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 .
Claims 1-2 are pending.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “calculation unit”, “processing unit” and “execution unit” in claims 1-2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. JP 04245307 (hereinafter “Sasaki”) in view of Tsuda et al 20140214193 A1 (hereinafter “Tsuda”).
Sasaki teaches a numerical control device (paragraph 0006 “numerical controller” and abstract) comprising: a remaining movement amount calculation unit configured to calculate a remaining movement amount of a block included in a machining program (paragraph 0010-0011 “numerical control device stores in advance the tool feed speed at the movement start point of the block for commanding the tool path by the machining program” and Fig. 2); an acceleration calculation unit configured to calculate a first acceleration obtained by adjusting the designated acceleration with the acceleration adjustment amount, for decelerating the present command speed at the time of starting the deceleration, and calculate a second acceleration for performing deceleration from the command speed that has been decelerated at the first acceleration to the corner speed with the remaining number of interpolations (paragraph 0008-0012 “speed is commanded at a constant speed F1 # until time t = 0, and the moving distance until the speed is reduced to the speed F2 # at the end of the deceleration is L, which is the same as that in FIG. In the present invention, the tool is decelerated by the new acceleration α1 that can discharge all the remaining distance L by time t = 9T. Therefore, the tool during deceleration is controlled to move at a constant acceleration. Of course, even if the speed at the end of deceleration is zero, since all speed pulses have been ejected before the tool stops, there is no movement command to adjust the remaining distance after the tool has stopped once. is necessary” and FIG. 2); and a pre-interpolation acceleration/deceleration processing unit configured to designate the first acceleration at the time of starting the deceleration and designate the second acceleration for the remaining number of interpolations (paragraph 0012-0014 “deceleration control in the acceleration / deceleration before interpolation. In the figure, a numerical value following S indicates a step number. This deceleration control processing is a part of the processing steps of the acceleration / deceleration control described below, and is executed at each processing timing (T) described above” and FIG. 2).
Sasaki does not explicitly teach an excess movement amount calculation unit configured to calculate, as an excess movement amount, a difference between the remaining movement amount of the block and a movement amount required to perform deceleration from a present command speed to a corner speed at a designated acceleration; an adjustment amount calculation unit configured to calculate, based on the excess movement amount, the present command speed, the corner speed, and the designated acceleration, an acceleration adjustment amount at time of starting the deceleration, for using all the excess movement amount with the number of interpolations in a deceleration section for performing the deceleration from the present command speed to the corner speed.
However, Tsuda teaches an excess movement amount calculation unit configured to calculate, as an excess movement amount, a difference between the remaining movement amount of the block and a movement amount required to perform deceleration from a present command speed to a corner speed at a designated acceleration (paragraph 0029-0041 and 0003); an adjustment amount calculation unit configured to calculate, based on the excess movement amount, the present command speed, the corner speed, and the designated acceleration, an acceleration adjustment amount at time of starting the deceleration, for using all the excess movement amount with the number of interpolations in a deceleration section for performing the deceleration from the present command speed to the corner speed (paragraph 0042-0055 and 0060-0062).
Sasaki and Tsuda are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to numerical control system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above numerical control system, as taught by Sasaki, and incorporating a movement amount required to perform deceleration from a present command speed to a corner speed at a designated acceleration, as taught by Tsuda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust parameters (acceleration, etc.) for adjusting degrees of acceleration-deceleration of the methods according to machining, as suggested by Tsuda (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 2, the combination of Sasaki and Tsuda teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Sasaki further teaches further comprising: a deceleration processing execution unit configured to execute deceleration processing when the excess movement amount is smaller than a movement amount for each of the interpolation cycles; and a deceleration processing unit configured to be executed by the deceleration processing execution unit to, for each of the interpolation cycles, subtract the first or second acceleration from the present command speed and determine a command speed for a next interpolation cycle (paragraph 0013-0015).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsumoto USPGPUB 20180333805 A1 a controller has an acceleration/deceleration computation unit configured to perform an acceleration/deceleration control for an instructed speed and controls a laser output power depending on the instructed speed and a result of the acceleration/deceleration control. This scanner controller further has a robot deceleration rate computation/determination unit configured to externally output information on a speed after being subjected to the acceleration/deceleration control.
Nozawa et al. USP 4600985 A teaches a NC command data in the second block is not executed at the instant that a pulse distribution computation based on NC command data in the first block ends. Rather, a pulse distribution computation based on the NC command data in the second block is performed starting at the instant that a feed speed based on the NC command data in the first block is reduced to a prescribed speed by being decelerated. As a result, the torch of a gas cutting machine or the like will cut the corner portion quickly with a high degree of accuracy and without cutting the corner to an overly rounded shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights