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 1-4 are pending.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMAGUCHI et al. USPGPUB 2011/0135415 (hereinafter “HAMAGUCHI”) in view of YAMAMOTO et al. JP 202117847 (hereinafter “YAMAMOTO”).
As to claim 1, HAMAGUCHI teaches a display control device comprising: a display control unit (Fig. 1, element 6) for controlling display of a state of a machine tool (FIG. 1, element 1) which includes (i) an attachment portion to which a tool is attachable (FIG. 1 element 3),(ii) an input unit for receiving input of an instruction from an operator (FIG. 1 element 8, FIG. 4 elements 9 and 10), and (iii) a numerical control unit for controlling a rotating speed of the tool in accordance with a machining program (FIG. 1, element 7), wherein when an instruction to change the rotating speed or a feed rate of the tool is received during execution of the machining program (paragraph 0042 “the manipulation element 8 is configured to be manipulated to enter a command to change the rotation speed into the NC unit7”), and upon receiving selection of the change instruction, the display control unit displays and (b) the change on a screen (FIG. 7 the change in the rotation speed is reflected in the display line 41).
Hamaguchi does not explicitly teach information on a block or line of the machining program being executed when the change instruction is received and a change corresponding to the change instruction are associated with each other (a) information on either of the block or a line of the machining program.
However, YAMAMOTO teaches information on a block or line of the machining program being executed when the change instruction is received and a change corresponding to the change instruction are associated with each other (a) information on either of the block or a line of the machining program (Fig. 8 and par. [0055]: "In FIG. 8, two measurement data (load meter values) of the same tool and the same machining process are displayed as graphs in the window 10 without processing the time axis adjustment (see graphs (1) and (2)). ), At the same time, the block number is superimposed on the same time axis (horizontal axis) as one of the parameters of the NC program and displayed as a graph (see graph (3)). The left vertical axis shows
the load meter values of the graphs (1) and (2), and the right vertical axis shows
the number of blocks in the graph (3).").
HAMAGUCHI and YAMAMOTO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management 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 energy management system, as taught by HAMAGUCHI, and incorporating a block or line of the machining program being executed when the change instruction is received and a change corresponding to the change instruction are associated with each other, as taught by YAMAMOTO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling to provide a machining state display device that can display a change in the situation during machining in real time on a display in real time, and at the same time, superimposes and displays reference data in the machining process, as suggested by YAMAMOTO (paragraph 0007).
As to claim 4, is related to claim1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMAGUCHI et al. USPGPUB 2011/0135415 (hereinafter “HAMAGUCHI”) in view of YAMAMOTO et al. JP 202117847 (hereinafter “YAMAMOTO”) further in view of KITAGO JP 2012088967 (hereinafter “KITAGO”).
As to claim 2, HAMAGUCHI and YAMAMOTO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the machine tool further includes a detection unit for detecting a control state including at least one of a vibration of the tool and a drive load applied to the tool, the display control unit controls display of time-series data indicating a change in the control state detected by the detection unit as a control history screen, and when an instruction to change at least one of the rotating speed and the feed rate is received, the display control unit displays a marker indicating the change instruction as being superimposed on the time- series data on the control history screen.
However, KITAGO teaches wherein the machine tool further includes a detection unit for detecting a control state including at least one of a vibration of the tool and a drive load applied to the tool, the display control unit controls display of time-series data indicating a change in the control state detected by the detection unit as a control history screen, and when an instruction to change at least one of the rotating speed and the feed rate is received, the display control unit displays a marker indicating the change instruction as being superimposed on the time- series data on the control history screen (paragraph 0017-0019, 0024-0026 and FIG. 4 and 5).
HAMAGUCHI, YAMAMOTO and KITAGO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to energy management 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 energy management system, as taught by HAMAGUCHI and YAMAMOTO, and incorporating a vibration of the tool and a drive load applied to the tool, the display control unit controls display of time-series data indicating a change in the control state detected, as taught by KITAGO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling to provide a machining state display device that can display a change in the situation during machining in real time on a display in real time, and at the same time, superimposes and displays reference data in the machining process, as suggested by KITAGO (paragraph 0007).
As to claim 3, HAMAGUCHI, YAMAMOTO and KITAGO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
KITAGO further teaches wherein the display control unit displays a change history check screen including the control history screen and a change application screen indicating the change, the display control unit displays markers indicating change instructions on the control history screen in a form of input objects for receiving an input of selection made by an operator, and when any one of the markers is selected, the display control unit displays a change associated with the selected marker as the change ap- plication screen (FIG. 4 and paragraph 0017-0020).
As to claim 4, is related to claim1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
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.
Weill USPGPUB 2007/0083284 teaches a method for creating a display for a valuable item. On one example, the method includes the steps of selecting an item to be display, selecting a base material to create a display, creating a three dimensional map of the item to be displayed, and milling the base using an instruction program to create a cavity within the base that is configured and adapted to receive the valuable item. The present invention is also directed to a novel base display for displaying an item of value.
Henning USPGPUB 20150205290 A1 teaches a facility for automated modelling of the cutting process for a particular material to be cut by a beam cutting tool, such as a waterjet cutting system, from empirical data to predict aspects of the waterjet's effect on the workpiece across a range of material thicknesses, across a range of cutting geometries, and across a range of cutting quality levels, all of which may be broader than, and independent of the actual requirements for a target workpiece, is described.
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