DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed 08/07/2024, in which claims 1-8 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 08/07/2024 and 02/24/2025.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the control unit performs the semi-closed loop control so as to apply the vibration component to the drive subject over a set period within a period during which the drive subject is stopped in the target position after reaching the target position.” It is not clear how a vibration, which is a movement, is applied for a drive during a period that the is stopped. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being broadly interpreted to include applying a vibration component immediately or after a drive has stopped.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the control unit performs the semi-closed loop control in a vibration condition determination mode for determining vibration conditions of the vibration component using each of a plurality of candidates of the vibration conditions as the vibration conditions, detects a torque generated by the servo motor when the drive subject stops in the target position, and determines the candidates, from among the plurality of candidates, with which the torque is lower than a reference torque as the vibration conditions.” It is not clear how vibrations conditions are determined from a plurality of candidates of the same vibration conditions that need be determined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being broadly interpreted to include any determination of frequencies with regards to torque.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2019/0033816 to Yamamoto (hereinafter Yamamoto), in view of Japanese Application Publication No. JP2010173014A to Yonezu et al., (hereinafter Yonezu. English translation of JP2010173014A is included and cited in this office action).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a machine tool for machining a workpiece using a tool (Machining tool for workpiece, see P27, Yamamoto), comprising:
a guide mechanism for guiding at least one drive subject among the tool and the workpiece (A feed axis mechanism along which a tool subject is guided with respect to the workpiece, see P28, p29 Yamamoto);
a servo motor that moves the drive subject guided by the guide mechanism (Servomotor that drives the feed mechanism, see P29, Yamamoto);
and a control unit (Control device, see P27, 30, Yamamoto) that performs loop control on the servo motor so as to move the drive subject from an initial position to a target position (Tool is moved from a position to an ending target position by feedback (loop) control, see p71, p31-32, p74, p36, P27-30, Fig. 9, p5, Yamamoto), wherein the control unit performs the loop control so as to apply to movement of the drive subject a vibration component (Oscillation vibration command added to position of tool movement, see p76, p36, p34, p84, 75, p60, Yamamoto) with which, from a midway position between the initial position and the target position to the target position (Oscillation command can be applied after a delay in position, see p102, Fig. 9, p91, Yamamoto), an advancing motion toward the target position and a retreating motion opposite to the advancing motion are performed repeatedly (Movement is in a back and forth manned and oscillating back forth advancing motion, and performed in a repeating pattern, see Fig. 1 Z-axis movement directions, Fig. 9, Fig. 5, p63, Yamamoto).
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach a semi-closed loop.
However, Yonezu from the same or similar field of machine tool control, teaches a semi-closed loop (Semi-closed loop position control in machine tool control, see P48, Yonezu).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine tool and control as described by Yamamoto and incorporating a semi-closed loop, as taught by Yonezu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to substitute a known position based control technique for an equivalent technique capable of providing position based control and can also include position deviation (see p48, Yonezu).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yamamoto and Yonezu teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein a control unit performs loop control so as to apply a vibration component to a drive subject over a set period within a period during which the drive subject is stopped in a target position after reaching the target position (Oscillation command can be applied for a period after decelerating to a target stopping position, such as at time t3 in Fig. 11A, see Fig. 11A, p103, p102, p74, Yamamoto).
Yonezu further teaches a semi-closed loop (Semi-closed loop position control in machine tool control, see P48, Yonezu).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine tool and control as described by the combination that includes Yamamoto and incorporating a semi-closed loop, as taught by Yonezu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to substitute a known position based control technique for an equivalent technique capable of providing position based control and can also include position deviation (see p48, Yonezu).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yamamoto and Yonezu teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Yamamoto further teaches wherein an control unit performs a loop control in a vibration condition determination mode for determining vibration conditions of a vibration component using each of a plurality of candidates of the vibration conditions as the vibration conditions, detects a torque generated by the servo motor when a drive subject stops in a target position, and determines the candidates, from among the plurality of candidates, with which the torque is lower than a reference torque as the vibration conditions (A reduced torque from an optimal oscillation frequency condition used from among a range of (candidate) oscillation frequency, see p66-68, 133, p74, Yamamoto).
Yonezu further teaches a semi-closed loop (Semi-closed loop position control in machine tool control, see P48, Yonezu).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine tool and control as described by the combination that includes Yamamoto and incorporating a semi-closed loop, as taught by Yonezu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to substitute a known position based control technique for an equivalent technique capable of providing position based control and can also include position deviation (see p48, Yonezu).
Claim 4 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, in view of Yonezu, and in further view of “Condition Monitoring of Machine Tool Feed Drives: A Review” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, OCTOBER 2022, Vol. 144, Pgs. 100802-1 to 100802-28, by Butler et. al, (hereinafter Butler, and wherein page numbers of the Butler reference will be cited from 1 to 28 (i.e., by excluding the “100802” from cited page numbers)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yamamoto and Yonezu teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein a frequency of a vibration component is included in a resonance frequency band in which resonance can occur in a part of a machine tool that holds a drive subject.
However, Butler from the same or similar field of machine tools, teaches wherein a frequency of a vibration component is included in a resonance frequency band in which resonance can occur in a part of a machine tool that holds a drive subject (Vibration of a component of a machine tool used in tool movement can be within a resonance frequency, see Pg. 13 1st Column of Sec. 5.1.1, Butler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine tool and control as described by the combination that includes Yamamoto and incorporating a vibration in a resonance frequency, as taught by Butler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider a frequency that can manifest due to wear so as to better counteract backlash or wear affecting quality of machining (see pg. 13 first column; Pg. 13 1st Column of Sec. 5.1.1, Butler).
Claim 6 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yamamoto and Yonezu teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein, in a vibration condition determination mode for determining a frequency of a vibration component, a control unit inputs a current command having sweep frequency variation into a semi-closed loop, detects a resonance frequency occurring in a part of a machine tool that holds a drive subject, and determines a detected resonance frequency as the frequency of the vibration component.
However, Butler from the same or similar field of machine tools, teaches wherein, in a vibration condition determination mode for determining a frequency of a vibration component, a control unit inputs a current command having sweep frequency variation into a semi-closed loop, detects a resonance frequency occurring in a part of a machine tool that holds a drive subject, and determines a detected resonance frequency as the frequency of the vibration component (Vibration determined within a resonance frequency for a driven component of a machine tool by experimentation of load driving the machine tool controlled under semi-loop control, see Pg. 15 Col. 2 second to last para.; pg. 17 Col. 1; Pg. 13 1st Column of Sec. 5.1.1, Butler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine tool and control as described by the combination that includes Yamamoto and incorporating resonance frequency vibration determination, as taught by Butler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider a frequency that can manifest due to wear so as to better counteract backlash or wear affecting quality of machining (see pg. 13 first column; Pg. 13 1st Column of Sec. 5.1.1, Pg. 15; pg. 17, Butler).
Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2016/0266567 teaches Machine tool control device that includes calculation of calculates a phase difference between a vibrational forward-moving position and a vibrational backward-moving position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
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 E Fennema can be reached at (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 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights