DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 7 and 20, and those claims depending therefrom, are 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the claimed “controlling a motor…to be stationary in a direction along a control axis that crosses the tool rotation axis and the movement direction” is indefinite. It’s unclear whether this is meant to be “controlling a motor…to be stationary in [both] a direction along a control axis that crosses the tool rotation axis[,] and the movement direction” or “controlling a motor…to be stationary in a direction along a control axis that crosses the tool rotation axis and [wherein the control axis also crosses] the movement direction.”
From Figure 1, there seems to only be one axis that crosses the “rotation axis (AXT),” and that is AXB, which only crosses axis AXW. Applicant claims “controlling at least one actuator to move, in a movement direction relative to a workpiece holder configured to hold the workpiece, a tool holder…” Therefore, the movement direction is seemingly a movement in either the AXB or AXT directions. As such, the examiner understands, and interprets as such for the sake of examination, that this is meant to mean “controlling a motor…to be stationary in a direction along a control axis that crosses the tool rotation axis and [wherein the control axis also crosses] the movement direction.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon (US-2008/0101881) in view of Hucks (US-3,460,435).
Regarding claim 1, Hon (US-2008/0101881) discloses a machine tool comprising:
a tool holder (member 12) configured to hold a tool (tool 1);
a workpiece holder (rotary table 10) configured to hold a workpiece (“A workpiece 2 that is an object to be machined is mounted on the rotary table 10.”) [Hon; paragraph 0030];
at least one actuator (“linear motors”) configured to move the tool holder (member 12) in a movement direction (Z direction) relative to the workpiece holder (rotary table 10) (“It should be noted that, in the present embodiment, motors that drive the linear X axis, Y axis and Z axis are linear motors”) [Hon; paragraph 0031];
a motor (linear motor for y-direction of member 12, moved by both a linear motor and member 13) [Hon; paragraph 0031] different from the at least one actuator (tool holder actuator(s)) and configured to move one holder out of the tool holder and the workpiece holder along a control axis (Y-axis of tool 1) (“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of principal parts of a numerical controller for controlling the machine tool. A numerical control unit 21 reads and executes a machining program and outputs motion commands for the axes to axis servo control units 22x-22b. As is described with respect to an X-axis servo control unit 22x that controls a motor 24x for the X axis, the servo control unit 22x-22b each include a position control section 221, a velocity control section 222, a current control section 223 and so forth, with servo control units 22y, 22z and 22b for the Y axis, Z axis and B axis, respectively, having the same construction as the X-axis servo control unit 22x described above.”) [Hon; paragraph 0033];
actuator control circuitry (“numerical controller”) configured to control the at least one actuator to move the tool holder in the movement direction (Z-direction) (“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of principal parts of a numerical controller for controlling the machine tool. A numerical control unit 21 reads and executes a machining program and outputs motion commands for the axes to axis servo control units 22x-22b. As is described with respect to an X-axis servo control unit 22x that controls a motor 24x for the X axis, the servo control unit 22x-22b each include a position control section 221, a velocity control section 222, a current control section 223 and so forth, with servo control units 22y, 22z and 22b for the Y axis, Z axis and B axis, respectively, having the same construction as the X-axis servo control unit 22x described above.”) [Hon; paragraph 0033];
motor control circuitry configured to control the motor to control the one holder to be stationary in a direction along the control axis (Y-axis of tool 1) (“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of principal parts of a numerical controller for controlling the machine tool. A numerical control unit 21 reads and executes a machining program and outputs motion commands for the axes to axis servo control units 22x-22b. As is described with respect to an X-axis servo control unit 22x that controls a motor 24x for the X axis, the servo control unit 22x-22b each include a position control section 221, a velocity control section 222, a current control section 223 and so forth, with servo control units 22y, 22z and 22b for the Y axis, Z axis and B axis, respectively, having the same construction as the X-axis servo control unit 22x described above.”) [Hon; paragraph 0033]; and
contact detection circuitry configured to detect a contact between the grindstone and the workpiece based on a change in a control value of the motor (“when the position gain K is lowered below normal and set, the velocity command output in proportion to the position deviation decreases and the current command (torque command) also decreases. As a result, when the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 contact each other, the position deviation increases in a state in which-the force exerted on the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 is small, enabling detection of contact between the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 with little load”) [Hon; paragraph 0058].
Hon fails to disclose the tool holder is configured to hold a grindstone in a manner in which the grindstone is rotatable about a tool rotation axis. However, Hucks (US-3,460,435) teaches a tool holder (head 6) configured to hold a grindstone (tool 7, which is configured to hold a grindstone tool, such as a rotary grinding bit) in a manner in which the grindstone is rotatable about a tool rotation axis (“The lower end of the tool carrier has a head 6 which is swingable about an axis a and which can hold a rotatably driven tool 7 as well as one or more immovable tools.”) [Hucks; col. 3, lines 52-55]. Since Hon’s invention is to “[a] machine tool of the present invention performs machining on a surface of a workpiece by moving a tool relative to the workpiece” [Hon; paragraph 0010], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool 1 of Hon to be rotatable about its axis in order to increase the capability of the device of Hon by allowing for both rotary tools as well as immovable tools to be used (“a tool carrier adapted to hold a fixed tool and a rotary tool”) [Hucks; col. 1, liens 20-21].
Regarding claim 2, Hon discloses the machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the control value comprises at least one of a current command value to the motor, a current feedback value from the motor, a position feedback value from the motor (“As a result, when the workpiece 2 and the tool 1 contact each other, if at that time a force is exerted on the tool 1 in the Y-axis direction, then the Y axis linear motor moves, shifting the Y axis from its commanded position and generating a position deviation.”) [Hon; paragraph 0050], and a speed feedback value from the motor.
Regarding claim 7, Hon discloses a method for a machine tool to detect contact between a grindstone and a workpiece, the method comprising:
controlling at least one actuator (“linear motors”) to move the tool holder (member 12) in a movement direction (Y-direction) relative to a workpiece holder (rotary table 10) configured to hold the workpiece (“It should be noted that, in the present embodiment, motors that drive the linear X axis, Y axis and Z axis are linear motors”) [Hon; paragraph 0031];
controlling a motor (“linear motors”) [Hon; paragraph 0031] different from the at least one actuator to control one holder out of the tool holder and the workpiece holder to be stationary in a direction along a control axis (Z-axis) that crosses the tool axis (axis of tool 1) (Hon doesn’t explicitly teach a “stationary” position, but makes obvious moving the tool holder and/or workpiece holder to a desired position for machining [Hon; paragraph 0010] and, therefore, it would be obvious to fix, or make stationary, a position in one direction where the value equals the desired position) and the movement direction (Y-direction), the motor being configured to move the one holder along the control axis (Z-axis) (“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of principal parts of a numerical controller for controlling the machine tool. A numerical control unit 21 reads and executes a machining program and outputs motion commands for the axes to axis servo control units 22x-22b. As is described with respect to an X-axis servo control unit 22x that controls a motor 24x for the X axis, the servo control unit 22x-22b each include a position control section 221, a velocity control section 222, a current control section 223 and so forth, with servo control units 22y, 22z and 22b for the Y axis, Z axis and B axis, respectively, having the same construction as the X-axis servo control unit 22x described above.”) [Hon; paragraph 0033]; and
detecting the contact between the grindstone and the workpiece based on a change in a control value of the motor (“when the position gain K is lowered below normal and set, the velocity command output in proportion to the position deviation decreases and the current command (torque command) also decreases. As a result, when the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 contact each other, the position deviation increases in a state in which-the force exerted on the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 is small, enabling detection of contact between the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 with little load”) [Hon; paragraph 0058].
Hon fails to disclose the tool holder is configured to hold a grindstone in a manner in which the grindstone is rotatable about a tool rotation axis. However, Hucks (US-3,460,435) teaches a tool holder (head 6) configured to hold a grindstone (tool 7, which is configured to hold a grindstone tool, such as a rotary grinding bit) in a manner in which the grindstone is rotatable about a tool rotation axis (“The lower end of the tool carrier has a head 6 which is swingable about an axis a and which can hold a rotatably driven tool 7 as well as one or more immovable tools.”) [Hucks; col. 3, lines 52-55]. Since Hon’s invention is to “[a] machine tool of the present invention performs machining on a surface of a workpiece by moving a tool relative to the workpiece” [Hon; paragraph 0010], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool 1 of Hon to be rotatable about its axis in order to increase the capability of the device of Hon by allowing for both rotary tools as well as immovable tools to be used (“a tool carrier adapted to hold a fixed tool and a rotary tool”) [Hucks; col. 1, liens 20-21].
Regarding claim 8, Hon discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the control axis (Z-axis) is perpendicular to the tool rotation axis (axis of tool 1 of Hon, modified for rotation by Hucks) (Fig. 1 of Hon).
Regarding claim 9, Hon discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the control axis (Z-axis) is perpendicular to a line extending in the movement direction (Y direction) [emphasis added] (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hon discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the motor (motor for control along Z-axis of tool 1) is configured to move the tool holder along the control axis (Z-axis) (Fig. 1), and
wherein the at least one actuator comprises at least one additional motor configured to move the tool holder along at least one additional control axis perpendicular to the control axis.
Regarding claim 11, Hon discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the workpiece holder (11) is configured to hold the workpiece in a manner in which the workpiece is rotatable about a workpiece rotation axis (the center of rotation ‘B’) (“It should be noted that, in the present embodiment, motors that drive the linear X axis, Y axis and Z axis are linear motors, whereas a motor that drives the rotary B axis is a rotary servo motor.”) [Hon; paragraph 0031],
wherein when the tool rotation axis (axis of tool 1 of Hon, modified to be the rotation axis in view of Hucks) and the workpiece rotation axis (axis of rotation ‘B’) exist on an identical plane (Fig. 1), the movement direction (Y-direction) is parallel to the identical plane, and wherein when the tool rotation axis and the workpiece rotation axis are skew with respect to each other, the movement direction (Y-direction) is along a line perpendicular to the tool rotation axis and the workpiece rotation axis.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the control value comprises at least one of a current command value to the motor, a current feedback value from the motor, a position feedback value from the motor (“As a result, when the workpiece 2 and the tool 1 contact each other, if at that time a force is exerted on the tool 1 in the Y-axis direction, then the Y axis linear motor moves, shifting the Y axis from its commanded position and generating a position deviation.”) [Hon; paragraph 0050], and a speed feedback value from the motor.
Regarding claim 20, Hon discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
controlling at least one actuator to move, in a movement direction (Y-direction) relative to a workpiece holder (10) configured to hold the workpiece (“It should be noted that, in the present embodiment, motors that drive the linear X axis, Y axis and Z axis are linear motors”) [Hon; paragraph 0031], a tool holder (12) configured to hold a tool (1);
controlling a motor (“It should be noted that, in the present embodiment, motors that drive the linear X axis, Y axis and Z axis are linear motors”) [Hon; paragraph 0031] different from the at least one actuator (actuator for moving 12 in the Y-direction) to control one holder (12) out of the tool holder and the workpiece holder to be stationary in a direction (Hon doesn’t explicitly teach a “stationary” position, but makes obvious moving the tool holder and/or workpiece holder to a desired position for machining [Hon; paragraph 0010] and, therefore, it would be obvious to fix, or make stationary, a position in one direction where the value equals the desired position) along a control axis (Z-axis) that crosses the tool axis (axis of tool 1) (Fig. 2) and the movement direction (Y-direction), the motor being configured to move the one holder (12) along the control axis (Z-axis); and
detecting the contact between the grindstone and the workpiece based on a change in a control value of the motor (“when the position gain K is lowered below normal and set, the velocity command output in proportion to the position deviation decreases and the current command (torque command) also decreases. As a result, when the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 contact each other, the position deviation increases in a state in which-the force exerted on the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 is small, enabling detection of contact between the tool 1 and the workpiece 2 with little load”) [Hon; paragraph 0058].
