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 is a response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/808,802 filed on 08/19/2024 in which Claims 1 – 7 were filed for examination.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) and Claims 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). 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 their 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024 and 03/05/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. 1.72(a) states: "The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible" (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMAMOTO (US 2019/0033816) (hereinafter, Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a machine tool for machining a workpiece using a tool (See Yamamoto’s abstract), comprising:
a guide mechanism for guiding at least one drive subject from among the tool and the workpiece (Yamamoto in par 0028 – 0029 and Fig. 1, teaches that a feed axis M1 of the machine tool 10 can feed the tool 11 along a generatrix of the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece W, as well as reciprocate, i.e. oscillate, the tool 11 along the generatrix of the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece W. The feed axis M1 includes a feed mechanism for feeding the tool 11, and a servomotor for driving the feed mechanism. The feed axis M1 feeds the tool 11 to cut the workpiece W, in conjunction with the main spindle M0);
a servo motor that moves the drive subject guided by the guide mechanism (Yamamoto in par 0029 and Fig,. 1, further teaches that the feed axis M1 includes a feed mechanism for feeding the tool 11, and a servomotor for driving the feed mechanism. The feed axis M1 feeds the tool 11 to cut the workpiece W, in conjunction with the main spindle M0); and
a control unit that controls the servo motor so as to move the drive subject from an initial position to a target position (Yamamoto in par 0027 – 0030 and Fig. 1, teaches that the machining system 1 includes a machine tool 10 and the control device 20 for controlling the machine tool 10. The machine tool 10 has a tool 11. The tool 11 cuts a workpiece in the shape of, for example, a cylinder, a cylindrical column, a cone, a circular truncated cone, or the like. By appropriately adjusting the position of the tool 11 in the direction of the X axis, the machine tool 10 can cut an outer peripheral surface or an inner peripheral surface of a columned workpiece having the shape of an ellipse in cross section. The feed axis M1 includes a feed mechanism for feeding the tool 11, and a servomotor for driving the feed mechanism. The control device 20 includes a position command generation unit 22, a control unit 26 (feed axis control unit), a command block timing detection unit 27, and a machining condition memory unit 29. Yamamoto in par 0032, further teaches that the position command is a command for the control unit 26 to designate a target position to which the tool 11 and the workpiece W is relatively fed in the direction of the Z axis),
wherein the control unit controls the servo motor so as to apply vibration in which an advancing motion toward the target position and a retreating motion opposite to the advancing motion are performed repeatedly to the drive subject for a set period up to a point at which the drive subject starts to move toward the target position from the initial position (Yamamoto in par 0033 – 0034, further teaches that the control unit 26 of the control device 20 has an oscillation command generation unit 23 that generates an oscillation command for the feed axis M1, based on the rotation speed and the position command, such that an oscillation frequency becomes a positive non-integer multiple of the rotation speed and the tool 11 intermittently cuts the workpiece W. The intermittent cutting denotes that the tool 11 cuts the workpiece W, while cyclically contacting and separating the workpiece W. The intermittent cutting is also referred to as oscillation cutting or vibration cutting. Yamamoto in par 0075 – 0076, further teaches that the oscillation command generation unit 23 calculates an oscillation command and transmits the oscillation command to the adder 24 at the established time intervals. The oscillation command calculation unit 23a generates an oscillation command based on the calculated oscillation frequency and oscillation amplitude, and an elapsed time t from the start of oscillation cutting. Yamamoto in par 0084, further teaches that even if servo responsiveness is difficult to improve, owing to the presence of a backlash in a drive mechanism for a tool 11 or low stiffness of the drive mechanism, the oscillation cutting can be performed with high accuracy, and cutting chips can be shredded with high reliability. Yamamoto in par 0091, further teaches that the oscillation may continue stopping for a certain first period of time or a certain first number of oscillations from the arbitrary timing. The stop of oscillation may be started with a delay of a certain second period of time or a certain second number of oscillations).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches:
wherein the control unit controls the servo motor so as to continue to apply the vibration as a component to movement of the drive subject from the point at which the drive subject starts to move from the initial position toward the target position up to a midway position between the initial position and the target position (Yamamoto in par 0091, further teaches that the oscillation may continue stopping for a certain first period of time or a certain first number of oscillations from the arbitrary timing. The stop of oscillation may be started with a delay of a certain second period of time or a certain second number of oscillations. Yamamoto in par 0097 – 0102 and Fig. 10, further teaches that in step S21, the control device 20 determines the presence or absence of an oscillation cutting start command. When the oscillation cutting start command is present, oscillation cutting is started. The oscillation stop command may be issued for a certain first period of time, or a certain first number of oscillations. After a lapse of the certain first period of time or the certain first number of oscillations, the oscillation stop command is canceled. Alternatively, the oscillation stop command may be issued with a delay of a certain second period of time or a certain second number of oscillations).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches:
wherein the control unit controls the servo motor so as to continue to apply the vibration as a component to movement of the drive subject for a second set period from the point at which the drive subject starts to move from the initial position toward the target position (Yamamoto in par 0091, further teaches that the oscillation may continue stopping for a certain first period of time or a certain first number of oscillations from the arbitrary timing. The stop of oscillation may be started with a delay of a certain second period of time or a certain second number of oscillations. Yamamoto in par 0109 and Fig. 10, further teaches that in step S29, the presence or absence of an oscillation cutting end command is determined. When the oscillation cutting end command is present, machining of the workpiece W is completed. When the oscillation cutting end command is absent, a series of processing of steps S22 to S29 is repeated).
