DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 03/27/2024. The claims 1- 23 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 is/are in independent form.
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: In claim 1 and its dependent claims:
“a measuring unit”: in Fig. 2, shown as item 60 like voltmeter/amperemeters; see page 3, lines 10-15
“an analysis unit”: In fig. 2, shown as item 70 like a general purpose computer, see Spec, page 3 lines 37-38.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 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 avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-8 & 15- 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100065810 A) in view of Masaoka et al. ( US 20010024064 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches Choi teaches a system for determining contact [“Tool damage detection method and a detection device” by checking the “tapping”, “to detect the breakage of the tool (T)”, “electrical connection” of the tools with the workpiece] between a cutting tool and an electrically conductive workpiece [“the ground terminal 5 is formed in direct or indirect contact with the workpiece M”], the system comprising: (Figs. 1-2, pages, 2, 5);
[a] a cutting tool [“multi-axis machine tools have the advantage of being able to process multiple holes at the same time”] including a toolholder and a plurality of cutting inserts [“each tool(T) of the machine tool”, e.g., Tools T(T1), T(T2) of multi-axis machine too and out of which one or more tools can be broken] mounted in the toolholder, wherein each of the plurality of cutting inserts includes an electrically conductive surface layer [current is shown passing through each tool (T) to reach to the workpiece M], wherein the cutting tool is configured to bring the plurality of cutting inserts in and out of contact [“the tool (T) is mounted at the top and the screw shaft 110 so as to move up and down simultaneously”] with the electrically conductive workpiece, wherein each of the plurality of cutting inserts are electrically insulated from the toolholder (Pages 2-3, page 5, figs. 1-3);
[b] an electrical circuit, wherein the electrical circuit comprises:
an electric power source [“pair of constant voltage circuits”] arranged to generate an electrical voltage (UA) [“a measurement voltage is applied to each tool”] (page 4), and
[c] a measuring unit [sensor that measures “the measurement voltage is input to the '+' terminal”] and an analysis unit [“plurality of voltage comparators 40” + “PLC” “include a terminal for an external interface… to the PLC of the machine tool through an external interface terminal”], wherein the measuring unit is configured to measure [Page 3, “the measured voltage dropped on all tools”] an electrical voltage over each of the first connection units, wherein the measuring unit is operatively connected to the analysis unit, and wherein the analysis unit is configured to determine [“allow an operator to recognize whether the tool T is broken”] a contact between the cutting tool and the electrically conductive workpiece based on the measured electrical voltages… a second connection unit [“one side electrode (P) is applied directly or indirectly to the workpiece (M)” of the electrode P is connected to the workpiece M] operatively connected to a second pole of the electric power source at a first end, the second connection unit including a contact configured to be electrically connected to the electrically conductive workpiece at a second end (Pages 5-6, Page 8 Claim 1).
In summary, Choi teaches a system for determining presence of a contact or a breakage/open circuit between pluralities of parallel cutting inserts and a workpiece. Choi further teaches when there is a contact between an cutting insert with a workpiece, electrical circuit path is completed and “the measured voltage drops” during normal condition (page 6). However, when there is no contact between the cutting insert with the workpiece due to broken tool(s), the electrical circuit path becomes incomplete and such situation can be determined based on “the drop of the measured voltage does not occur, the measured voltage input to the OP amplifier 45 is higher than the reference voltage” (page 7) .
Nevertheless, Choi is silent about detailing how the circuit path is implemented from an electric voltage source to each circuit branches of tool inserts as shown above with strikethrough emphasis but this missing circuit implementation details are clearly shown in Masaoka.
Thus, Choi may not teach
the electrical circuit comprising a plurality of first connection units, each plurality of first connection units include a first end, a second end, and between the first end and the second end, a resistor having an electrical resistance, wherein each of the plurality of first connection units are electrically connected to a respective cutting insert at the first end and to a first pole of the electric power source at the second end, wherein each of the plurality of first connection units are electrically connected to the first pole in parallel with all the other first connection units.
Masaoka teaches an analogous circuit system [system of figs. 1 or 2 or 15 or 16] comprising an electrical circuit capable of determining presence of a continuity or an break/open circuit in each branch by monitoring voltage across each branch (analogous to each tool of Choi) out of pluralities of circuit branches from positive terminal to the negative terminal of a power supply 10 (Fig. 1/15, [002, 010]). Furthermore, Masaoka teaches the system comprising a measuring unit [one of the “voltage detectors 5a-5i”] and an analysis unit [a computer/alarm apparatus that reads the values of the detectors 5a- 5i], wherein the measuring unit is configured to measure an electrical voltage [voltage sensed by “voltage detector” 5a to 5i] over each of the first connection units, wherein the measuring unit is operatively connected to the analysis unit, and wherein the analysis unit is configured to determine a contact [when the measured voltage across each resistors 4s is “low voltage” there is connection, but when the produced voltage is “high voltage output”, there is no-connection] between the cutting tool and the electrically conductive workpiece based on the measured electrical voltages (Figs. 1-2, 15- 16, [004, 0042, 050]). More specifically, Masaoka teaches a system comprising: (Figs. 1-2, 15- 16, [004, 042]);
an electrical circuit [circuit of figs. 1/15], wherein the electrical circuit comprises:
an electric power source [“the power source 10”] arranged to generate an electrical voltage (UA) [voltage of the power source 10], and a plurality of first connection units [each of the lines below terminal 34 to the resistors 4a-4i and the loads 1a- 3b], each plurality of first connection units include a first end [power lines that connect “lamps 1a, 2a-2d, 3a-3d”], a second end, and between the first end and the second end, a resistor [resistors 4a- 4i] having an electrical resistance, wherein each of the plurality of first connection units are electrically connected to a respective power loads [“arrangement of the loads 1a, 1b, 2a-2d”, analogous to Choi’s “each tool T” coupled with sockets 120] at the first end and to a first pole [+ terminal of the “the power source 10”] of the electric power source at the second end [power lines between terminal 34 to the source 10], wherein each of the plurality of first connection units are electrically connected to the first pole in parallel with all the other first connection units, and a second connection unit operatively connected to a second pole [negative terminal of the power source 10] of the electric power source at a first end, the second connection unit including a contact configured to be electrically connected to the electrically conductive workpiece at a second end (Fig. 1, 15, [004-005, 042-050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Masaoka and Choi because they both related to measuring voltage drop across each of the pluralities of parallel power lines of an electric circuit to detect tool breakage/open-circuit (presence of continuity in plurality of the circuit lines) and (2) modified the electrical circuit of Choi to include missing limitations as in Masaoka. Masaoka teaches missing implementation details for its electrical circuit to allow completing of circuit paths from a power source to each of the parallel cutting inserts. Furthermore, doing so would allow to utilize a single power source (like source 10 of Masaoka) to provide electrical power to the plurality of the cutting inserts (tools Ts) and lowers the cost to test presence of contact between pluralities of the cutting tools (T) and the conductive workpiece M and also simplifies the overall electrical circuit of Choi as can be clear to PHOSITA based on the disclosure of Fig. 1/15 of Masaoka & Fig. 3 of Choi. Accordingly, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches each limitation of the claim 1 and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 2, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive workpiece is electrically connected to the second pole [negative terminal of the power source 10 is connected to the workpiece M via the ground] of the electric power source via the contact (Choi, Page 3, Fig. 3 and Masaoka, Figs. 1/15).
Regarding claim 3, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the toolholder, the electrically conductive workpiece, and one of the first or second poles of the electric power source have the same electrical potential (Figs. 1/15 of Masaoka and fig. 3 clearly show that only one single power source 10 is being shared. So they all have same voltage value/potential).
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the toolholder includes plurality of insert pockets, wherein each of the plurality of cutting inserts are mounted in one respective insert pocket [any means that holds the tools T], wherein each of the plurality of insert pockets includes an electrically insulating material layer between the toolholder and the cutting insert mounted in the insert pocket (Figs. 1- 3 of Choi shows its machine can hold multiple tools T and there needs to have some pockets to hold these tools Ts).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of first connection units includes an electrical contact pad [the very tip part of the tools T that contact the workpiece M] at the first end, the electrical contact pad being arranged in electrical contact with the electrically conductive surface layer of a respective cutting insert of the plurality of cutting inserts (Figs. 1- 3 of Choi).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein each of the electric contact pads are arranged in one respective insert pocket between the electrically insulating material layer and the respective cutting insert mounted in the respective insert pocket (Figs. 1- 3 of Choi & associated texts for the broken or not broken Tools).
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein all the plurality of first connection units have the same electrical resistance (Fig. 1-3 of Choi and Fig. 1 of Masaoka can select tools T and the resistors having same properties depending on design needs and availability. Thus, the invention of this claim is obvious over Choi in view of Masaoka).
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the analysis unit is configured to determine a contact between each of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece based on the measured electrical voltages [“detecting voltage drop” across each power paths/tools and the measured voltage is small when there is a contact, but the volage is high value when the circuit is broken] (Choi, Pages 6- 7 & Masaoka [004, 042]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches a method for determining contact between a cutting tool [tools T of Choi/loads 1a- 3b of Masaoka] and an electrically conductive workpiece [item M of Choi that is connected to ground], the method comprises the steps of providing a system according to claim 1:
providing the electrically conductive workpiece [“A workpiece(M) is maintained in a ground state.”, “the ground directly or indirectly contacting the workpiece.”] (Choi, Abstract);
operatively connecting the electrically conductive workpiece to the second pole of the electric power source via the contact (Figs. 1- 3 of Choi & Masaoka [004], Fig. 15); electrically charging the electrically conductive surface layer of the n cutting inserts, by activating the electric power source [“power source 10 is connected to the first power source” means power source 10 is being applied]; measuring an electrical voltage [across each resistors 4a -4i with the “voltage detector” of Masaoka] over each first connection unit; transmitting [sending “the measured voltage” to each comparator and Page 5: “transmitting the signal to the PLC of the machine tool”] the measured electrical voltages to the analysis unit; and determining a contact between the cutting tool and the electrically conductive workpiece by analyzing the measured electrical voltages (Choi, Page 3, Claim 1; Masaoka, [004, 045]),
where a contact is determined to take place if the measured electrical voltage has a non-zero value [“a low voltage output is produced by the use of the voltage drop” during not broken condition which is non-zero value] (Choi Claim 1; Masaoka [049]).
Regarding claim 16, Choi in view of Masaoka further teaches/suggests the method according to claim 15, further comprising the step of arranging the toolholder, the electrically conductive workpiece [the item “M” of Choi], and one of the first or second poles of the electric power source at a same [sharing of the voltage by multiple tools/power lines for each tool/lamps] electrical potential (Figs. 1- 3 of Choi & Fig. 15/1 of Masaoka).
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Masaoka further teaches/suggests the method according to claim 15, further comprising the step of determining a contact between each of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece by analyzing the measured electrical voltages, wherein a contact is determined to take place if the measured electrical voltage has a non-zero value [“drop of the measured voltage” occurring but still is greater than zero indicate contact is taking place] (Choi, page 7; Masaoka [048-050]).
Claim(s) 9-10, 12- 14, 18- 19, & 21- 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Masaoka as applied to claim 1/18 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (JP 2003025176 A). The combination of Choi, Masaoka, and Abe is referred as CMA hereinafter.
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Masaoka further teaches the system according to claim 1, flow voltage output is produced by the use of the voltage drop”] a 1Page 7 & Masaoka [004, 049, 0050]). Thus, Choi in view of Masaoka clearly teaches usage time of the each tools/cutting inserts.
However, Choi in view of Masaoka fails to teach the system comprising a time measurement device is operatively connected to the analysis unit as claimed. Thus, Choi in view of Masaoka cannot track the total usage time of the each of the cutting inserts/tools (by contacting with the workpiece).
Abe relates to tracking usage time of each cutting tool of a numerical control device and automatically replacing tools when cumulative usage time of the cutting tools reaches a certain time (life) (Page 6). Specifically, Abe teaches a system with an analysis unit comprising:
a time measurement device is operatively connected to the analysis unit, and wherein the analysis unit is arranged to determine [“the cumulative usage time of cutting tools, Since the cumulative usage time of each cutting tool can be individually monitored, it becomes possible to precisely manage the life of each cutting tool”] a time of usage between any of the plurality of cutting inserts [“each cutting tool”] and the electrically conductive workpiece (2Page 6, Page 7, [031]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Abe and Choi in view of Masaoka because they both related to a system with an analysis unit determining contact between the cutting inserts (tool bits) and the workpiece/usage of the tool and (2) modified the system of Choi in view of Masaoka to include a time measurement device to determine a time of contact between any of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece so that time to replace each tool can be determined as in Abe. Doing so would allow to precisely manage the life of each of the cutting inserts (tools Ts) and prevent a mistake such as machining with old tools in the system of Choi in view of Masaoka (Abb, page 7). Accordingly, CMA teaches each limitation of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 10, CMA teaches/suggests the system according to claim 9, wherein the analysis unit is configured to determine the time of contact between each of [“cumulative usage time of each cutting tool can be individually monitored”] the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece (Abe, [031]).
Regarding claim 12, CMA teaches/suggests the system according to claim 10, wherein the analysis unit is configured to determine a plurality of subsequent contacts between each of the plurality of cutting inserts and an electrically conductive workpiece, and to determine an accumulated time [“the cumulative usage time of each cutting tool”] of contact between each of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece (Abe, page 6, [031]).
Regarding claim 13, CMA teaches/suggests the system according to claim 12, further comprising a user interface [“a display unit 50 indicating whether a signal is output”] operatively connected to the analysis unit (Choi page 6),
wherein the analysis unit is configured to compare the determined accumulated time of contact with a maximum threshold value [“the cumulative usage time of the cutting tools reaches a certain time (life).”], and wherein the analysis unit is configured to generate a warning signal if the determined accumulated time of contact is equal to or higher than the maximum threshold value, and wherein the system is configured to generate a warning based on the generated warning signal, wherein the warning [showing time to replace the tool to help user to easily recognize that time to replace the cutting inserts have arrived] is presented via the user interface (Choi, page 6; Abe Page 6).
Regarding claim 14, CMA teaches/suggests the system according to claim 12, wherein the analysis unit is operatively connected to a database, and wherein the system is configured to store [“the machining center 100 records the information about the usage time”] the determined accumulated time of contact between each of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece in the database (Abe Page 6).
Regarding claim 18, Choi in view of Masaoka teaches the method according to claim 15, further comprising the steps of:
determining the measured electrical voltages [“low voltage output is produced by the use of the voltage drop” during not broken condition/contact with the workpiece] to determine/confirm a usage of the cutting inserts (contact between the cutting inserts and the workpiece); and determining a time of contact between any of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece (Masaoka [054]).
However, Choi in view of Masaoka fails to teach the determining the measured electrical voltages (contact being detected/cutting inserts being used) is as a function of time as claimed and shown with strikethrough emphasis.
Abe relates to tracking usage time of the usage time of each cutting tool and automatically replacing tools when cumulative usage time of the cutting tools reaches a certain time (life). Specifically, Abe teaches a method comprising steps of: determining usage/contact of the cutting inserts with workpiece as a function of time; and determining a time of usage between any of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece (Page 6, [035]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Abe and Choi in view of Masaoka because they both related to a system with an analysis unit determining contact between the tool and the workpiece/usage of the tool and (2) modified the method of Choi to determining the measured electrical voltages as a function of time and determining a time of contact between any of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece as in Abe. Doing so would allow to precisely manage the life of each of the cutting inserts and prevent a mistake such as machining with old tools in the system of Choi in view of Masaoka (Abb, page 7).
Regarding claim 19, CMA teaches/suggests the method according to claim 18, further comprising the step of determining a time of contact between each of the plurality of cutting inserts and the electrically conductive workpiece (Abe, [035], page 6).
Regarding claims 21- 23, CMA teaches/suggests inventions of these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claims 12- 14 respectively.
Claim(s) 11 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CMA as in claims 9/15 in view of McCarthy et al. (US 20120120030 A1).
Regarding claim 11, CMA teaches/suggests the system according to claim 9 as outlined above including the system/method calculating of the cumulative time of the contact of each tool insert with workpiece so that time to replace each tool can be determined.
However, CMA fails to teach wherein the analysis unit is configured to compare the determined time of contact with a minimum threshold value and to discard the determined contact if the determined time of contact is shorter than the minimum threshold value.
McCarthy teaches a controller 680 with a processor receiving sensor data and performing an activation of a computer function based on the received sensor data. Specifically, McCarthy teaches wherein the analysis unit is configured to compare [“If a contact with the display is disregarded based on a minimum contact time of the display, quick contacts may be disregarded”] the determined time of contact with a minimum threshold value and to discard the determined contact if the determined time of contact is shorter than the minimum threshold value ([012, 017]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine McCarthy and CMA because they both related to sensing of contact information by an analysis unit and (2) modify the system/method of CMA to compare the determined time of contact with a minimum threshold value and to discard the determined contact if the determined time of contact is shorter than the minimum threshold value as in McCarthy. Doing so would allow to avoid recording of unintentional and short-duration contacting of the cutting inserts with the workpiece so that time to replace tools can be accurately identified without polluting this calculation with noisy/transient usage contacts between cutting inserts and the workpiece (Abe [031] & McCarthy [012]).
Regarding claim 20, CMA in view of McCarthy teaches the invention of this claim for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Sparling (US 3339434 A) teaches a method of detecting contact of multiple drill heads 37 to a workpiece 39 so that cutting tools breaking can be determined (Fig. 4 & associated texts).
2) Nishimura (US 4203691 A) teaches contact detecting apparatus for detecting the contact of a tool 1 with a workpiece 2 when they are moved relatively to one another by measuring voltage across resistors by forming a circuit path 25 through the workpiece (Fig. 4 & associated texts, Col 1 lines 5- 10).
3) Rhodes et al. (US 20160136769 A1) teaches determining whether the milling tool is broken based on the monitored electrical signal (Claim 1).
4) SUSNJARA (US 20160161939 A1) monitor the usage time of each tool of the machine stored thereon ([009]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “tool T is preliminarily contacted with the workpiece M in the ground state, the measured voltage drops”
2 “It is possible to know the cumulative usage time of the desired cutting tool by accessing the RFID tag via the, or by accessing the storage means of the main body. This allows you to monitor the cumulative usage time of each cutting tool and, for example, replace it with a new one when the cumulative usage time of the cutting tools reaches a certain time (life). It becomes possible to precisely manage the life of the single unit”
Prosecution Insights