Hon fails to disclose the tool holder is configured to hold a grindstone in a manner in which the grindstone is rotatable about a tool rotation axis. However, Hucks (US-3,460,435) teaches a tool holder (head 6) configured to hold a grindstone (tool 7, which is configured to hold a grindstone tool, such as a rotary grinding bit) in a manner in which the grindstone is rotatable about a tool rotation axis (“The lower end of the tool carrier has a head 6 which is swingable about an axis a and which can hold a rotatably driven tool 7 as well as one or more immovable tools.”) [Hucks; col. 3, lines 52-55]. Since Hon’s invention is to “[a] machine tool of the present invention performs machining on a surface of a workpiece by moving a tool relative to the workpiece” [Hon; paragraph 0010], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool 1 of Hon to be rotatable about its axis in order to increase the capability of the device of Hon by allowing for both rotary tools as well as immovable tools to be used (“a tool carrier adapted to hold a fixed tool and a rotary tool”) [Hucks; col. 1, liens 20-21].
Claim(s) 3-5, 13-15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon (US-2008/0101881) in view of Hucks (US-3,460,435) and Syed (US-2012/0091971).
Regarding claim 3, Hon discloses the machine tool according to claim 2 but fails to disclose wherein when a value indicating a central tendency of the current command value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, the contact detection circuitry determines that the contact occurs.
However, Syed (US-2012/0091971), which is pertinent to current detection controls [Syed: Title], teaches wherein when a value indicating a central tendency (average) of the current command value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021], circuitry determines when the current is outside of desired threshold (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0022]. Since Hon teaches using the current/torque command as a means to detect contact (“obtain a current command (torque command). Then, at the current control section 223, current feedback control is carried out based on the current command obtained as described above and the current fed back from amplifies 23x-23b, and the axis motors 24x-24b are driven via the amplifiers 23x-23b.”) [Hon; paragraph 0034], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current detection control techniques, such as taught by Syed, for the control circuit of Hon in order to monitor the current and filter the signal [Syed; paragraph 0029, 0031].
Regarding claim 4, Hon discloses the machine tool according to claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein when a value indicating a statistical dispersion of the current feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, the contact detection circuitry determines that the contact occurs.
However, Syed (US-2012/0091971), which is pertinent to current detection controls [Syed: Title], teaches wherein when a value indicating a statistical dispersion (RMS) of the current feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021], circuitry determines when the current is outside of desired threshold (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0022]. Since Hon teaches using the current/torque command as a means to detect contact (“obtain a current command (torque command). Then, at the current control section 223, current feedback control is carried out based on the current command obtained as described above and the current fed back from amplifies 23x-23b, and the axis motors 24x-24b are driven via the amplifiers 23x-23b.”) [Hon; paragraph 0034], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current detection control techniques, such as taught by Syed, for the control circuit of Hon in order to monitor the current and filter the signal [Syed; paragraph 0029, 0031].
Regarding claim 5, Hon discloses the machine tool according to claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein when a statistical dispersion of the position feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, the contact detection circuitry determines that the contact occurs.
However, Syed (US-2012/0091971), which is pertinent to current detection controls [Syed: Title], teaches wherein when a statistical dispersion of the position feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021], circuitry determines when the current is outside of desired threshold (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0022]. Since Hon teaches using the current/torque command as a means to detect contact (“obtain a current command (torque command). Then, at the current control section 223, current feedback control is carried out based on the current command obtained as described above and the current fed back from amplifies 23x-23b, and the axis motors 24x-24b are driven via the amplifiers 23x-23b.”) [Hon; paragraph 0034], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current detection control techniques, such as taught by Syed, for the control circuit of Hon in order to monitor the current and filter the signal [Syed; paragraph 0029, 0031].
Regarding claim 13, Hon discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein when a value indicating a central tendency of the current command value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, the contact detection circuitry determines that the contact occurs.
However, Syed (US-2012/0091971), which is pertinent to current detection controls [Syed: Title], teaches wherein when a value indicating a central tendency (average) of the current command value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021], circuitry determines when the current is outside of desired threshold (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0022]. Since Hon teaches using the current/torque command as a means to detect contact (“obtain a current command (torque command). Then, at the current control section 223, current feedback control is carried out based on the current command obtained as described above and the current fed back from amplifies 23x-23b, and the axis motors 24x-24b are driven via the amplifiers 23x-23b.”) [Hon; paragraph 0034], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current detection control techniques, such as taught by Syed, for the control circuit of Hon in order to monitor the current and filter the signal [Syed; paragraph 0029, 0031].
Regarding claim 14, Hon discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein when a value indicating a statistical dispersion of the current feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, the contact detection circuitry determines that the contact occurs.
However, Syed (US-2012/0091971), which is pertinent to current detection controls [Syed: Title], teaches wherein when a value indicating a statistical dispersion (RMS) of the current feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021], circuitry determines when the current is outside of desired threshold (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0022]. Since Hon teaches using the current/torque command as a means to detect contact (“obtain a current command (torque command). Then, at the current control section 223, current feedback control is carried out based on the current command obtained as described above and the current fed back from amplifies 23x-23b, and the axis motors 24x-24b are driven via the amplifiers 23x-23b.”) [Hon; paragraph 0034], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current detection control techniques, such as taught by Syed, for the control circuit of Hon in order to monitor the current and filter the signal [Syed; paragraph 0029, 0031].
Regarding claim 15, Hon discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein when a statistical dispersion of the position feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, the contact detection circuitry determines that the contact occurs.
However, Syed (US-2012/0091971), which is pertinent to current detection controls [Syed: Title], teaches wherein when a statistical dispersion of the position feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021], circuitry determines when the current is outside of desired threshold (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0022]. Since Hon teaches using the current/torque command as a means to detect contact (“obtain a current command (torque command). Then, at the current control section 223, current feedback control is carried out based on the current command obtained as described above and the current fed back from amplifies 23x-23b, and the axis motors 24x-24b are driven via the amplifiers 23x-23b.”) [Hon; paragraph 0034], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current detection control techniques, such as taught by Syed, for the control circuit of Hon in order to monitor the current and filter the signal [Syed; paragraph 0029, 0031].
Regarding claim 17, Hon, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the value indicating the central tendency is represented by at least one value out of an average value and a root mean square value (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021].
Regarding claim 19, Hon, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein a value indicating the statistical dispersion is represented by at least one value including a root mean square value (“FIG. 2 is a graph 30 showing how rolling average RMS current is calculated for various time windows.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021] (“With the method defined above for calculating rolling average RMS current for various time windows, it is necessary to define one or more thresholds to be used by the controller 22 in order to determine whether a power limitation must be applied at any point in time.”) [Syed; paragraph 0021].
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon (US-2008/0101881) in view of Hucks (US-3,460,435) and Kachi (US-6,233,497).
Regarding claim 6, Hon discloses the machine tool according to claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein when at least one value out of the speed feedback value and a value indicating a statistical dispersion of the speed feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, the contact detection circuitry determines that the contact occurs.
However, Kachi (US-6,233,497) teaches (“In the contact detecting method according to the present invention, a representative value for driving load such as an instruction value for speed integration, an instruction value for current, or a current feedback value and positional data of the movable body in the first direction are stored in time series during a specified period of time, determination that contact between the movable body and the object for contact has occurred is made when a change rate of the representative value for driving load exceeds a specified value during the specified period of time, a point of time when the representative value for driving load starts changing is detected from this point of time when it is determined that the contact between the movable body and the object for contact has occurred, and a position indicated by positional data of the movable body in the first direction at this point of time when the change is started is regarded as a contact position.”) [Kachi; col. 3, lines 32-48]. Since Kachi is pertinent to contact detection in machinging devices, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use speed as a value for determining contact, either in addition to current detection or in place of it, as taught by Kachi in order to accurately determine whether or not contact is made during movement of a motor [Kachi; col. 3, lines 32-48].
Regarding claim 16, Hon discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein when at least one value out of the speed feedback value and a value indicating a statistical dispersion of the speed feedback value per predetermined time width goes outside a predetermined range, it is determined that the grindstone and the workpiece have come into contact each other.
However, Kachi (US-6,233,497) teaches (“In the contact detecting method according to the present invention, a representative value for driving load such as an instruction value for speed integration, an instruction value for current, or a current feedback value and positional data of the movable body in the first direction are stored in time series during a specified period of time, determination that contact between the movable body and the object for contact has occurred is made when a change rate of the representative value for driving load exceeds a specified value during the specified period of time, a point of time when the representative value for driving load starts changing is detected from this point of time when it is determined that the contact between the movable body and the object for contact has occurred, and a position indicated by positional data of the movable body in the first direction at this point of time when the change is started is regarded as a contact position.”) [Kachi; col. 3, lines 32-48]. Since Kachi is pertinent to contact detection in machinging devices, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use speed as a value for determining contact, either in addition to current detection or in place of it, as taught by Kachi in order to accurately determine whether or not contact is made during movement of a motor [Kachi; col. 3, lines 32-48].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon (US-2008/0101881) in view of Hucks (US-3,460,435) and Syed (US-2012/0091971), and further in view of Yang (US-2018/0272491).
Regarding claim 18, Hon, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein the value indicating the statistical dispersion is represented by at least one value including a standard deviation.
However, Yang (US-2018/0272491) teaches wherein a value indicating the statistical dispersion by at least one value including a standard deviations (“In some embodiments, sets of tool wear features may be extracted from the sets of historical sensing data. After the sets of historical sensing data are collected from the sensors attached to, for example, a spindle, axis drivers, and bearings to detect variations in vibration and cutting loading, the sets of historical sensing data are filtered and converted to data corresponding to at least one feature type, in which the feature type includes a time domain, a frequency domain and/or a time-frequency domain. In other words, the tool wear features are calculated in the time, frequency, and time-frequency domains of the historical sensing data. The time domain features include the root mean square (RMS), mean, max, min, standard deviation (std), and peak to peak (p2p).”) [Yang; paragraph 0041]. Syed teaches the use of RMS to monitor the current and filter the signal [Syed; paragraph 0029, 0031] and, therefore, it would be obvious to use other equivalent means, such as standard deviation as taught by Yang, in addition to or separately from the RMS of Syed in order to monitor and filter sensor data according to the benefits of standard deviation [Yang; paragraph 0041].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-7,293,337, US-5,315,789 (“Prior to the grinding operation, the grinding wheel 12 is moved in the radial direction (X axis) of the roll 2, and when the grinding wheel 12 contacts the roll 2, the current supplied to the grinding wheel motor 24 varies.”) [col. 9, lines 56-60], US-5,265,195 (“Moreover, in the respective cases shown in FIGS. 20 and 21, the change of pressing force from the non-contact state to a state where the pressing force reaches 1 Kg is shown.”) [col. 15, lines 9-12], US-5,044,125 (“The traces are characteristic and have five distinct phases as indicated on the normal force tracing: (a) approach (non-contact), (b) elastic take-up and force rise (ramp-up), (c) grinding at steady state, (d) spark-out, and (e) the threshold force level above the non-contact state.”) [col. 8, lines 32-37], US-4,662,122 (“The main spindle motor 61 is connected to a contact detection circuit 62 which is arranged to detect the contact between the grinding wheel 44 and a workpiece 51 from the load current flowing through the main spindle motor 61, which increases beyond a threshold value by an increase of load of the main spindle motor 61 when the grinding wheel comes into contact with a workpiece 51.”) [col. 3, lines 50-57], US-4,408,933, US-4,371,942 (“When the cutting tool makes superficial contact with the workpiece, the current drawn by the wheel motor 24 will rise suddenly and the output of the transducer 40 will increase accordingly.”) [col. 5, lines 12-15], US-2019/0275678 [paragraph 0087], US-2009/0033271 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