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.
Claims 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of KUMAMOTO (US 2026/0008110) (hereinafter, Kumamoto).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches:
Yamamoto in par 0065 – 0067, further teaches learning range for learning control has an upper limit. When the oscillation frequency exceeds the upper limit, learning does not converge and a positional deviation remains. Thus, cutting chips are not produced favorably. Therefore, in this embodiment, it is required to calculate an optimal oscillation frequency in a range capable of performing learning control.
However, Yamamoto does not specifically disclose wherein a frequency of the vibration is included in a resonance frequency band in which resonance can occur in a part of the machine tool that holds the drive subject.
Kumamoto teaches a machine tool controlling machine tool devices (See Kumamoto’s Abstract). Kumamoto in par 0005, further teaches that depending on the oscillation conditions, there is a risk that the frequency of the relative oscillation may match the resonant frequency of the machine tool, thereby inducing mechanical resonance. Kumamoto in par 0048, further teaches that the oscillation switching unit 26, upon determining an unstable state, executes at least one of the processing for changing the command frequency or the processing for reducing the command amplitude, as the switching processing. In a case of changing the command frequency, the frequency of the relative oscillation is shifted away from the resonant frequency of the machine tool 80, thereby allowing for avoiding mechanical resonance. In a case of reducing the command amplitude, the amplitude of the relative oscillation is suppressed, thereby allowing for reducing mechanical resonance. Therefore, mechanical resonance can be suppressed by these processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Kumamoto with the teachings as in Yamamoto to effectively suppress resonance frequency in Yamamoto as disclosed in Kumamoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively avoid resonance frequency in the oscillation, thus preventing defects in the processing of the workpiece stoppage of the machine tool or damage to the cutting tool (See Kumamoto’s par 0005).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 2. Yamamoto further teaches:
Yamamoto in par 0065 – 0067, further teaches learning range for learning control has an upper limit. When the oscillation frequency exceeds the upper limit, learning does not converge and a positional deviation remains. Thus, cutting chips are not produced favorably. Therefore, in this embodiment, it is required to calculate an optimal oscillation frequency in a range capable of performing learning control.
However, Yamamoto does not specifically disclose wherein a frequency of the vibration is included in a resonance frequency band in which resonance can occur in a part of the machine tool that holds the drive subject.
Kumamoto teaches a machine tool controlling machine tool devices (See Kumamoto’s Abstract). Kumamoto in par 0005, further teaches that depending on the oscillation conditions, there is a risk that the frequency of the relative oscillation may match the resonant frequency of the machine tool, thereby inducing mechanical resonance. Kumamoto in par 0048, further teaches that the oscillation switching unit 26, upon determining an unstable state, executes at least one of the processing for changing the command frequency or the processing for reducing the command amplitude, as the switching processing. In a case of changing the command frequency, the frequency of the relative oscillation is shifted away from the resonant frequency of the machine tool 80, thereby allowing for avoiding mechanical resonance. In a case of reducing the command amplitude, the amplitude of the relative oscillation is suppressed, thereby allowing for reducing mechanical resonance. Therefore, mechanical resonance can be suppressed by these processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Kumamoto with the teachings as in Yamamoto to effectively suppress resonance frequency in Yamamoto as disclosed in Kumamoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively avoid resonance frequency in the oscillation, thus preventing defects in the processing of the workpiece stoppage of the machine tool or damage to the cutting tool (See Kumamoto’s par 0005).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the limitations in parent Claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches:
wherein the control unit performs closed loop control on the servo motor in order to move the drive subject from the initial position to the target position (Yamamoto in par 0091, further teaches that the oscillation may continue stopping for a certain first period of time or a certain first number of oscillations from the arbitrary timing. The stop of oscillation may be started with a delay of a certain second period of time or a certain second number of oscillations. Yamamoto in par 0109 and Fig. 10, further teaches that in step S29, the presence or absence of an oscillation cutting end command is determined. When the oscillation cutting end command is present, machining of the workpiece W is completed. When the oscillation cutting end command is absent, a series of processing of steps S22 to S29 is repeated), and
However, Yamamoto does not specifically disclose in a frequency determination mode for determining the frequency of the vibration, the control unit detects a resonance frequency occurring in a part of the machine tool that holds the drive subject by inputting a current command having sweep frequency variation into a closed loop, and determines the detected resonance frequency as the frequency of the vibration.
Kamamoto in par 0042, teaches that the vibration frequency of the command relative position Pc is referred to as the “command frequency”. The oscillation switching unit 26 transmits at least one of a command to change the command frequency or a command to reduce the command amplitude, as the switching command Cs, to the oscillation command unit 28. The oscillation command unit 28 switches the oscillation conditions of the relative oscillation, based on this switching command Cs.
Kumamoto in par 0048, further teaches that the oscillation switching unit 26, upon determining an unstable state, executes at least one of the processing for changing the command frequency or the processing for reducing the command amplitude, as the switching processing. In a case of changing the command frequency, the frequency of the relative oscillation is shifted away from the resonant frequency of the machine tool 80, thereby allowing for avoiding mechanical resonance. In a case of reducing the command amplitude, the amplitude of the relative oscillation is suppressed, thereby allowing for reducing mechanical resonance. Therefore, mechanical resonance can be suppressed by these processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Kumamoto with the teachings as in Yamamoto to effectively suppress resonance frequency in Yamamoto as disclosed in Kumamoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively avoid resonance frequency in the oscillation, thus preventing defects in the processing of the workpiece stoppage of the machine tool or damage to the cutting tool (See Kumamoto’s par 0005).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the limitations in parent Claim 2. Yamamoto further teaches:
wherein the control unit performs closed loop control on the servo motor in order to move the drive subject from the initial position to the target position (Yamamoto in par 0091, further teaches that the oscillation may continue stopping for a certain first period of time or a certain first number of oscillations from the arbitrary timing. The stop of oscillation may be started with a delay of a certain second period of time or a certain second number of oscillations. Yamamoto in par 0109 and Fig. 10, further teaches that in step S29, the presence or absence of an oscillation cutting end command is determined. When the oscillation cutting end command is present, machining of the workpiece W is completed. When the oscillation cutting end command is absent, a series of processing of steps S22 to S29 is repeated), and
However, Yamamoto does not specifically disclose in a frequency determination mode for determining the frequency of the vibration, the control unit detects a resonance frequency occurring in a part of the machine tool that holds the drive subject by inputting a current command having sweep frequency variation into a closed loop, and determines the detected resonance frequency as the frequency of the vibration.
Kamamoto in par 0042, teaches that the vibration frequency of the command relative position Pc is referred to as the “command frequency”. The oscillation switching unit 26 transmits at least one of a command to change the command frequency or a command to reduce the command amplitude, as the switching command Cs, to the oscillation command unit 28. The oscillation command unit 28 switches the oscillation conditions of the relative oscillation, based on this switching command Cs.
Kumamoto in par 0048, further teaches that the oscillation switching unit 26, upon determining an unstable state, executes at least one of the processing for changing the command frequency or the processing for reducing the command amplitude, as the switching processing. In a case of changing the command frequency, the frequency of the relative oscillation is shifted away from the resonant frequency of the machine tool 80, thereby allowing for avoiding mechanical resonance. In a case of reducing the command amplitude, the amplitude of the relative oscillation is suppressed, thereby allowing for reducing mechanical resonance. Therefore, mechanical resonance can be suppressed by these processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Kumamoto with the teachings as in Yamamoto to effectively suppress resonance frequency in Yamamoto as disclosed in Kumamoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively avoid resonance frequency in the oscillation, thus preventing defects in the processing of the workpiece stoppage of the machine tool or damage to the cutting tool (See Kumamoto’s par 0005).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights