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 .
In a Preliminary Amendment filed on June 13, 2024, claims 1-12 were amended, claims 13-16 were added, and the Specification and the Abstract were amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending, of which claims 1, 7, 9, and 11 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 13, 2024 and August 13, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 2, line 3, replace “an operation” with “the operation”.
Claim 4, line 3, replace “an operation” with “the operation”.
Claim 5, line 3, replace “an operation” with “the operation”.
Claim 11, line 6, replace “positon” with “position”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites, in part “…drive shaft simulation circuitry to simulate an operation of the drive shaft on a basis of the torque command; and machining result evaluation circuitry to evaluate the machining result on a basis of information corresponding to an operation of the drive shaft, wherein the drive shaft simulation circuitry outputs, to the servo control simulation circuitry, position information indicating a position of the drive shaft obtained by simulating the operation of the drive shaft,…”
The claim recites that the drive shaft simulation circuitry simulates “an operation of the drive shaft”. The claim then recites that the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result on a basis of information corresponding to “an operation of the drive shaft”. Are the operation of the drive shaft the same? Or does the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates on the basis of another operation of the drive shaft? For purposes of examination, both operations will be construed to be the same. Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
The claim recites that the drive shaft simulation circuitry “simulate an operation of the drive shaft on the basis of the torque command”. However, the claim later recites that the position information indicating a position of the drive shaft is obtained by “simulating the operation of the drive shaft”. Is “simulating the operation of the drive shaft” the same simulation of the operation of the drive shaft on a basis of the torque command or is “simulating” the operation of the drive shaft a different simulation being performed? For purposes of examination, both simulating functions will be construed to be the same. Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
In view of their dependencies to a rejected base claim, claims 2-6 and 13-16 are also rejected.
Referring to independent claim 7, this claim recites similar functions as those of independent claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as those presented above with respect to independent claim 1.
In view of its dependency to a rejected base claim, claim 8 is also rejected.
Independent claim 9 recites, in part “…drive shaft simulation circuitry to simulate an operation of the drive shaft on a basis of the torque command, and output operation information indicating an operation of the drive shaft; machining result evaluation circuitry to evaluate a machining result of machining by the machine tool on a basis of information corresponding to an operation of the drive shaft; machine learning circuitry to generate an inference model for inferring the machining condition from the machining result; and machining condition determination circuitry to determine a machining condition by using the inference model, the machining condition corresponding to a machining result input by an operator, wherein the drive shaft simulation circuitry outputs, to the servo control simulation circuitry, position information indicating a position of the drive shaft obtained by simulating the operation of the drive shaft,… the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result obtained when the feedback control of the drive shaft simulation circuitry is simulated.” The claim as a whole is unclear and indefinite.
The claim recites that the drive shaft simulation circuitry simulates “an operation of the drive shaft”. The claim then recites that the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result on a basis of information corresponding to “an operation of the drive shaft”. Are the operation of the drive shaft the same? Or does the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates on the basis of another operation of the drive shaft? For purposes of examination, both operations will be construed to be the same.
The claim recites that the drive shaft simulation circuitry “simulate an operation of the drive shaft on the basis of the torque command”. However, the claim later recites that the position information indicating a position of the drive shaft is obtained by “simulating the operation of the drive shaft”. Is “simulating the operation of the drive shaft” the same simulation of the operation of the drive shaft on a basis of the torque command or is “simulating” the operation of the drive shaft a different simulation being performed? For purposes of examination, both simulating functions will be construed to be the same.
The claim also recites that an inference model is generated for inferring the machining condition from the machining result. If such is the case, how can the machining condition determination circuitry “determine a machining condition”? If the machining condition has been inferred from the machining result, why would such machining condition be determined?
Also, the machining result is based on the operation information indicating the operation of the drive shaft once an operation of the drive shaft on the basis of the torque command is simulated. What is the difference between this machining result and the machining result input by the operator? If the claim recites that “a machining result of machining by the machine tool on a basis of information corresponding to an operation of the drive shaft”, why would the machining condition correspond “to a machining result input by an operator”? Why would an operator input the machining result be input?
As claimed, the features of independent claim 9, as a whole, are unclear and indefinite and the Office is unable to clearly appreciate the intended scope of this claim. As a result, a prior art search cannot be properly conducted. Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
In view of its dependencies to a rejected base claim, claim 10 is also rejected.
Referring to independent claim 11, this claim recites similar functions as those of independent claim 9 and is rejected for similar reasons as those presented above with respect to independent claim 9.
In view of its dependencies to a rejected base claim, claim 12 is also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... calculate a position command to a drive shaft of the machine tool by simulating an operation of a numerical control device that controls the servo control device, and output the calculated position command;... calculate a torque command to the drive shaft by simulating an operation of the servo control device on a basis of the position command, and output the calculated torque command;… simulate an operation of the drive shaft on a basis of the torque command; and… evaluate the machining result on a basis of information corresponding to an operation of the drive shaft, wherein… outputs… position information indicating a position of the drive shaft obtained by simulating the operation of the drive shaft,… simulates feedback control of the drive shaft simulation circuitry by using the position information, and…evaluates the machining result obtained when the feedback control … is simulated.”
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0029], [0041]-[0050], and [0051]-[0059], for instance, the limitations of the calculating and simulation, as claimed, are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The outputting of the position information is a result of a mathematical calculation performed through simulation.
In addition, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0073], [0074], [0108], and [0109], for instance, the evaluating limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “numerical control simulation circuitry… numerical control device … drive shaft… servo control device… servo control simulation circuitry…drive shaft simulation circuitry… machining result evaluation circuitry…”.
The recitations including “numerical control simulation circuitry… numerical control device … drive shaft… servo control device… servo control simulation circuitry…drive shaft simulation circuitry… machining result evaluation circuitry…”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The features including “numerical control simulation circuitry… numerical control device … drive shaft… servo control device… servo control simulation circuitry…drive shaft simulation circuitry… machining result evaluation circuitry…”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, these claims are directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2 and 13 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites “…the numerical control simulation circuitry simulates feedback control of the servo control simulation circuitry by using the position information, and the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result obtained when the feedback control of the servo control simulation circuitry and the feedback control of the drive shaft simulation circuitry are simulated.” This claim is further defining the abstract ideas of simulating and evaluating as recited in independent claim 1. As explained in independent claim 9, the numerical control simulation circuitry and the machining result evaluation circuitry are not integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. The additional limitation “the servo control simulation circuitry outputs the position information to the numerical control simulation circuitry,…” amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 at 79 (2012); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Such limitation does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the claim recites an insignificant activity of simply outputting position information. This limitation also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 4 recites “information corresponding to an operation of the drive shaft is the position information output by the servo control simulation circuitry to the numerical control simulation circuitry, and the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result on a basis of the position information output by the servo control simulation circuitry to the numerical control simulation circuitry.” Claim 5 recites, “information corresponding to an operation of the drive shaft is the position command output by the numerical control simulation circuitry, and the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result on a basis of the position command output by the numerical control simulation circuitry”. Further defining the information in both claims does not integrate the judicial exceptions of claims 1 and 3 and does not amount to significantly more. The evaluating functions in both claims are reciting abstract ideas for similar reasons as those provided in independent claim 1. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6, 14, 15 and 16, these claims are directed to further defining the evaluating abstract idea as recited in claims 1, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 6, 14, 15 and 16 are not patent eligible.
The functions of independent claim 7 are implemented by similar functions as those of the machining result evaluation device of independent claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to independent claim 1 above also applies to independent claim 7. Independent claim 7 is not deemed patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is directed to further defining the evaluating abstract idea as recited in independent claim 7. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim also does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites, “… calculate a position command to a drive shaft of the machine tool by simulating an operation of a numerical control device that controls the servo control device, and output the calculated position command;… calculate a torque command to the drive shaft by simulating an operation of the servo control device on a basis of the position command, and output the calculated torque command;… simulate an operation of the drive shaft on a basis of the torque command, and output operation information indicating an operation of the drive shaft;…evaluate a machining result of machining by the machine tool on a basis of information corresponding to an operation of the drive shaft; … inferring the machining condition from the machining result; and…determine a machining condition by using the inference model, the machining condition corresponding to a machining result input by an operator, … outputs…position information indicating a position of the drive shaft obtained by simulating the operation of the drive shaft,…simulates feedback control of the drive shaft simulation circuitry by using the position information, and… evaluates the machining result obtained when the feedback control … is simulated.”
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0029], [0041]-[0050], [0051]-[0059], [0081], [0099], and [0108], for instance, the limitations of the calculating, simulation, and inferring, as claimed, are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The outputting of the position information is a result of a mathematical calculation performed through simulation.
In addition, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0073], [0074], [0108], and [0109], for instance, the evaluating limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 9 recites the additional elements of, “numerical control simulation circuitry… numerical control device … drive shaft… servo control device… servo control simulation circuitry…drive shaft simulation circuitry… machining result evaluation circuitry…machine learning circuitry to generate an inference model…machine condition determination circuitry”.
The recitations including “numerical control simulation circuitry… numerical control device … drive shaft… servo control device… servo control simulation circuitry…drive shaft simulation circuitry… machining result evaluation circuitry…machine learning circuitry to generate an inference model…machine condition determination circuitry”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used as recited in independent claim 9, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The generation of an inference model amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 at 79 (2012); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Such limitation does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the claim recites an insignificant activity of simply outputting a model.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The features including “numerical control simulation circuitry… numerical control device … drive shaft… servo control device… servo control simulation circuitry…drive shaft simulation circuitry… machining result evaluation circuitry…machine learning circuitry…machine condition determination circuitry”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in independent claim 9, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The generation of an inference model also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and independent claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites “…the numerical control simulation circuitry simulates feedback control of the servo control simulation circuitry by using the position information, and the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result obtained when the feedback control of the servo control simulation circuitry and the feedback control of the drive shaft simulation circuitry are simulated.” This claim is further defining the abstract ideas of simulating and evaluating as recited in independent claim 9. As explained in independent claim 9, the numerical control simulation circuitry and the machining result evaluation circuitry are not integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. The additional limitation “the servo control simulation circuitry outputs the position information to the numerical control simulation circuitry,…” amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 at 79 (2012); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Such limitation does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the claim recites an insignificant activity of simply outputting position information. This limitation also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The functions of independent claim 11 are implemented by similar functions as those of the machining result evaluation device of independent claim 9 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to independent claim 9 above also applies to independent claim 11. Independent claim 11 is not deemed patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is directed to further defining the evaluating abstract idea as recited in independent claim 11. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim also does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
The subject matter of claims 1-8 and 13-16 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable pending the nonstatutory subject matter rejection under 35 USC 101 rejection and the indefiniteness rejection given above.
US Patent Publication 2020/0133225 A1 to Hada et al. (“Hada”) describes in Paragraph [0032] (“The numerical controller 1 of the present embodiment comprises a control unit 100, machining simulation unit 110, and display unit 130, and a machining program 200 as an object of machining simulation is previously stored on the non-volatile memory 14.”) Hada also describes in Paragraph [0033] (“The control unit 100 is a functional means for controlling various parts of a machine tool 2 (driven by the servomotor 50 and the spindle motor 62 of FIG. 1) based on a worker's control operation of a control panel (not shown) or a command acquired from the machining program 200 or the like stored in the non-volatile memory 14 or the like. The control unit 100 performs control to output command data as a variation of the angle of each axis of the machine tool 2, for each control period, to the servomotor 50 for driving the axis if the command acquired from the machining program 200 urges each axis to move, for example. Thus, the control unit 100 has a function for general control required to control the individual parts of the machine tool 2. Moreover, the control unit 100 acquires feedback data (motor current value, motor position, speed, and acceleration, motor torque, etc.) of each motor for driving the machine tool 2 and outputs the acquired motor feedback data to the machining simulation unit 110.”) Paragraph [0034] of Hada provides (“The machining simulation unit 110 simulates a machining operation by the machine tool 2, based on the command acquired from the machining program 200 stored in the non-volatile memory 14 or the like and the motor feedback data input from the control unit 100. Consequently, the machining simulation unit 110 creates and outputs data as the result of general machining simulation processing, such as relative movement paths for the tool and a workpiece during machining, load on the tool, cycle time during the machining, machined workpiece shape, and the like. In the prior art machining simulation processing, the relative movement paths for the tool and the workpiece are created based on the command acquired from the machining program 200, and the machined workpiece shape as a simulation result is created based on the created movement paths (and tool shape, etc.). In contrast, the machining simulation unit 110 according to the present embodiment further uses the feedback data input from the control unit 100, in place of the relative movement paths for the tool and the workpiece created based on the command acquired from the machining program 200 in the machining simulation processing. The machining simulation unit 110 may further use preset specifications of the machine tool, data on the workpiece, and the like. Moreover, the machining simulation unit 110 may perform machining simulation based on the CAD data in place of the machining program 200. Also in this case, the machined workpiece shape is created based on the feedback data. A generally known machining simulation method may be suitably used for other processing steps or functions in the machining simulation processing performed by the machining simulation unit 110.”)
However, while the prior art shows evaluate a machining result of machining by a machine tool driven by a servo control device (see US Patent Publication 2020/0133225 A1 to Hada et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2025/0238014 A1 to Ogiso; US Patent Publication No. 2022/0019197 A1 to Matsunaga et al.; Kim, N., Kim, H. and Lee, W., 2019. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation for estimation of position control performance of machine tool feed drive. Precision Engineering, 60, pp.587-593.; US Patent Publication No. 2026/0010140 A1 to Arimatsu et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2021/0132581 A1 to Aizawa et al.) the prior art, individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “the drive shaft simulation circuitry outputs, to the servo control simulation circuitry, position information indicating a position of the drive shaft obtained by simulating the operation of the drive shaft, the servo control simulation circuitry simulates feedback control of the drive shaft simulation circuitry by using the position information, and the machining result evaluation circuitry evaluates the machining result obtained when the feedback control of the drive shaft simulation circuitry is simulated”, as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 7.
It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2025/0238014 A1 to Ogiso describes in Paragraph [0011] (“a machining time predicting apparatus that predicts, based on a machining program, a machining time for a machine tool to machine a workpiece by controlling at least one axis. The machining time predicting apparatus includes: an analysis unit that analyzes the machining program to generate an operation command for the axis; an execution control unit including an interpolation unit that manages execution of the operation command and to command an operation of the axis based on a result of analyzing the machining program, and an operation completion determination unit that determines that the operation of the axis has been completed; an axis control unit that generates a control command based on the operation command for the axis from the interpolation unit; a machining time predicting unit that predicts the machining time by measuring a time required for execution of the machining program; and an axis operation simulation unit that simulates, based on the control command, the operation of the axis and to output virtual responses. The operation completion determination unit is that determines, based on the virtual responses, that the operation of the axis is complete.”) Ogiso describes in Paragraph [0036] (“axis control unit 300 generates, based on the operation command for an axis from the interpolation unit 201, the control command and output the control command to the axis operation simulation unit 400. Specifically, the axis control unit 300 generates an acceleration/deceleration profile based on the interpolation data, and distributes the acceleration/deceleration profile to each control axis, thereby providing to the axis operation simulation unit 400 a position command value or a speed command value for each control period of a servo motor and a spindle axis motor that serve as an electric motor drive of the feed axis and an electric motor drive of the spindle axis, respectively.”) Paragraph [0037] provides that (“The axis operation simulation unit 400 performs a simulation of servo control that causes the electric motor drive for driving the feed axis and the electric motor drive for driving the spindle to follow the position command value or the speed command value, and a simulation of an operation of the machine tool. The axis operation simulation unit 400 then outputs the virtual responses to the operation completion determination unit 202. The axis operation simulation unit 400 outputs the control command such as the position command value and the speed command value to the operation completion determination unit 202. The axis operation simulation by the axis operation simulation unit 400 is described in detail later.”) Paragraph [0042] describes (“The position deviation is obtained by subtracting, from a position command Pc that is output from the axis control unit 300, a feedback signal Pf for the position of the machine that is detected by a linear scale or the like. The position deviation is multiplied by the position gain Kp to obtain a speed command Vc. The velocity deviation is obtained by subtracting, from the speed command Vc, a feedback value Vf of a motor speed detected by a pulse coder or the like attached to the servo motor. The velocity deviation is proportionally integrated to obtain a torque command Tc (current command). The servo motor is driven based on the torque command Tc, and the position and speed of the servo motor are controlled with feedback of a closed loop system. The axis operation simulation unit 400 may be configured such that the transfer function 407 integrates the angular velocity of the servo motor to obtain the angle of the servo motor, and the angle of the servo motor is converted to the position of the machine to obtain a value regarded as the position of the machine.”)
US Patent Publication No. 2022/0019197 A1 to Matsunaga et al. describes in Paragraph [0114] (“…in the simulation device 60, it is possible to freely simulate the operations of the synchronous control system 2 including the spindle servo control mechanism 20 and the driven shaft servo control mechanism 30 arbitrarily selected by the user. The simulation processing part 61 simulates the spindle feedback position Ym and the driven shaft feedback position Ys when the synchronous control system 2 performs synchronous control according to an appropriate motion control program or the like. The simulation result of the operations of the synchronous control system 2 by the simulation processing part 61 may be displayed on the display part 64 to be confirmed by the user.”) Matsunaga further explains in Paragraph [0150] (“A simulation device according to one aspect of the disclosure may be a simulation device connected to the control device according to the one aspect and include a simulation processing part, a selection part, and a transmission part. The simulation processing part simulates operations of the spindle control part, the driven shaft control part, the spindle servo control mechanism, and the driven shaft servo control mechanism with respect to multiple threshold values different from each other to perform simulation of the spindle feedback position in the spindle servo control mechanism and a driven shaft feedback position in the driven shaft servo control mechanism with respect to the multiple threshold values different from each other. The selection part selects an appropriate threshold value from multiple simulation results of the simulation processing part with respect to the multiple threshold values different from each other. The transmission part transmits information of the threshold value selected by the selection part to the synchronous control device.”)
Kim, N., Kim, H. and Lee, W., 2019. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation for estimation of position control performance of machine tool feed drive. Precision Engineering, 60, pp.587-593. Describes Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) simulation for estimating the position control performance of machine tool feed drives. HIL improves the simulation accuracy by integrating a real commercial controller into the simulation loop. The simulation error caused by the inaccuracy of the controller model is out of existence in the HIL simulation. The procedure of configuring the HIL simulation, from modeling and parameter identification of the machine tool feed drives, to organizing data exchange between the real controller and feed drive model, is extensively explained. The accuracy of the proposed HIL simulation is experimentally evaluated and applied for the estimation of position control performance, based on the controller parameters. The estimation of step response, failure mode, and effect analysis, as well as the evaluation of the control algorithm, are also performed using the HIL simulation. The results demonstrate that the HIL simulation can not only be used for the estimation of control performance but also for performance enhancement of machine tools.
US Patent Publication No. 2026/0010140 A1 to Arimatsu et al. describes in Paragraph [0041] a simulation device 1 including a “numerical control simulation unit 11 that generates the axis movement command for the machine tool, based on the machining program 10; the servocontrol simulation unit 12 that generates the torque command, based on the axis movement command and the axis movement virtual result for simulating the axis movement of the machine tool; and the module unit 13 that has a form independent of the numerical control simulation unit 11 and the servocontrol simulation unit 12, and is replaceable. The module unit 13 includes: the transceiver unit 131 that receives the torque command from the servocontrol simulation unit 12, and transmits the axis movement virtual result to the servocontrol simulation unit 12; and the drive shaft simulation unit 132 that simulates the movement of a drive shaft of the machine tool, and updates the axis movement virtual result, based on the torque command. The module unit 13 is generated by an external device independent of a system that controls the machine tool, and the servocontrol simulation unit 12 generates the torque command when the axis movement virtual result is obtained, and does not generate the torque command when the axis movement virtual result is not obtained.
US Patent Publication No. 2021/0132581 A1 to Aizawa et al. describes in Paragraph [0033] (“The servo control unit 200 calculates a position deviation that is a difference between the position command having been inputted and a position detection value of at least one of the motor feedback information and the scale feedback information. Based on the position deviation, the servo control unit 200 generates a speed command. Then, based on the speed command, the servo control unit 200 generates a torque command and outputs it to the servo motor 300. The motor feedback information is a position detection value obtained from a rotary encoder associated with the servo motor 300, whereas the scale feedback information is a position detection value obtained from a linear scale provided to the machine 400. The servo control unit 200 does not necessarily have to perform the feedback control with use of the two pieces of information, i.e., the motor feedback information from the servo motor 300 and the scale feedback information from the machine 400. Alternatively, for example, the scale feedback information may not be supplied to the servo control unit 200, but may be supplied to the coordinate conversion unit 106 only.”) Paragraph [0035] describes (“A rotation angle position of the servo motor 300 is detected by a rotary encoder 301, which is associated with the servo motor 300 and functions as a position detecting unit. The signal thus detected is subjected to integration to yield motor feedback information. The motor feedback information is outputted to the servo control unit 200 and the simulation data output unit 105. The scale feedback information is a position detection value obtained from a linear scale 403, which is attached to an end of the ball screw 4013 of the machine 400. The linear scale 403 detects the distance of the movement of the ball screw 4013. The linear scale 403 outputs the result to the servo control unit 200 as the scale feedback information and to the simulation data output unit 105 as position information of the ball screw 4013, which is the movable part of the machine 400.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. 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.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights