DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
2. Claims 1-7 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “oscillation axis selection unit that selects – corresponding to element 13 in Fig. 1”, “output unit that outputs – corresponding to element 902 in Fig. 9”, “retainer unit that retains – corresponding to element 12 in Fig. 1”, “setting input unit that sets – corresponding to element 11 in Fig. 1” and “oscillation control unit that performs – corresponding to element 14 in Fig. 1” in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim limitation “output unit” and “output step of” in claims 1 and 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3 are also rejected because they depend on a base claim that is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statuary subject matter.
Claim 7 is drawn to a “computer program", per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto; US 2020/0016712) in view of Uenishi (US 2016/0039014).
For claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an information processing device [E.g. 0025: a machine tool 10 and the controller 20 which controls the machine tool 10, 0030] comprising:
an oscillation axis selection unit that selects, from among a plurality of feed axes, one specific axis as an oscillation axis for oscillating cutting that is performed by oscillating only one specific axis, or abstains from selecting any of the plurality of feed axes as an axis to be oscillated [E.g. 0027: The machine tool 10 includes a spindle M0 and at least two feed axes M1 and M2 which perform a coordinated operation with the spindle M0. The spindle M0 includes a spindle motor or a servo motor, and the feed axes M1 and M2 include a servo motor. The spindle M0 and the feed axes M1 and M2 are controlled by the controller 20. The spindle M0 rotates the workpiece W about the center axis line (Z axis) of the workpiece. The feed axis M1 can both feed the tool 11 in the direction of the Z axis (first direction) and reciprocate the tool 11 in the direction of the Z axis, that is, make the tool 11 oscillate. The feed axis M2 can both feed the tool 11 in the direction of the X axis (second direction) and reciprocate the tool 11 in the direction of the X axis, that is, make the tool 11 oscillate, 0036: The intermittent cutting described above means that cutting is performed on the workpiece W while the tool 11 is being brought into contact with and separated from the workpiece W in a periodic manner, and is also referred to as oscillation cutting or vibration cutting. Although in FIG. 1, the workpiece W is rotated, and simultaneously, the tool 11 oscillates with respect to the workpiece W, the tool 11 may be rotated about the center axis line of the workpiece W, and simultaneously, the workpiece W may oscillate with respect to the tool 11. Although in FIG. 1, each of the feed axes M1 and M2 performs both the feed operation and the oscillation operation on the workpiece W, the feed operation and the oscillation operation on the workpiece W may be performed with separate feed axes, respectively, 0009: the oscillation command creation unit creates, when the machining condition indicates machining by an interpolation operation of one feed axis of the plurality of feed axes, the oscillation command so as to make the tool and the workpiece oscillate relatively in a direction along a machining path and changes, when the machining condition indicates machining by a simultaneous interpolation operation of the plurality of feed axes, the oscillation command so as to change the direction of the oscillation with respect to the machining path, 0015: when the machining condition indicates machining by an interpolation operation of one feed axis of the plurality of feed axes, the oscillation command so as to make the tool and the workpiece oscillate relatively in a direction along a machining path and changes, when the machining condition indicates machining by a simultaneous interpolation operation of the plurality of feed axes, the oscillation command so as to stop the oscillation; 0030, 0035, 0037]; and
an output unit that outputs a result of selection by the oscillation axis selection unit [E.g. 0034-0037, 0030].
Yamamoto fails to expressly disclose that the selection is based on tool shape data allowing for recognizing a tool shape, positional relationship data indicating a positional relationship between a workpiece and a tool, or tool-for-use data allowing for identifying a tool to be used, and movement data allowing for relatively moving the workpiece and the tool.
However, as shown by Uenishi, it was well known in the art of machine tools that selection is based on tool shape data allowing for recognizing a tool shape [0053, 0057, 0062, 0070, 0085], positional relationship data indicating a positional relationship between a workpiece and a tool [0005-0006, 0050, 0085-0090], or tool-for-use data allowing for identifying a tool to be used, and movement data allowing for relatively moving the workpiece and the tool [0031-0034, 0022-0023, 0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of machine tools before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto with the teaching of Uenishi in order to enable selecting or not selecting an oscillation axis based on the tool characteristics and thereby improve the selection process, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
For claim 5, Yamamoto discloses a machine tool control device for a machine tool that performs oscillating cutting by oscillating only one specific axis [E.g. 0009, 0015, 0025-0029 0036], the machine tool control device comprising:
an oscillation axis selection unit that selects, from among a plurality of feed axes, one specific axis as an oscillation axis for oscillating cutting that is performed by oscillating only one specific axis, or abstains from selecting any of the plurality of feed axes as an axis to be oscillated [E.g. 0027: The machine tool 10 includes a spindle M0 and at least two feed axes M1 and M2 which perform a coordinated operation with the spindle M0. The spindle M0 includes a spindle motor or a servo motor, and the feed axes M1 and M2 include a servo motor. The spindle M0 and the feed axes M1 and M2 are controlled by the controller 20. The spindle M0 rotates the workpiece W about the center axis line (Z axis) of the workpiece. The feed axis M1 can both feed the tool 11 in the direction of the Z axis (first direction) and reciprocate the tool 11 in the direction of the Z axis, that is, make the tool 11 oscillate. The feed axis M2 can both feed the tool 11 in the direction of the X axis (second direction) and reciprocate the tool 11 in the direction of the X axis, that is, make the tool 11 oscillate, 0009: when the machining condition indicates machining by an interpolation operation of one feed axis of the plurality of feed axes, the oscillation command so as to make the tool and the workpiece oscillate relatively in a direction along a machining path and changes, when the machining condition indicates machining by a simultaneous interpolation operation of the plurality of feed axes, 0015: when the machining condition indicates machining by a simultaneous interpolation operation of the plurality of feed axes, the oscillation command so as to stop the oscillation; 0030, 0035, 0037]; and
an oscillation control unit that performs control to oscillate the one specific axis selected by the oscillation axis selection unit or control not to oscillate any of the feed axes, based on a machining condition and a result of selection by the oscillation axis selection unit [E.g. 0009, 0030-0037, 0015].
Yamamoto fails to expressly disclose that the selection is based on tool shape data allowing for recognizing a tool shape, positional relationship data indicating a positional relationship between a workpiece and a tool, or tool-for-use data allowing for identifying a tool to be used, and movement data allowing for relatively moving the workpiece and the tool.
However, as shown by Uenishi, it was well known in the art of machine tools that selection is based on tool shape data allowing for recognizing a tool shape [0053, 0057, 0062, 0070, 0085], positional relationship data indicating a positional relationship between a workpiece and a tool [0005-0006, 0050, 0085-0090], or tool-for-use data allowing for identifying a tool to be used, and movement data allowing for relatively moving the workpiece and the tool [0031-0034, 0022-0023, 0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of machine tools before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto with the teaching of Uenishi in order to enable selecting or not selecting an oscillation axis based on the tool characteristics and thereby improve the selection process, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
For claim 7, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tezuka et al. (US 2018/0335765; which teaches periodically oscillating the tool or the workpiece in the machining direction of the workpiece by feed axes in advance. Typically, in the number control device of machine tools, an NC program capable of setting machining conditions such as the spindle rotation speed and the feed speed and various parameters is created and stored, and the feed command of the above oscillation operations is generated in accordance with the NC program. Thus, an operator can change the machining conditions and the various parameters set in the NC program in the numerical control device to determine the frequency, amplitude, etc., of the feed command for the oscillation operations).
Horikawa et al. (US 2021/0101240; which teaches a control device for a machine tool capable of performing thread cutting while reducing the load on the machine tool from the oscillating operation, without extending the cycle time, and capable of reliably shredding chips in a case of performing the non-oscillating operation in the present pass after the oscillating operation in the previous pass. A control device for a machine tool includes: an oscillating operation execution determination unit that determines whether to execute an oscillating operation that causes the cutting tool to oscillate in the radial direction of the workpiece; an oscillation command generation unit that generates an oscillation command of the oscillating operation based on a determination result; a control unit that superimposes the oscillation command on a position command of the feed axis to generate a drive command).
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights