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 .
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural elements that “hold” the workpiece and the tool and the structural elements that “move” a held tool. Claim 9 recites “…a holding section configured to hold the workpiece; a tool holding section configured to hold the tool; and a moving section configured to move the held tool relative to the held workpiece”. There is no recitation of any structural elements that “hold” a workpiece or a tool or that “move” a held tool. There is only a recitation that a holding section is configured to hold and a recitation that a moving section is configured to move. The aforementioned recitations only imply that said holding and moving sections are capable of performing the functions of holding and moving. There are no structural elements recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki (US 2016/0114449 A1).
Re Claim 1, Inagaki discloses a method for processing a workpiece 10 with a tool 7, comprising: holding the workpiece 10; holding the tool 7; and moving the held tool 7 relative to the held workpiece 10 in accordance with an NC program including an arithmetic expression to calculate a position of the held tool 7, the arithmetic expression including values for correcting errors in a contour of the held tool 7, the values for correcting the errors in the arithmetic expression are calculated for a plurality of processing points of the held tool 7 (Pars. 0022-0031, Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Claim 9, Inagaki discloses a machine for processing a workpiece 10 with a tool 7, comprising: a holding section 9 configured to hold the workpiece 10; a tool holding section 3, 6 configured to hold the tool 7; and a moving section 4, 5 configured to move the held tool 7 relative to the held workpiece 10 (Par. 0022), the moving section 4, 5 being controlled by an NC program including an arithmetic expression to calculate a position of the held tool 7, the arithmetic expression including values for correcting errors in a contour of the held tool 7, the values for correcting the errors in the arithmetic expression are calculated for a plurality of processing points of the held tool 7 (Pars. 0022-0031, Figs. 1 and 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US 2016/0114449 A1), in view of Barkman et al. (US 5255199).
Re Claim 2, Inagaki does not explicitly disclose discretely selecting a plurality of spots where the errors in the contour are to be measured; and in response to one of the processing points being distinct from the discretely selected spots: using errors in the contour measured at two spots adjacent to each other with the one of the processing points interposed therebetween to calculate an error at the one of the processing points, and using the calculated error to correct the position of the held tool.
Barkman discloses a method for processing a workpiece 22 with a tool 24, comprising: holding the workpiece 22; holding the tool 24; and moving the held tool 24 relative to the held workpiece 22 in accordance with an NC program including an arithmetic expression to calculate a position of the held tool 24; the arithmetic expression includes values for correcting errors in a contour of the held tool (Col. 3, Lines 45-68, Figs. 1a-2); the values for correcting the errors in the arithmetic expression are calculated as to one or more processing points of the held tool (Col. 7, Lines 53-68 and Col. 8 lines 1-5, actual tool profile is analyzed to determine an effective tool profile that will actually affect the workpiece) and selecting discretely a plurality of spots where the errors in the contour are to be measured (Col. 5, Lines 60-65, edge points of the tool are located) and in response to one of the processing points being distinct from the discretely selected spots, using errors in the contour measured at two spots adjacent to each other with having the processing point at issue interposed therebetween to calculate an error at the processing point at issue and then using the calculated error to correct the position of the held tool (Col. 7, Lines 23-40, points are averaged together across the tool edge to get points at 1 degree increments). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method if Inagaki by selecting discretely a plurality of spots where the errors in the contour are to be measured and ultimately using the calculated error to correct the position of the held tool, as disclosed by Barkman to apply a known technique (measuring errors in contour of a tool) to a known method (processing a workpiece by using machine tool positional correction) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Re Claims 3 and 4, the combination as applied to claim 2 remains as previously applied. Inagaki does not explicitly disclose the held tool comprises a ball-end mill or a radius-end mill, the method further comprising: filtering a curve depicting the errors in the contour of the held tool with changing a cut-off frequency on the errors in the contour of the held tool in accordance with a radius of a surface to be processed of the held workpiece relative to a radius of an arc portion of the held tool; and correcting the position of the held tool on the basis of the filtered errors in the contour.
Barkman discloses a method for processing a workpiece 22 with a tool 24, comprising: holding the workpiece 10; holding the tool 24; and moving the held tool 24 relative to the held workpiece 22 in accordance with an NC program including an arithmetic expression to calculate a position of the held tool 24; the arithmetic expression includes values for correcting errors in a contour of the held tool (Col. 3, Lines 45-68, actual size and shape of the cutting edge of the tool is used to perform compensations to the tool path); the values for correcting the errors in the arithmetic expression are calculated as to one or more processing points of the held tool (Col. 7, Lines 53-68 and Col. 8 lines 1-5, actual tool profile is analyzed to determine an effective tool profile that will actually affect the workpiece); the held tool 24 comprises a ball-end mill or a radius-end mill (Col. 6, Lines 1-25), the method further comprising: filtering a curve depicting the errors in the contour of the held tool with changing a cut-off frequency on the errors in the contour of the held tool in accordance with a radius of a surface to be processed of the held workpiece relative to a radius of an arc portion of the held tool (Col. 6, Lines 25-60, Fig. 3; Note: the radius of the tool is used to filter out points that are not actually on the edge of the tool, if a point is too far from the nominal radius it is deemed to be an error and is taken out); and correcting the position of the held tool on the basis of the filtered errors in the contour (Col. 3, Lines 45-68, Note: the actual size and shape of the cutting edge of the tool is used to perform compensations to the tool path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Inagaki by using the filtering of a curve method of Barkman to apply a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Re Claims 5 and 6, the combination as applied to claim 2 remains as previously applied. Inagaki does not explicitly disclose the held tool comprises a ball-end mill or a radius-end mill, the method further comprising: changing a range for averaging at a time of averaging a curve depicting the errors in the contour of the held tool in accordance with a radius of a surface to be processed of the held workpiece relative to a radius of an arc portion of the held tool; and correcting the position of the held tool on the basis of the averaged errors in the contour.
Barkman discloses a method for processing a workpiece 22 with a tool 24, comprising: holding the workpiece 10; holding the tool 24; and moving the held tool 24 relative to the held workpiece 22 in accordance with an NC program including an arithmetic expression to calculate a position of the held tool 24; the arithmetic expression includes values for correcting errors in a contour of the held tool (Col. 3, Lines 45-68, actual size and shape of the cutting edge of the tool is used to perform compensations to the tool path); the values for correcting the errors in the arithmetic expression are calculated as to one or more processing points of the held tool (Col. 7, Lines 53-68 and Col. 8 lines 1-5, actual tool profile is analyzed to determine an effective tool profile that will actually affect the workpiece); the held tool 24 comprises a ball-end mill or a radius-end mill (Col. 6, Lines 1-25), the method further comprising: changing a range for averaging at a time of averaging a curve depicting the errors in the contour of the held tool in accordance with a radius of a surface to be processed of the held workpiece relative to a radius of an arc portion of the held tool and correcting the position of the held tool on the basis of the averaged errors in the contour (Col. 7, Lines 23-40, Notes: points are averaged together across the tool edge to get points at 1 degree increments, meaning that a larger radius tool will have larger areas between averaged points). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Inagaki by changing a range for averaging at a time of averaging a curve depicting the errors in the contour of the held tool, as disclosed by Barkman to ultimately correct the position of the held tool on the basis of the averaged errors in the contour, to apply a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Re Claims 7 and 8, the combination as applied to claim 2 remains as previously applied. Inagaki does not explicitly disclose using either the errors in the contour of the held tool at the processing points or the errors in the contour of the held tool around the processing points in accordance with a shape tolerance of the held workpiece at the processing points to correct the position of the held tool.
Barkman discloses a method for processing a workpiece 22 with a tool 24, comprising: holding the workpiece 10; holding the tool 24; and moving the held tool 24 relative to the held workpiece 22 in accordance with an NC program including an arithmetic expression to calculate a position of the held tool 24; the arithmetic expression includes values for correcting errors in a contour of the held tool (Col. 3, Lines 45-68, actual size and shape of the cutting edge of the tool is used to perform compensations to the tool path); the values for correcting the errors in the arithmetic expression are calculated as to one or more processing points of the held tool (Col. 7, Lines 53-68 and Col. 8 lines 1-5, actual tool profile is analyzed to determine an effective tool profile that will actually affect the workpiece); the held tool 24 comprises a ball-end mill or a radius-end mill (Col. 6, Lines 1-25), the method further comprising: using either the errors in the contour of the held tool 24 at the processing points or the errors in the contour of the held tool 24 around the processing points in accordance with a shape tolerance of the held workpiece 22 at the processing points to correct the position of the held tool 24 (Col. 7, Lines 53-68 and Col. 8, Lines 1-5, Note: the actual tool profile is analyzed to determine an effective tool profile that will actually affect the workpiece, Col. 3, Lines 45-68, actual size and shape of the cutting edge of the tool is used to perform compensations to the tool path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Inagaki by using either the errors in the contour of the held tool at the processing points or the errors in the contour of the held tool around the processing points in accordance with a shape tolerance of the held workpiece at the processing points to correct the position of the held tool, as disclosed by Barkman, to apply a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Inagaki nor Barkman discloses an “arithmetic expression” including values for correcting errors in a contour of the held tool, wherein the values for correcting the errors in the arithmetic expression are calculated for a plurality of processing points of the held tool, as Inagaki does not describe measuring the tool, but instead measuring the cutting edges.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the broadest interpretation of the recitation of the claims Inagaki explicitly discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 9 as outlined in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the instant office action. As the cutting edges are a part of the tool the Examiner construes the cutting edges to form a contour of a tool, thus Inagaki discloses “measuring a contour of the tool”. Particular points of the tool are measured to calculate the position and change said position based on any calculated error.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BAYAN SALONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-60 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/BAYAN SALONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
