kohring “Depending on the type of material of the workpiece, different spindle speeds are used to machine different materials. For instance, in order to obtain a sufficient amount of data representative of motor current, it is beneficial to establish sufficient frequency resolution for measuring motor feedback data.” [0024])
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (EP-0842006-B1) in view of Kohring (US-20100063609-A1) in view of Zhang (“Idle Duration Prediction for Manufacturing System Using a Gaussian Mixture Model Integrated Neural Network for Energy Efficiency Improvement”)
Regarding Claim 6, Jones and Kohring teach, the method according to claim 5,
Jones and Kohring fail to teach wherein different rotating speeds of the spindle are determined using a second Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM2).
However, Zhang teaches wherein different rotating speeds of the spindle are determined using a second Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM2). (Fig.8; “Those two steps are repeated iteratively until the algorithm converges. While sampling from the learned GMM, we perform the following steps. 1) Randomly select the Gaussian components according to the weight distributions. 2) Sample data point from the selected distribution according to the probability density function N(x|μs,Σs) . The framework of the proposed GMM integrated neural network prediction model is illustrated in Fig. 8.” [Section III. B.])
Jones, Kohring, and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of machine tools with motor driven spindles. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Jones and Kohring to incorporate the teachings of Zhang by using a GMM, like with electric power values, with spindle rotation speed as power and speed are analogous to determine different rotating speeds that is analogous with when cutting and idling. Doing so would be in order to identify optimal energy control actions more accurately. (Zhang “The optimal energy control actions (i.e., the optimal hibernation state) can thus be identified based on the predicted idle duration. “ [Section III.]; “Compared to an existing energy control method, the proposed method can catch more wasted energy during the idle period due to a higher accurate estimation of the idle duration.” [Section V.])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Jones (EP-0842006-B1), in view of Ji (NPL "Edge Computing Enabled Production Anomalies Detection and Energy-Efficient Production Decision Approach for Discrete Manufacturing Workshops”)
Regarding Claim 9, Jones teaches the method according to claim 1,
Jones fails to teach wherein the time windows are of at least similar length
However, Ji teaches wherein the time windows are of similar length (Figure 3; "Since the energy consumption data of different states fluctuates dynamically, some statistical feature parameters are extracted as the input data, including the maximum, minimum, average and standard deviation. In order to ensure the accuracy of the analysis, the analysis interval is set as 3 minutes, so that the operator can find the production anomaly in time and prepare in advance." [Section IV.B.])
Jones and Ji are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of monitoring machine cutting tools. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to have set time windows like in Ji for the analysis in Jones. Doing so would be in order to ensure accuracy and find the anomaly in time to be prepared in advanced. (Ji “The optimal energy control actions (i.e., the optimal hibernation state) can thus be identified based on the predicted idle duration. “ [Section III.]; “Compared to an existing energy control method, the proposed method can catch more wasted energy during the idle period due to a higher accurate estimation of the idle duration.” [Section V.])
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (EP-0842006-B1), in view of Hill (US-7231857-B2)
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Jones teaches the device according to claim 13/claim 14,
Jones fails to teach wherein the cutting machine comprises a depaneling machine.
However, Hill teaches wherein the cutting machine comprises a depaneling machine. (“A depaneling system is disclosed for cutting a panel. The depaneling system comprises a tooling apparatus and a cutting apparatus. The tooling apparatus helps hold the panel in place with suction during cutting of said panel and collects dust particles generated by the cutting of the panel. The cutting apparatus is comprised of a housing, a drive motor, a cutting unit, and a drive connector. The housing separates the drive motor from the cutting unit. The housing comprises a first section and a second section separated by a dividing member. The drive connector, such as a belt, passes through the first section of the housing. The second section of the housing forms a path for the dust particles.” [Abstract])
Jones and Hill are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of machine cutting tools with a spindle driven by a motor. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to have identified the cutting machine with the depaneling system in Hill as an example of the machine cutting tool used in Jones. Doing so would be in order to monitor PCB cutting tool condition for the purpose of preventing poor quality products and preventing machine damage . (Jones “Tool condition monitoring is one of the major concerns in modern machining operations, especially in machining operations for mass production. Failure to detect tool failure and wear leads to poor product quality and can even damage machine tools.” [0002])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US-20080161959-A1 teaches a system and method for monitoring tool wear in CNC machining operations by monitoring spindle power and extracting instantaneous cutting geometry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA D CHAU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7am - 5pm.
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, Kenneth M 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.
/JESSICA DORA CHAU/
/J.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2116 /KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
1 See NPL “Exergy efficiency optimization model of motorized spindle system for high-speed dry hobbing”
2 See NPL “Exergy efficiency optimization model of motorized spindle system for high-speed dry hobbing”
3 “A first interface” has been interpreted to invoke 112f, 6th. The written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure performs the claimed function. See claim interpretation, 112a, and 112b as presented above.
4 “A second interface” has been interpreted to invoke 112f, 6th. The written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure performs the claimed function. See claim interpretation, 112a, and 112b as presented above.
5 “A first interface” was interpreted as mere data gathering. See claim interpretation, 112f, 112a, 112b and 101 as presented above.
6 “A second interface” was interpreted as mere data outputting. See claim interpretation, 112f, 112a, 112b, and 101 as presented above.
Prosecution Insights