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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/23/2026
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-18 are pending
Claims 9 and 11 have been cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 8, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the objection of the Abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Abstract has been withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment to the Abstract.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 8, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, see Claims Page 5, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page 5, Applicant argues that “the subject matter claimed is adequately shown in at least FIGS. 1 and 2”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant has not submitted any drawings in the present application. Accordingly, there are no FIGS. 1 and 2 of record that satisfy the drawing requirement. Moreover, the specification expressly refers to and describes FIGS. 1-5, including Fig. 1 as illustrating the claimed method, FIG. 2 as illustrating the machine tool, and FIGS. 3-5 as illustrating characteristic curves, but none of these figures were submitted. Accordingly, the drawing requirement is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks Page 9, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on Page 9, Applicant argues that Tezuka’s characteristic curves describe servo-axis acceleration as a function of axis velocity and therefore differ from the claimed tool-specific characteristic curves indexed by engagement parameters calculated for successive route increments. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant considers Tezuka individually rather than the teachings of Erdim, Diehl, and Tezuka in combination. Erdim teaches calculating engagement information and determining feed rate for individual segments of the tool path (Claim 1, “partitioning the path of the tool into a set of segments … determining a feedrate of the tool based on the function of engagement for each segment in the set of segments … machining the workpiece based on the determined feedrate of the tool for each segment of the path”). Diehl further teaches (Col. 9, lines 23-25, “the element is broken into segments and different feed rates are applied to each based on the greatest engagement in that segment”; Col. 9, lines 51-53, “Preferably, the feed rate is controlled based on the value of the tool engagement and the UCT”). Thus, Erdim and Diehl teach using engagement associated with individual tool-path segments to determine the corresponding feed rate. Tezuka teaches (Par. [0004], “In the acceleration/deceleration control process, a movement command for the drive axis is generated so that the drive axis is accelerated or decelerated according to a commanded acceleration characteristic curve obtained by an acceleration/deceleration parameter”). Thus, Tezuka is relied upon for implementing machine-tool control using a characteristic curve, not for Tezuka’s velocity itself constituting the claimed engagement parameter. Accordingly, in the combined system, the engagement parameters taught by Erdim and Diehl are used for the segment-specific machining control, while Tezuka provides the characteristic-curve implementation. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 9, Applicant further argues that Tezuka does not disclose “storing separate characteristic curves for each individual tool; characteristic curves based on engagement arrangements; characteristic curves defined per route increment; selecting a characteristic curve according to the tool used for machining; or using engagement parameters as the input variable of the characteristic curve”, and that Erdim does not cure these alleged deficiencies. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant considers the references individually rather than the teachings of the references as combined. Erdim teaches the route-increment aspect as discussed above and further teaches (Col. 9, lines 44-46, “function of engagement includes one or combination of an engagement surface, an engagement area, an engagement angle, and removed volume”). Diehl teaches tool-specific engagement information (Col. 7, lines 1-5, “CAM computer program 18 is also capable of accepting information about the properties of the material to be machined and of the milling cutters (also referred to as tools) for milling the object from the workpiece”; Col. 12, line 66-Col. 13, line 1, “a target engagement is determined for the tool path based on the characteristics of the selected milling cutter and the type of material to be milled”). Thus, Diehl teaches that engagement used for the tool path is dependent on the particular selected tool. Tezuka further teaches modifying the characteristic-curve control relationship when necessary (Par. [0031], “When it is judged that commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 is not optimized … the procedure is returned to step S2 so that the acceleration/deceleration parameter is changed or updated”). Thus, in the combined system, Erdim provides engagement parameters for individual route increments, Diehl provides tool-specific engagement-based control, and Tezuka provides the adjustable characteristic-curve implementation. The combination therefore does not require Tezuka alone to disclose each of the tool-specific, route-increment, and engagement-input features. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 10, Applicant further argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Tezuka with Erdim and Diehl because Erdim addresses optimization of machining conditions based on simulated tool engagement whereas Tezuka addresses adjustment of servo-axis acceleration/deceleration characteristics, and that the rationale of effectively adjusting an acceleration/deceleration parameter does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the engagement-based system of Erdim and Diehl. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tezuka expressly teaches application of its control technique to a machine tool (Par. [0024], “Support device 10 is used with a numerical controller (NC) 16 which controls at least one drive axis 14 of a machine 12 such as a machine tool or a multi-joint robot”). Tezuka further teaches that the characteristic-curve control technique permits effective control of the machine-tool drive axis (Par. [0044], “acceleration/deceleration parameter adjusted by the operator can be automatically transmitted to the numerical controller, whereby the acceleration/deceleration of the drive axis can be effectively controlled based on the adjusted parameter”). Thus, Tezuka is not being relied upon for an unrelated purpose, but rather for a known technique for controlling the drive axis of a machine tool using an adjustable characteristic-curve relationship. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Tezuka’s characteristic-curve control technique to the engagement-based machine-tool control of Erdim and Diehl in order to effectively control movement of the machine-tool drive axis based on adjusted control parameters. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on Page 10, Applicant further argues that dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 12-18 are allowable for at least the same reasons asserted with respect to independent claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant has not presented a separate substantive argument regarding the additional limitations of the dependent claims. Accordingly, these arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 and for the reasons set forth in the respective rejections below.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 10, 12-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdim et al. US 9,892,215 B2 (hereinafter Erdim) in view of Diehl et al. US 7,577,490 B2 (hereinafter Diehl) and Tezuka et al. USPGPUB 2015/0160647 A1 (hereinafter Tezuka), and further in view of Nakagawa et al. JP 2018020426 A (hereinafter Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 1, Erdim teaches a method for operating a machine tool which is configured for machining a workpiece blank using a tool (Col. 6, lines 25-27, “method for determining a feedrate of a tool machining a workpiece according to a path”), comprising the steps of:
determining geometry data of the workpiece blank (Fig. 1 “CAD model 102” – workpiece geometry is modeled through the CAD model; Fig. 11, Col. 14, lines 44-50, “Given a tool 1102 and the in-process workpiece 1106 at any time of simulation, and the corresponding tool path segment 1104, the angle and the area of engagement between the tool and the in-process workpiece at given position is determined based on the engagement surface 1129 corresponding to the time of the simulation” – Determining engagement from a modeled workpiece requires geometric representation, i.e., geometry data of the workpiece),
determining geometry data of a tool used for machining the workpiece blank (Col. 3, lines 17-18, “parameters defining tool geometry”),
dividing a tool path for machining the workpiece blank into a plurality of route increments (Col. 9, lines 28-31, “The method partitions 310 the path 305 into a set of segments 315 such that within each segment in the set 315 a function of engagement 330 of the tool and the workpiece is substantially constant”),
simulating a material removal on the workpiece blank by means of the tool per the route increment (Col. 1, lines 45-50, “material removal can be modeled computationally as a constructive solid geometry (CSG) difference operation, in which the portion of the workpiece is removed from the workpiece using a CSG subtraction operation of the swept volume from the workpiece”; Fig. 10, “Determining removed volume”; Col. 11, lines 37-40, “FIG. 6A shows an example of simulating the flat-end mill tool 600 rotating in clockwise direction 680, moving along a straight tool path 602, and removing some material from the workpiece 605”), and
calculating an engagement parameter for determining an engagement ratio between the workpiece blank and tool per the route increment (Col. 11, lines 1-50, “partitions 520 the NC segment into a number of smaller segments based on the function of engagement 536. The function of engagement can includes engagement angle, engagement area, removed volume and cutting force … Some embodiments determine an area and an angle of the engagement between the tool and the workpiece based on the engagement surface”; Col. 13, lines 1-2, “determine process parameters by calculating the axial and radial depths and cut or uncut chip thickness.”; Col. 15, lines 8-10, “angles of engagement are integrated to calculate the area of engagement 1136”- the engagement angle, engagement area, removed volume, and depth of cut correspond to calculated engagement parameters used in determining the function of engagement for a route increment, wherein the function of engagement corresponds to the claimed engagement ratio.),
wherein an advancement and/or a rotational speed of the tool relative to the workpiece blank is adjusted depending on a parameter (Col. 11, lines 27-31, “From the smooth variations of engagement angle, area or removed volume, the cutting forces are calculated to determine the feedrate values 542 for new segments 540. The optimal feedrate values 544 are calculated for the new segments of tool path”; Col. 9, lines 55-58, “This embodiment is based on a realization that the engagement between the tool and the workpiece can govern the optimal possible feedrate of the tool” – feedrate is interpreted as advancement and/or rotational speed of a tool).
Erdim teaches adjusting feedrate based on cutting forces derived from engagement characteristics, but does not explicitly teach using an engagement parameter itself as a direct control input for adjusting feed rate on a per-segment basis.
However, Diehl teaches using an engagement parameter as a direct control input for adjusting feedrate on a per-segment basis (Col. 9, lines 18-53, “each tool path is divided into elements with each element of the tool path having a different curvature being treated separately … the element is broken into segments and different feed rates are applied to each based on the greatest engagement in that segment … Preferably, the feed rate is adjusted … Preferably, the feed rate is controlled based on the value of the tool engagement and the UCT” – the value of tool engagement corresponds to the engagement parameter).
Erdim and Diehl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to controlling milling machines based on engagement.
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 engagement machine method, as taught by Erdim, and incorporate per-increment control of feed rate based on engagement values, as taught by Diehl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve cutting efficiency and improve tool life as suggested by Diehl (Col. 28).
Erdim and Diehl do not explicitly teach wherein for each tool one or more characteristic curves for engagement parameters per route increment are stored in a controller, which specifies how the advancement and/or rotational speed are adjusted for individual input parameters,
wherein during machining, vibrations and/or machining forces calculated from motor currents of an electric drive of an advancement shaft or a mandrel shaft are detected by means of sensors, and
if detected values for vibrations and/or machining forces fall below limit values predetermined in the controller, the characteristic curve for the tool that is used rises in the region of the calculated engagement parameter for advancement and/or rotational speed, in order to, in the future, increase a machining speed at a constant machining quality, if the engagement parameter is again calculated at the same magnitude, in the case of machining along a route increment, and
if detected values for vibrations and/or machining forces exceed limit values predetermined in the controller, the characteristic curve for the tool that is used drops in the region of the calculated engagement parameter for advancement and/or rotational speed, in order to, in the future, reduce a machining speed, if the engagement parameter is again calculated at the same magnitude, in the case of machining along a route increment.
However, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, and Tezuka teaches wherein for each tool (Diehl, Col. 7, lines 1-5, “CAM computer program 18 is also capable of accepting information about the properties of the material to be machined and of the milling cutters (also referred to as tools) for milling the object from the workpiece”; Col. 12, line 66-Col. 13, line 1, “a target engagement is determined for the tool path based on the characteristics of the selected milling cutter and the type of material to be milled” – the engagement is determined based on the characteristics of the selected tool) one or more characteristic curves (Tezuka, Par. [0004], “a movement command for the drive axis is generated so that the drive axis is accelerated or decelerated according to a commanded acceleration characteristic curve obtained by an acceleration/deceleration parameter”) for engagement parameters per route increment (Erdim, Claim 1, “partitioning the path of the tool into a set of segments … determining a feedrate of the tool based on the function of engagement for each segment in the set of segments”; Fig. 11, “calculation of angle and area of engagement” – Erdim calculates engagement parameters for each route increment”) are stored in a controller (Tezuka, Par. [0030], “actual acceleration/deceleration characteristic obtaining part 20 obtains an actual acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve of drive axis 14 represented by the velocity and the acceleration, which is previously stored in numerical controller or external storing device 18.” – the characteristic curve is stored in the numerical controller), which specifies how the advancement and/or rotational speed are adjusted for individual input parameters (Tezuka, Par. [0034], “The coordinates designated by the operator are stored as the acceleration/deceleration parameter, and acceleration/deceleration characteristic displaying part 24 generates and displays commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 by connecting the designated coordinates by using a line or curve”; Par. [0025], numerical controller 16 “generates a movement command (or a position command) for drive axis 14 according to a commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve previously given by an acceleration/deceleration parameter” – the characteristic curve specifies movement of the drive axis based on individual parameter values, wherein movement of the drive axis corresponds to advancement).
Erdim, Diehl, and Tezuka are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to machine tool control systems.
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 machining system using engagement-based feed rate determination, as taught by Erdim and Diehl, and implement characteristic curves to adjust the feed rate, as taught by Tezuka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “effectively adjust an acceleration/deceleration parameter of a drive axis, even when an operator thereof is inexperienced” as suggested by Tezuka (Par. [0008]).
Erdim, Diehl, and Tezuka do not explicitly teach wherein during machining, vibrations and/or machining forces calculated from motor currents of an electric drive of an advancement shaft or a mandrel shaft are detected by means of sensors, and
if detected values for vibrations and/or machining forces fall below limit values predetermined in the controller, the characteristic curve for the tool that is used rises in the region of the calculated engagement parameter for advancement and/or rotational speed, in order to, in the future, increase a machining speed at a constant machining quality, if the engagement parameter is again calculated at the same magnitude, in the case of machining along a route increment, and
if detected values for vibrations and/or machining forces exceed limit values predetermined in the controller, the characteristic curve for the tool that is used drops in the region of the calculated engagement parameter for advancement and/or rotational speed, in order to, in the future, reduce a machining speed, if the engagement parameter is again calculated at the same magnitude, in the case of machining along a route increment.
However, Nakagawa teaches wherein during machining, vibrations and/or machining forces calculated from motor currents of an electric drive of an advancement shaft or a mandrel shaft are detected by means of sensors (Par. [0026] “when the vibration detecting means is an acceleration sensor coupled to the rotary main shaft of the cutting tool, the vibration of the cutting tool can be detected sensitively” – vibration detected by an acceleration sensor satisfies the vibration alternative.).
The combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa further teaches if detected values for vibrations and/or machining forces fall below limit values predetermined in the controller (Nakagawa, Par. [0019] “when the magnitude of the chatter vibration is equal to or less than the threshold value” – the threshold value corresponds to a limit value), the characteristic curve for the tool that is used rises in the region (Tezuka, Par. [0031] “acceleration/deceleration characteristic displaying part 24 regenerates and redisplays the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the updated acceleration/deceleration parameter”; Par. [0031] “a portion of commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 is excessively lower than actual acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 30 … the acceleration/deceleration parameter is changed or updated” – updating the portion of the commanded characteristic curve that is excessively lower corresponds to raising that region of the characteristic curve) of the calculated engagement parameter (Erdim, Fig. 11, “calculation of angle and area of engagement”; Col. 15, lines 8-10, “angles of engagement are integrated to calculate the area of engagement 1136” – the calculated angle and area of engagement correspond to calculated engagement parameters) for advancement and/or rotational speed (Diehl, Col. 9, lines 18-53, “different feed rates are applied to each based on the greatest engagement in that segment … Preferably, the feed rate is controlled based on the value of the tool engagement and the UCT” – feedrate corresponds to advancement), in order to, in the future (Tezuka, Par. [0032], “setting information outputting part 26 transmits the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter to numerical controller 16” and “Numerical controller 16 generates the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter … and generates a proper movement command for drive axis 14” – the updated characteristic curve is subsequently used by the numerical controller), increase a machining speed at a constant machining quality (Nakagawa, Par. [0019] “the feed speed of the cutting tool is increased”; Par. [0008] “From the viewpoint of obtaining a high-quality finished surface with high efficiency, it is desired to achieve both suppression of chatter vibration and improvement of cutting efficiency” – increasing the feed speed corresponds to increasing the machining speed while suppression of chatter vibration maintains machining quality.), if the engagement parameter is again calculated at the same magnitude (Tezuka, Par. [0032], “Numerical controller 16 generates the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter from setting information outputting part 26, and generates a proper movement command for drive axis 14” – the updated characteristic curve is subsequently used by the numerical controller, such that in the combined system the updated curve value is used when the same engagement parameter magnitude is subsequently input.), in the case of machining along a route increment (Erdim, Claim 1, “partitioning the path of the tool into a set of segments … determining a feedrate of the tool based on the function of engagement for each segment in the set of segments … machining the workpiece based on the determined feedrate of the tool for each segment of the path), and
if detected values for vibrations and/or machining forces exceed limit values predetermined in the controller (Nakagawa, Par. [0020], “when the vibration analysis means detects the forced chatter vibration having a magnitude exceeding the threshold value” – the threshold value corresponds to a limit value), the characteristic curve for the tool that is used drops in the region (Tezuka, Par. [0031], “acceleration/deceleration characteristic displaying part 24 regenerates and redisplays the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the updated acceleration/deceleration parameter”; Par. [0031] “commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 partially exceeds actual acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 30 … the acceleration/deceleration parameter is changed or updated” – updating the portion of the commanded characteristic curve that exceeds the actual characteristic curve corresponds to dropping that region of the characteristic curve) of the calculated engagement parameter (Erdim, Fig. 11, “calculation of angle and area of engagement”; Col. 15, lines 8-10, “angles of engagement are integrated to calculate the area of engagement 1136” – the calculated angle and area of engagement correspond to calculated engagement parameter) for advancement and/or rotational speed (Diehl, Col. 9, lines 18-53, “different feed rates are applied to each based on the greatest engagement in that segment … Preferably, the feed rate is controlled based on the value of the tool engagement and the UCT” – feedrate corresponds to advancement.) , in order to, in the future (Tezuka, Par. [0032], “setting information outputting part 26 transmits the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter to numerical controller 16” and “Numerical controller 16 generates the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter … and generates a proper movement command for drive axis 14” – the updated characteristic curve is subsequently used by the numerical controller), reduce a machining speed (Nakagawa, Par. [0020], “the tool control means decreases the feed rate of the cutting tool within a range not lower than the lower limit threshold value” – decreasing the feed rate corresponds to reducing the machining speed.), if the engagement parameter is again calculated at the same magnitude (Tezuka, Par. [0032] “Numerical controller 16 generates the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter from setting information outputting part 26, and generates a proper movement command for drive axis 14” – the updated characteristic curve is subsequently used by the numerical controller, such that in the combined system the updated curve value is used when the same engagement parameter magnitude is subsequently input”), in the case of machining along a route increment (Erdim, Claim 1, “partitioning the path of the tool into a set of segments … determining a feedrate of the tool based on the function of engagement for each segment in the set of segments … machining the workpiece based on the determined feedrate of the tool for each segment of the path”).
Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to machine tool control systems.
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 machining system using engagement-based feed rate determination and characteristic curves, as taught by Erdim, Diehl, and Tezuka, and adjust the characteristic curve at the corresponding engagement parameter based on detected vibration relative to predetermined limit values, as taught by Nakagawa, such that the adjusted characteristic curve is used for future machining when the same engagement parameter is encountered.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve product quality and machining efficiency as suggested by Nakagawa (Par. [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim further teaches, wherein a length of the route increment corresponds to the route that the tool travels, at a predetermined path speed and a predetermined rotational speed (Col. 6, “partitioning the path into a set of segments according to the variation of the function of engagement, such that, within each segment, the variation of the function of engagement is within a predetermined range”; Col. 8, lines 49-55, “The feedrate can be expressed in units of distance per revolution for turning and boring (typically inches per revolution [ipr] or millimeters per revolution … The feedrate is often expressed in units of distance per time for milling (typically inches per minute [ipm] or millimeters per minute.”; Col. 9, lines 17-38, “It is natural to determine the feedrate for each NC segment or a group of NC segments … feedrate is substantially constant and is optimized for the machining of the segment. As used herein, the substantially constant means that a variation of a value of the parameter is within a predetermined range 335, e.g., defined by a mechanical design of the machining system.” – Since feed rate is expressed in terms of distance per revolution, the distance traveled by the tool over a given number of rotations is directly defined, and thus defining a route increment based on a number of tool rotations corresponds to a predictable measure of tool path length. A constant feed rate over a distance for a segment expressed in units of distance per minute and/or distance per revolution corresponds to a predetermined path speed and predetermined rotational speed).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim further teaches wherein the engagement ratios are determined based on a material volume which is removed from the workpiece blank by the tool during a relative movement between the tool and workpiece blank along a route increment (Col. 9, lines 44-46, “function of engagement includes one or combination of an engagement surface, an engagement area, an engagement angle, and removed volume”; Col. 5, lines 24-27, “effectiveness of machining process is generally evaluated by the volume of the material being removed in a given time, often denoted as the material removal rate.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim further teaches wherein the engagement ratios are determined based on an immersion depth of the tool into the workpiece blank, which corresponds to a difference between a lowest contact point and a highest contact point of the tool with material of the workpiece blank in a direction of an axis of rotation of the tool (Col. 11, lines 62-64, “the axial depth of the cut of the removed volume increases monotonically along the tool path” – axial depth of cut corresponds to the extent of the tool engaged with the workpiece along the axis of rotation of the tool, which would correspond to the distance between the lowest and highest contact points of the tool with the workpiece along the tool axis.; Fig. 14A-14E, Col. 16, lines 54-59, “For given depth of depth values 1407 and 1408 of the milling … The internal segments 1412 and 1422 corresponding to the slices of the removed volume are shown for the given depth of cut values.”; Fig. 14C, Col. 15, lines 53-61, “The entry angle, exit angle and angle of engagement 1213 are 0, 180 and 180 deg. respectively for the cross section 1210 at the depth z1 … At the depth z1 1206, the angle of engagement 1213 includes one pair of entry and exit angles, however for the depth z2 1207 and the angle of engagement includes two pairs of entry and exit angles” – z1, as shown in figure 14C, corresponds to the difference between the highest and lowest contact points of the tool with the material of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim further teaches wherein the engagement ratios are determined based on a wrapping which specifies an angular region over which a cutting edge of the tool is in engagement with the material of the workpiece blank during a rotation of the tool (Fig. 12E, Col. 15, lines 61-64, “In the first pair the tool enters the workpiece at an angle 0° and exits at an angel 70° 1223, and in the second pair the tool enters the workpiece at 150° 1224 and exits at an angle 180° 1225.” – The angular region between tool entry and exit angles corresponds to the wrapping.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim further teaches wherein the engagement ratios are determined based on a size of a surface over which a bounding volume of the tool, which results from a rotation of the tool, is in engagement with the material of the workpiece blank (Claim 1, “an engagement area bounded by a tool entry angle and a tool exit angle which together define an angle of engagement of the tool, where the tool removes material”; Col. 15, lines 8-9, “angles of engagement are integrated to calculate the area of engagement 1136.” – engagement area is interpreted as size of a surface in contact with the material of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Diehl further teaches wherein the engagement ratios are determined based on an angle of a path between the tool and workpiece blank relative to an axis of rotation of the tool (Col. 17, lines 51-59, “by rotating the attitude of the tool path, defined as being perpendicular to the trailing leg of the engagement angle, by an amount, the milling cutter can be moved farther into the material in a new direction without exceeding the maximum engagement. This is because, as the milling cutter is rotated into the new attitude, the engagement angle is decreased momentarily, enabling the milling cutter to be moved forward along the tool path until the maximum engagement angle is once again reached.” – the orientation of the tool path relative to the workpiece directly affects the engagement angle, and thus the engagement parameter depends on the path angle of the tool.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim further teaches wherein a calculation of the engagement parameters of the engagement ratios for each individual route increment takes place temporally first, before the tool is moved along the calculated route increment, relative to the workpiece blank (Claim 1, “method comprising the steps of: partitioning the path of the tool into a set of segments … determining a feedrate of the tool based on the function of engagement for each segment in the set of segments … machining the workpiece based on the determined feedrate of the tool for each segment of the path”; Fig. 11 – “calculation of angle and area of engagement” - Erdim teaches calculating engagement parameters such as angle and area of engagement and corresponding feed rate values for each segment prior to machining the workpiece based on those values, before executing the corresponding tool movement.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein if detected vibrations and/or calculated machining forces fall below a limit value predetermined in a controller, the advancement and/or rotational speed are increased in order to increase a machining speed at a constant machining quality (Par. [0019] “when the magnitude of the chatter vibration is equal to or less than the threshold value, the feed speed of the cutting tool is increased”; Par. [0008] “From the viewpoint of obtaining a high-quality finished surface with high efficiency, it is desired to achieve both suppression of chatter vibration and improvement of cutting efficiency”), and
if detected vibrations and/or calculated machining forces fall above the limit value predetermined in the controller, the advancement and/or rotational speed are reduced in order to reduce a machining speed (Par. [0020] “when the vibration analysis means detects the forced chatter vibration having a magnitude exceeding the threshold value, in the case where the tool control means decreases the feed rate of the cutting tool within a range not lower than the lower limit threshold value”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Tezuka and Diehl further teaches wherein a separate characteristic curve is defined (Tezuka, Par. [0014], “parameter setting part is configured to set different acceleration/deceleration parameters in relation to the drive axis when being accelerated and when being decelerated, respectively, or in relation to the drive axis moving in different directions, respectively”; Par. [0040] “different acceleration/deceleration parameters should be set relating to when accelerating the drive shaft and when decelerating the drive shaft, respectively, or relating to when the drive shaft is moved in the different directions, respectively, the acceleration/deceleration parameter may be set relating to each condition and a graph may be displayed relating to each condition” – a separate graph for each condition corresponds to a separate characteristic curve.) for each material property of a workpiece blank to be machined using a tool (Diehl, Col. 7, lines 1-5, “CAM computer program 18 is also capable of accepting information about the properties of the material to be machined and of the milling cutters (also referred to as tools) for milling the object from the workpiece”; Col. 12 line 66 - Col. 13 line 1, “a target engagement is determined for the tool path based on the characteristics of the selected milling cutter and the type of material to be milled”), which characteristic curve is adjusted (Tezuka, Par. [0031], “the acceleration/deceleration parameter is changed or updated. In this case, acceleration/deceleration characteristic displaying part 24 regenerates and redisplays the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the updated acceleration/deceleration parameter.”) based on the engagement parameters (Diehl, Col. 9, lines 23-25, “the element is broken into segments and different feed rates are applied to each based on the greatest engagement in that segment”; Col. 9, lines 51-53, “Preferably, the feed rate is controlled based on the value of the tool engagement and the UCT”), for future machining (Tezuka, Par. [0032], “Numerical controller 16 generates the commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve based on the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter from setting information outputting part 26, and generates a proper movement command for drive axis 14” – the adjusted characteristic curve is subsequently used by the numerical controller.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Nakagawa and Diehl further teaches wherein the predetermined limit value with respect to vibrations and/or calculated machining forces are defined (Nakagawa, Par. [0049] “A specific value of the threshold value used for the determination of the presence or absence of the chatter vibration may be appropriately determined according to a degree to which the influence of each chatter vibration becomes a problem in cutting or the like” – the threshold value corresponds to the predetermined limit value with respect to vibrations.) separately for each tool (Diehl, Col. 12 line 66 – Col. 13, line 1, “a target engagement is determined for the tool path based on the characteristics of the selected milling cutter and the type of material to be milled” – the selected milling cutter corresponds to each tool and the machining control is determined according to characteristics of that tool.).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Tezuka and Nakagawa further teaches wherein a characteristic curve is designated as optimized (Tezuka, Par. [0031], “When it is judged that commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 is not optimized (for example, commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 partially exceeds actual acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 30, or a portion of commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 is excessively lower than actual acceleration/ deceleration characteristic curve 30”; Par. [0032] “when it is judged that commanded acceleration/deceleration characteristic curve 28 is optimized, setting information outputting part 26 transmits the latest acceleration/deceleration parameter to numerical controller 16”) if the detected vibrations and/or calculated machining forces in the controller are located in a normal range (Nakagawa, Par. [0019] “when the magnitude of the chatter vibration is equal to or less than the threshold value” – detected vibration at or below the threshold corresponds to being located in a normal range.).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein in a case of a deviation of a detected vibration and/or calculated machining forces in the controller above or below a predetermined limit value, wear of the tool is concluded (Par. [0049] “A specific value of the threshold value used for the determination of the presence or absence of the chatter vibration may be appropriately determined according to a degree to which the influence of each chatter vibration becomes a problem in cutting or the like.”; Par. [0002] “The chatter vibration may cause a decrease in quality of a finished surface or damage to a cutting tool” – going above or below a threshold value means chatter vibration becomes a problem, and chatter vibration is taught to damage cutting tools).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim further teaches a machine tool configured for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (Col. 8, lines 20-32 “NC milling system 100, and a numerically controlled (NC) milling simulation system 150. In the NC milling system 100, a computer aided design (CAD) model 102 is input to a computer aided manufacturing (CAM) system 104, which generates G-Codes 106 for controlling a NC milling machine … instructions are input into an NC controller 112, which produces a set of motor control signals 114 to move a tool 116 relative to a workpiece 118 in order to mill the work piece.”).
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdim et al. US 9,892,215 B2 (hereinafter Erdim) in view of Diehl et al. US 7,577,490 B2 (hereinafter Diehl), Tezuka et al. USPGPUB 2015/0160647 A1 (hereinafter Tezuka), and Nakagawa et al. JP 2018020426 A (hereinafter Nakagawa), and further in view of Yee et al. (US 4471444 A) (hereinafter Yee).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa teaches monitoring of detected vibrations and/or calculated machining forces in the controller, during machining with calculated engagement parameters and optimized characteristic curves of set advancement and/or rotational speed values, for limit values (as explained above).
Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa do not explicitly teach wherein wear monitoring is carried out by means of monitoring of detected vibrations and/or calculated machining forces.
However, Yee teaches wherein wear monitoring is carried out by means of monitoring of detected vibrations and/or calculated machining forces (Col. 1, lines 55-58, “Other prior art systems use signature analysis of the vibration from the machining operation as an indication of tool wear”; Col. 3, lines 46-50, “monitoring the operation of a rotating machine tool or part and for producing an output indicating that failure of that rotating tool or part is imminent, or that excessive wear of that tool or part is present”).
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 machining system using engagement-based feed rate determination, as taught by Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, and Nakagawa, and implement monitoring machine tool wear, as taught by Yee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase productivity because optimum tool replacement times could be determined and prevent the machining center from attempting to feed the remains of a machine tool into the work, as suggested by Yee (Col. 1, lines 27-42).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Erdim, Diehl, Tezuka, Nakagawa, and Yee teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yee further teaches wherein in a case of a deviation of the detected vibrations and/or calculated machining forces in the controller from limit values during machining with advancement and/or rotational speed values set according to calculated engagement parameters and optimized characteristic curves, the machining is interrupted and optionally a new sister tool is substituted (Col. 3, lines 62-66, “producing a control signal indicating that failure of the tool or part is imminent or that excessive wear of the tool or part is present when, upon initially detecting such an output from the comparator” – interrupting machining and replacing a machine tool with a new tool when predicted wear exceeds limits is a predictable response to avoid tool failure.).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koren [Adaptive Control Systems for Machining, 1989] teaches the major research efforts in the area of adaptive control for machining processes in the last 25 years. The objective of these adaptive control systems is to improve the production rate or the part quality by real-time setting of the optimal machining variables.
Kreidler [USPGPUB 2017/0308057 A1] teaches a computer-implemented method for part analytics, in particular for analyzing the quality, the machining process and preferably the engineering process, of a workpiece machined by at least one CNC machine.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (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 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights