DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. This office action is response to the submission on 8/23/2024.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/23/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the strategy-generating model” in line 7. For the purposes of examination, examiner interprets this term to be introduced in this line.
Claim 8: There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first recommended strategy” in lines 3-4. Examiner believes this was meant to be “the first recommended machining strategy” which was introduced in claim 7, line 15 (typo) and interprets it as such.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the average torque” in line 19. Examiner believes this was meant to be “the actual average torque” which was introduced in line 16 (typo) and interprets it as such.
Claim 18: There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first tool load” in line 33. For the purposes of examination, examiner interprets this term to be introduced in this line.
Examiner notes that the limitation “defining an upper baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile…” in line 12 defines an upper baseline load profile based solely on the baseline load profile while the limitation “and defining a lower baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation…” in lines 15-16 defines a lower baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation. Examiner believes applicant likely intended for the upper baseline load profile to be based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation as described in specification paragraph [0178].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US20200089191A1).
Claim 18:
Chang teaches “A method comprising: during an initial time period: accessing an initial timeseries of load data captured by an automated machine executing a first tool-cutting process in a set of tool-cutting processes of a machining program defined for machining a particular part, the first tool-cutting process corresponding to a first cutting tool in a set of cutting tools implemented during execution of the machining program; based on the initial timeseries of load data, deriving a baseline load profile representing change in tool load experienced by the first cutting tool throughout execution of the first tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data multiple times to determine meaningful loading data during execution of a machining section and performing a best-fit calculation of the loading run i.e. it determines a baseline load profile for execution of a tool-cutting process in Chang [0050-0054] "Referring now to FIG. 6A through FIG. 6D, a method for capturing an actual machining section in accordance with this disclosure includes the steps as follows. Step i: calculate an average or mean value X 1 from the loading data of the entire machining section, as shown in FIG. 6A. Step ii: locate point X01 and point Xn1, both of which have the loading equal substantially to the mean value X 1 obtained in the preceding step i, as shown in FIG. 6B. Step iii: capture all the loading data between point X01 and point Xn1 to form a first-captured meaningful loading data, as shown in FIG. 6C. Step iv: repeat aforesaid steps i-iii for about 2-5 times. Thereupon, a more reasonable machining section can be defined, as shown in FIG. 6D. Referring now to FIG. 1A, the fit-calculating unit 40 is to process the actual-cutting loading data temporarily stored in individual machining sections. Preferably, by introducing a regression analysis and a statistic algorithm, coefficients for a linear regression equation and corresponding standard deviations for the every axis actual-cutting loading data in individual machining sections can be obtained. In this disclosure, the fitting line and the corresponding standard deviation are the reference for judging abnormality of machining. After the captured time-series loading data are transmitted into the fit-calculating unit 40, the calculation of fitted lines for the first loading run can be performed (step S7). Namely, coefficients for the fitted lines from the first curve-fitting upon the actual-cutting loading data can be obtained, and these coefficients are then transmitted to the calculating and comparing unit 50."),
“accessing a target deviation defined for the tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches a user setting a tolerance range before machining in Chang [0037] "Referring now to FIG. 1B through FIG. 3B, the abrasion-control unit 10 is to define a tolerance range of abrasion for the cutting tool before a machining is initiated, according to expected machining types and precision demands (step S1)."; Chang teaches performing comparison of abrasion a calculation and comparison according to standard deviations and tolerance range in Chang [0074] "Referring back to FIG. 1A, the calculating and comparing unit 50 can base on the tolerance range of abrasion of the cutting tool defined by the user (step S1) to perform comparison of the cutting-tool abrasion (step S8). Calculation and comparison are performed according to the standard deviations and the predetermined out-of-range percentages setup by the abrasion-control unit 10, and then (in step S9) determine if the abrasion of the cutting tool exceeds the tolerance range."),
“defining an upper baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile, the upper baseline load profile defining tool loads exceeding tool loads defined by the baseline load profile; and defining a lower baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation, the lower baseline load profile defining tool loads falling below tool loads defined by the baseline load profile;” (Chang teaches the linear regression equation and standard deviations define upper and lower limits for the loading data in Chang [0083] "In summary, the method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion provided by this disclosure is applied to a situation of “continuous and repetitive machining cycle upon identical workpieces”. Whenever the same machining section is executed, the corresponding time-loading variations would present similar trends. The loading data of individual machining section are used to calculate linear regressive results and corresponding standard deviations. In particular, the linear regression equation defines the fitted lines, and the standard deviations of the fitted lines corresponding to the actual-cutting loading data are to define the upper/lower limits for distributing the loading data."),
“and during a first time period succeeding the initial time period and during execution of the tool-cutting process at the automated machine: accessing a first timeseries of tool load data representing tool load experienced by a first instance of the first cutting tool during execution of the tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data in Chang [0040] "As shown in FIG. 1B, the data-collecting unit 20 is used for collecting loading data from the machine tool (step S2). According to different cutting tools and axial directions, continuous actual loading data are collected. In addition, the line number can be used to divide the loading data into sections. Namely, if the line number changes, then the loading data are divided accordingly." and in Chang [0038] "As shown in FIG. 2, while in performing “continuous and repetitive machining cycle upon identical workpieces”, as the machining goes back to the same machining section, the time-loading variations would exhibit similar patterns. After experiencing reciprocal machining, the cutting tool T would be gradually ground down to present a trend of loading typically shown in FIG. 2. Here, the so-called loading is the push acting on the cutting tool during the machining, and is obtained by transforming detections of force sensors. The loading data is consisted of all loading information varying in a time series."),
“deriving a tool load profile for the tool-cutting process based on the first timeseries of tool load data;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data of a current machining section i.e. it collects a load profile of loads experienced during a cutting process in Chang [0047] "If the determination of step S4 is negative (i.e., the NC code of the machining section is a feed command like G01, G02 or G03), then it implies that the workpiece contact is inevitable upon performing machining related to the instant line number. Thus, the loading data being collected now are the actual-cutting loading data of the current machining section (step S5)."),
“triggering the automated machine to regulate tool load experienced by the first cutting tool according to the upper baseline load profile and the lower baseline load profile;” (Chang teaches monitoring the load data during execution of a command i.e. the command determines the load the tool will experience in Chang [0041-0042] "The, step S3 is performed to judge if the line number is changed. If negative (the same line number), then go to step S2 for keeping collecting the loading data in the same machining section. If positive (different line number), then go to collect the loading data for the next machining section. In addition, the loading data already collected for the now-preceding machining section are transmitted to the data-capturing unit 30, and then step S4 is performed to determine whether the current stage is a state of actual machining (cutting in progress) or an idle state (no cutting at all). Namely, in step S4, the NC code is judged to be G00 or not (G00: linear rapid positioning without cutting). In a machining process, by having the machining section as a basic for collecting data, then machining actions can be concisely separated into individual actions (G00/G01 linear feeding, G02/G03 arc feeding, G04 stop temporarily), such that the collection of the loading data can be simplified into a consequence of performing a specific machining action." and in Chang [0047] "If the determination of step S4 is negative (i.e., the NC code of the machining section is a feed command like G01, G02 or G03), then it implies that the workpiece contact is inevitable upon performing machining related to the instant line number. Thus, the loading data being collected now are the actual-cutting loading data of the current machining section (step S5)."),
“and in response to the tool load profile defining a tool load falling outside the upper baseline load profile and the lower baseline load profile at a first time: interpreting a first risk event at the first time;” (Chang teaches that if an out of range percentage reaches 10%, an alert message is issued i.e. it interprets a risk event in Chang [0039] "As shown in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, for example, while in machining a workpiece, a 5% out-of-range percentage is normally allowed (i.e., two standard deviations (G), or 95% coverage), and thus 2 standard deviations can be defined according to machining demands. If the out-of-range percentage reaches 10%, then a state of relative mild abrasion/wear is hit, and an alert message for meeting the “relative mild abrasion/wear” would be issued."),
“selecting a first action, in a set of actions, configured to mitigate the first risk event; triggering the automated machine to implement the first action;” (Chang teaches re-calibrating the cutting tool if the abrasion is abnormal i.e. it triggers an automated machine to implement an action in Chang [0076] "In step S11, if the comparison result determines that the abrasion of the cutting tool is abnormal (i.e., beyond the tolerance range), then the cutting tool is re-calibrated. After the cutting tool is calibrated, all the coefficients of the fitted lines will be completely erased. Namely, every time after the cutting tool is calibrated, collecting, capturing, fitting and comparing the loading data will be restarted. Thus, the cutting-tool state after the calibration is the reference cutting-tool state for the calculating and comparing unit 50 to compare the abrasion of the cutting tool."), and
“generating a first notification indicating occurrence of the first risk event and the first tool load; and transmitting the first notification to a user associated with the automated machine.” (Chang teaches that related personnel will be alerted when loading data is out of range by the predetermined percentage in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time.").
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.
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, 4-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US20200089191A1) in view of Wi et al. (KR20200043619A) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Agudelo (US20180085878A1).
Claim 1:
Chang teaches “A method comprising: accessing a baseline load profile defined for execution of a first tool-cutting process, in a set of tool-cutting processes of a machining program defined for machining units of a first part at an automated machine, the first tool-cutting process corresponding to operations executed via implementation of a first cutting tool, in a set of cutting tools, during machining of a unit of the first part;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data multiple times to determine meaningful loading data during execution of a machining section and performing a best-fit calculation of the loading run i.e. it determines a baseline load profile for execution of a tool-cutting process in Chang [0050-0054] "Referring now to FIG. 6A through FIG. 6D, a method for capturing an actual machining section in accordance with this disclosure includes the steps as follows. Step i: calculate an average or mean value X 1 from the loading data of the entire machining section, as shown in FIG. 6A. Step ii: locate point X01 and point Xn1, both of which have the loading equal substantially to the mean value X 1 obtained in the preceding step i, as shown in FIG. 6B. Step iii: capture all the loading data between point X01 and point Xn1 to form a first-captured meaningful loading data, as shown in FIG. 6C. Step iv: repeat aforesaid steps i-iii for about 2-5 times. Thereupon, a more reasonable machining section can be defined, as shown in FIG. 6D. Referring now to FIG. 1A, the fit-calculating unit 40 is to process the actual-cutting loading data temporarily stored in individual machining sections. Preferably, by introducing a regression analysis and a statistic algorithm, coefficients for a linear regression equation and corresponding standard deviations for the every axis actual-cutting loading data in individual machining sections can be obtained. In this disclosure, the fitting line and the corresponding standard deviation are the reference for judging abnormality of machining. After the captured time-series loading data are transmitted into the fit-calculating unit 40, the calculation of fitted lines for the first loading run can be performed (step S7). Namely, coefficients for the fitted lines from the first curve-fitting upon the actual-cutting loading data can be obtained, and these coefficients are then transmitted to the calculating and comparing unit 50."),
“and during execution of a first instance of the first tool-cutting process corresponding to machining of a first unit of the first part: at a first time, triggering the automated machine to execute the first instance of the first tool-cutting process according to a first set of operating parameters (Chang teaches monitoring the load data during execution of a command i.e. the machine is triggered to execute a cutting process according to operating parameters in Chang [0041-0042] "The, step S3 is performed to judge if the line number is changed. If negative (the same line number), then go to step S2 for keeping collecting the loading data in the same machining section. If positive (different line number), then go to collect the loading data for the next machining section. In addition, the loading data already collected for the now-preceding machining section are transmitted to the data-capturing unit 30, and then step S4 is performed to determine whether the current stage is a state of actual machining (cutting in progress) or an idle state (no cutting at all). Namely, in step S4, the NC code is judged to be G00 or not (G00: linear rapid positioning without cutting). In a machining process, by having the machining section as a basic for collecting data, then machining actions can be concisely separated into individual actions (G00/G01 linear feeding, G02/G03 arc feeding, G04 stop temporarily), such that the collection of the loading data can be simplified into a consequence of performing a specific machining action."),
“accessing a first timeseries of load data output by a set of sensors integrated into the automated machine;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data in Chang [0040] "As shown in FIG. 1B, the data-collecting unit 20 is used for collecting loading data from the machine tool (step S2). According to different cutting tools and axial directions, continuous actual loading data are collected. In addition, the line number can be used to divide the loading data into sections. Namely, if the line number changes, then the loading data are divided accordingly." and in Chang [0038] "As shown in FIG. 2, while in performing “continuous and repetitive machining cycle upon identical workpieces”, as the machining goes back to the same machining section, the time-loading variations would exhibit similar patterns. After experiencing reciprocal machining, the cutting tool T would be gradually ground down to present a trend of loading typically shown in FIG. 2. Here, the so-called loading is the push acting on the cutting tool during the machining, and is obtained by transforming detections of force sensors. The loading data is consisted of all loading information varying in a time series."),
“generating a first load profile for the first tool-cutting process based on the first timeseries of load data, the first load profile representing change in loads experienced by a first instance of the first cutting tool implemented during execution of the first tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data of a current machining section i.e. it collects a load profile of loads experienced during a cutting process in Chang [0047] "If the determination of step S4 is negative (i.e., the NC code of the machining section is a feed command like G01, G02 or G03), then it implies that the workpiece contact is inevitable upon performing machining related to the instant line number. Thus, the loading data being collected now are the actual-cutting loading data of the current machining section (step S5)."), and
“characterizing a difference between the cumulative tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool and the target cumulative tool load;” (Chang teaches comparing the load experienced during the current operation with a best fit of previous operations in Chang [0057] "As long as the coefficients of the fitted lines and the corresponding standard deviations are obtained, the coefficients, the corresponding standard deviations and the actual-cutting loading data are transmitted to the calculating and comparing unit 50 for online calculations and comparisons upon the cutting-tool abrasion (step S8). Calculation and comparison are performed according to the standard deviations and the predetermined out-of-range percentages setup by the abrasion-control unit 10, and then determine if the abrasion of the cutting tool exceeds a corresponding limit (step S9). Namely, early since the first actual machining cycle, the calculation and the comparison has already begun. In particular, the first machining cycle is compared with the fitting results obtained from itself.”).
Chang does not appear to explicitly teach “defining a target cumulative tool load experienced by the first cutting tool during execution of an instance of the first tool-cutting process based on the baseline load profile;” or “tracking a cumulative tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool based on the first load profile;” However, Wi does teach these claim limitations.
Wi teaches “defining a target cumulative tool load experienced by the first cutting tool during execution of an instance of the first tool-cutting process based on the baseline load profile;” (Wi teaches calculating a total machining load for machining a part based on a load reference pattern i.e. the best fit calculation may be integrated to determine the cumulative load in Wi [0035] "First, the processing load reference pattern (10) refers to a reference value for processing the part and includes a pattern and value from the starting point to the ending point of the processing of the part.Considering the tool status set by the operator, the sensing value of the current sensor and the machining position of the CNC controller are synchronized to generate a machining load reference pattern and machining load values for each position. Then, using integral calculations, the total machining load required for machining the corresponding part based on the machining load reference pattern is calculated."), and
“tracking a cumulative tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool based on the first load profile;” (Wi teaches calculating a total machining load for machining a part based on a load reference pattern in Wi [0035] "First, the processing load reference pattern (10) refers to a reference value for processing the part and includes a pattern and value from the starting point to the ending point of the processing of the part. Considering the tool status set by the operator, the sensing value of the current sensor and the machining position of the CNC controller are synchronized to generate a machining load reference pattern and machining load values for each position. Then, using integral calculations, the total machining load required for machining the corresponding part based on the machining load reference pattern is calculated."; Wi teaches determining a difference between total machining load and tool wear in order to determine whether to change the tool in Wi [0037-0038] "In the next step, whenever machining proceeds for each workpiece, the total machining load is compared with the total machining load of the machining load reference pattern to calculate the difference in the total machining load. (40) Finally, the difference in total machining load (integral difference) is linked with the degree of tool wear to diagnose the degree of tool wear and enable related measures to be taken. (50) In other words, if tool wear is severe enough to cause defects in the dimensional accuracy of the workpiece, a tool change command is issued.").
Chang and Wi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang and Wi before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi because adding the methods of integral impedance of tool, and the method of tool changing time of Wi would overcome errors when determining wear as described in Wi [0006-0007] "A technology proposed to solve the above problems is Registered Patent No. 10-0952619 (April 6, 2010). There is a registered prior art 1), and the prior art 1 detects the amount of current through a specific current sensor on a servo axis (commonly referred to as an X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis, etc., as a feed axis) rather than the main spindle of a machine tool, and determines tool wear, etc. based on the amount of current. After detecting the current amount of the servo axis and establishing a reference curve formed by the current amount through about three experiments, values such as the maximum peak (the pole of the reference curve) and local peak in the reference curve are designated as limit values, and diagnosis is performed by checking whether these limit values are exceeded. However, the above prior art 1 has a possibility of error because it determines whether the processing load is exceeded at certain points, such as the peak of the current amount reference chart. Since wear of the machining tool does not occur rapidly in a short period of time during the actual machining operation, it is necessary to utilize the machining load generated over the entire duration of the machining operation in order to overcome errors similar to the above-mentioned prior art 1."
Neither Chang or Wi appear to explicitly teach “and during execution of a first instance of the first tool-cutting process corresponding to machining of a first unit of the first part: at a first time, triggering the automated machine to execute the first instance of the first tool-cutting process according to a first set of operating parameters comprising a first feed rate and a first cutting speed of the first cutting tool;” or “and based on the difference: selecting a second set of operating parameters comprising a second feed rate and a second cutting speed; and at a second time succeeding the first time, triggering the automated machine to execute the first tool-cutting process via the first instance of the first cutting tool according to the second set of operating parameters in replacement of the first set of operating parameters.” However, Agudelo does teach these claim limitations.
Agudelo teaches “and during execution of a first instance of the first tool-cutting process corresponding to machining of a first unit of the first part: at a first time, triggering the automated machine to execute the first instance of the first tool-cutting process according to a first set of operating parameters comprising a first feed rate and a first cutting speed of the first cutting tool;” (Agudelo teaches cutting information for an operation includes drill speed and feed rate i.e. it operates the cutting tool according to those parameters at a first time in Augdelo [0048] "The CNC system 212 provides cutting tool machine 104 activity information to an electro impact (EI) data collection system (DCS) 212 of the HMI 202. The cutting tool activity information includes, for example, what operations the CTM 104 has performed or will perform (according to the NC program implemented on the CTM 104) with which cutting tools 114 and at which time. For example, in one embodiment, the activity information collected by the DCS 212 includes an identifier of each hole drilled, along with associated information such as the coordinates of the hole, drill speed, a feed rate, drill duration used to drill the hole."), and
“and based on the difference: selecting a second set of operating parameters comprising a second feed rate and a second cutting speed; and at a second time succeeding the first time, triggering the automated machine to execute the first tool-cutting process via the first instance of the first cutting tool according to the second set of operating parameters in replacement of the first set of operating parameters.” (Agudelo teaches adjusting cutting parameters based on wear and a prediction of tool wear after executing the cutting operation of a cutting tool in Agudelo [0061] "Turning next to FIG. 5C, block 510 measures the wear of the cutting tool 114. Block 512 updates the cutting parameters according to the measured cutting tool 114 wear. In one example, changes may be made in the speed of the cutting tool, whether coolant is used with the cutting tool when in use, or the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut different features 118 in the workpiece 116.").
Chang, Wi, and Agudelo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, and Agudelo before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi to include the adjustment of cutting parameters based on wear of Agudelo because adding the cutting information for an operation including drill speed and feed rate of Agudelo would allow cutting tools to be used closer to their maximum life, reducing waste as described in Agudelo [0061] " Turning next to FIG. 5C, block 510 measures the wear of the cutting tool 114. Block 512 updates the cutting parameters according to the measured cutting tool 114 wear. In one example, changes may be made in the speed of the cutting tool, whether coolant is used with the cutting tool when in use, or the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut different features 118 in the workpiece 116. For example, if cutting one feature 118 is predicted to consume 20% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114, and the cutting tool wear is 85% of maximum life, the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut a different feature that is predicted to consume only 15% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114. This allows the cutting tools 114 to be used closer to their maximum life, thus reducing waste.”
Claim 4:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 1: wherein characterizing the difference between the cumulative tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool and the target cumulative tool load comprises: estimating a predicted cumulative tool load for the first cutting tool upon completion of the first instance of the first tool-cutting process based on the cumulative tool load and the baseline load profile; and characterizing the difference between the predicted cumulative tool load and the target cumulative tool load;” (Agudelo teaches Determining using the current wear of a tool and a predicted wear caused by executing the cutting operation of a cutting tool to determine whether the remaining life will go over 100% of maximum life i.e. it finds the difference in Agudelo [0061] "Turning next to FIG. 5C, block 510 measures the wear of the cutting tool 114. Block 512 updates the cutting parameters according to the measured cutting tool 114 wear. In one example, changes may be made in the speed of the cutting tool, whether coolant is used with the cutting tool when in use, or the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut different features 118 in the workpiece 116. For example, if cutting one feature 118 is predicted to consume 20% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114, and the cutting tool wear is 85% of maximum life, the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut a different feature that is predicted to consume only 15% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114. This allows the cutting tools 114 to be used closer to their maximum life, thus reducing waste."), and
“and wherein selecting the second set of operating parameters for the first tool-cutting process and triggering the automated machine to execute the first tool-cutting process according to the second set of operating parameters based on the difference comprises, in response to the difference exceeding a threshold difference, selecting the second set of operating parameters for the first tool-cutting process and triggering the automated machine to execute the first tool-cutting process according to the second set of operating parameters.” (Agudelo teaches adjusting cutting parameters based on wear and a prediction of tool wear exceeding 100% of maximum life i.e. the difference between predicted total wear and maximum life exceeding a threshold after executing the cutting operation of a cutting tool in Agudelo [0061] "Turning next to FIG. 5C, block 510 measures the wear of the cutting tool 114. Block 512 updates the cutting parameters according to the measured cutting tool 114 wear. In one example, changes may be made in the speed of the cutting tool, whether coolant is used with the cutting tool when in use, or the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut different features 118 in the workpiece 116. For example, if cutting one feature 118 is predicted to consume 20% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114, and the cutting tool wear is 85% of maximum life, the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut a different feature that is predicted to consume only 15% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114. This allows the cutting tools 114 to be used closer to their maximum life, thus reducing waste.").
Claim 5:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein accessing the baseline load profile defined for execution of the first tool-cutting process comprises: accessing an initial timeseries of load data captured by the automated machine executing the first tool-cutting process; and based on the initial timeseries of load data, deriving the baseline load profile representing change in tool load experienced by the first cutting tool during execution of the first tool-cutting process.” (Chang teaches collecting loading data multiple times to determine meaningful loading data during execution of a machining section and performing a best-fit calculation of the loading run i.e. it determines a baseline load profile for execution of a tool-cutting process using data including at least a first execution of the cutting process in Chang [0050-0054] "Referring now to FIG. 6A through FIG. 6D, a method for capturing an actual machining section in accordance with this disclosure includes the steps as follows. Step i: calculate an average or mean value X 1 from the loading data of the entire machining section, as shown in FIG. 6A. Step ii: locate point X01 and point Xn1, both of which have the loading equal substantially to the mean value X 1 obtained in the preceding step i, as shown in FIG. 6B. Step iii: capture all the loading data between point X01 and point Xn1 to form a first-captured meaningful loading data, as shown in FIG. 6C. Step iv: repeat aforesaid steps i-iii for about 2-5 times. Thereupon, a more reasonable machining section can be defined, as shown in FIG. 6D. Referring now to FIG. 1A, the fit-calculating unit 40 is to process the actual-cutting loading data temporarily stored in individual machining sections. Preferably, by introducing a regression analysis and a statistic algorithm, coefficients for a linear regression equation and corresponding standard deviations for the every axis actual-cutting loading data in individual machining sections can be obtained. In this disclosure, the fitting line and the corresponding standard deviation are the reference for judging abnormality of machining. After the captured time-series loading data are transmitted into the fit-calculating unit 40, the calculation of fitted lines for the first loading run can be performed (step S7). Namely, coefficients for the fitted lines from the first curve-fitting upon the actual-cutting loading data can be obtained, and these coefficients are then transmitted to the calculating and comparing unit 50.").
Claim 9:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing a target deviation defined for the first tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches a user setting a tolerance range before machining in Chang [0037] "Referring now to FIG. 1B through FIG. 3B, the abrasion-control unit 10 is to define a tolerance range of abrasion for the cutting tool before a machining is initiated, according to expected machining types and precision demands (step S1)."; Chang teaches performing comparison of abrasion a calculation and comparison according to standard deviations and tolerance range in Chang [0074] "Referring back to FIG. 1A, the calculating and comparing unit 50 can base on the tolerance range of abrasion of the cutting tool defined by the user (step S1) to perform comparison of the cutting-tool abrasion (step S8). Calculation and comparison are performed according to the standard deviations and the predetermined out-of-range percentages setup by the abrasion-control unit 10, and then (in step S9) determine if the abrasion of the cutting tool exceeds the tolerance range."),
“defining an upper baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation, the upper baseline load profile defining tool loads exceeding tool loads defined by the baseline load profile; defining a lower baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation, the lower baseline load profile defining tool loads falling below tool loads defined by the baseline load profile;” (Chang teaches the linear regression equation and standard deviations define upper and lower limits for the loading data in Chang [0083] "In summary, the method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion provided by this disclosure is applied to a situation of “continuous and repetitive machining cycle upon identical workpieces”. Whenever the same machining section is executed, the corresponding time-loading variations would present similar trends. The loading data of individual machining section are used to calculate linear regressive results and corresponding standard deviations. In particular, the linear regression equation defines the fitted lines, and the standard deviations of the fitted lines corresponding to the actual-cutting loading data are to define the upper/lower limits for distributing the loading data."),
“and during execution of the first instance of the first tool-cutting process, in response to the tool load profile defining a tool load falling outside the upper baseline load profile and the lower baseline load profile defined by the upper baseline load profile at a first time: interpreting a first risk event at the first time;” (Chang teaches that if an out of range percentage reaches 10%, an alert message is issued i.e. it interprets a risk event in Chang [0039] "As shown in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, for example, while in machining a workpiece, a 5% out-of-range percentage is normally allowed (i.e., two standard deviations (G), or 95% coverage), and thus 2 standard deviations can be defined according to machining demands. If the out-of-range percentage reaches 10%, then a state of relative mild abrasion/wear is hit, and an alert message for meeting the “relative mild abrasion/wear” would be issued."), and
“selecting a first action, in a set of actions, configured to mitigate the first risk event; and triggering the automated machine to implement the first action.” (Chang teaches re-calibrating the cutting tool if the abrasion is abnormal i.e. it triggers an automated machine to implement an action in Chang [0076] "In step S11, if the comparison result determines that the abrasion of the cutting tool is abnormal (i.e., beyond the tolerance range), then the cutting tool is re-calibrated. After the cutting tool is calibrated, all the coefficients of the fitted lines will be completely erased. Namely, every time after the cutting tool is calibrated, collecting, capturing, fitting and comparing the loading data will be restarted. Thus, the cutting-tool state after the calibration is the reference cutting-tool state for the calculating and comparing unit 50 to compare the abrasion of the cutting tool.").
Claim 10:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 9: wherein interpreting the first risk event at the first time in response to the tool load profile defining the tool load falling outside the upper baseline load profile and the lower baseline load profile at the first time comprises: in response to the tool load exceeding an upper tool load defined by the upper tool load profile at the first time, interpreting an overload event at the automated machine; and in response to the tool load falling below a lower tool load defined by the lower tool load profile at the first time, interpreting a disengagement event at the automated machine;” (Chang teaches determining whether the abrasion of the cutting tool is abnormal i.e. it interprets the abrasion as being either too high or low in Chang [0075-0076] "If the abrasion of the cutting tool is determined to be within the tolerance range in step S9, then go further to step S10 to determine whether or not the monitoring should be ended. If positive, then stop the monitoring. If negative, then go back to step S2 for collecting continuously the loading data of the next machining cycle. In step S11, if the comparison result determines that the abrasion of the cutting tool is abnormal (i.e., beyond the tolerance range), then the cutting tool is re-calibrated."), and
“and further comprising: generating a notification indicating occurrence of the first risk event and the first tool load; and transmitting the first notification to a user associated with the automated machine.” (Chang teaches alerting personnel to calibrate or replace the cutting tool in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time.").
Claim 11:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing a threshold cumulative tool load defined for the first cutting tool and corresponding to a maximum tool life of the first cutting tool; characterizing a second difference between the cumulative tool load and the threshold cumulative tool load defined for the first cutting tool; in response to the second difference falling below a threshold difference: generating a prompt to install a second instance of the first cutting tool in replacement of the first instance of the first cutting tool prior to execution of a second instance of the first tool-cutting process corresponding to machining of a second unit of the first part; and transmitting the prompt to a user affiliated with the automated machine via an instance of a user portal executing on a computing device accessed by the user.” (Wi teaches determining a difference between total machining load and tool wear in order to determine whether to change the tool in Wi [0037-0038] "In the next step, whenever machining proceeds for each workpiece, the total machining load is compared with the total machining load of the machining load reference pattern to calculate the difference in the total machining load. (40) Finally, the difference in total machining load (integral difference) is linked with the degree of tool wear to diagnose the degree of tool wear and enable related measures to be taken. (50) In other words, if tool wear is severe enough to cause defects in the dimensional accuracy of the workpiece, a tool change command is issued." and in Wi [0042] "In particular, when machining with a new tool having a non-wearing edge, the integral of the machining load pattern is set as a reference, and the difference between the reference integral and the integral of the ongoing machining load pattern is used for each number of times the part is machined to determine whether tool replacement is required due to tool wear."; Wi teaches notifying an operator of a tool change in Wi [0045] "This allows for more stable and practical management of tool life compared to the existing machining load reference pattern, where the operator designates a specific part and is notified of tool change based on whether the machining load value of that specific part exceeds the reference pattern.").
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US20200089191A1) in view of Wi et al. (KR20200043619A) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Agudelo (US20180085878A1), further in view of Matsui et al. (US20220155750A1).
Claim 2:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above. Chang additionally teaches “and comprising a prompt to replace the first instance of the first cutting tool with a second instance of the first cutting tool responsive to machining the target quantity of units of the first part via implementation of the first instance of the first cutting tool; and serving the notification to a user associated with the automated machine via a user portal executing on a computing device accessed by the user.” (Chang teaches alerting personnel to calibrate or replace the cutting tool i.e. the notification will be provided to a user when the tool needs to be replaced in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time."; Chang teaches the message-issuing unit 60 being part of a computer i.e. the notification to the user is via a user portal in Chang [0036] "Referring now to FIG. 1A, the method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion can be executed by a cutting-tool abrasion-monitoring system 1 consisted of an abrasion-control unit 10, a data-collecting unit 20, a data-capturing unit 30, a fit-calculating unit 40, a calculating and comparing unit 50 and a message-issuing unit 60. The cutting-tool abrasion-monitoring system 1 can be a computer or a controller which coupled with a machine tool MT. ").
Agudelo teaches “further comprising: accessing a threshold cumulative tool load defined for the first cutting tool and corresponding to a maximum tool life of the first cutting tool;” (Agudelo teaches adjusting cutting parameters based on wear and a prediction of tool wear after executing the cutting operation of a cutting tool in Agudelo [0061] "Turning next to FIG. 5C, block 510 measures the wear of the cutting tool 114. Block 512 updates the cutting parameters according to the measured cutting tool 114 wear. In one example, changes may be made in the speed of the cutting tool, whether coolant is used with the cutting tool when in use, or the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut different features 118 in the workpiece 116. For example, if cutting one feature 118 is predicted to consume 20% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114, and the cutting tool wear is 85% of maximum life, the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut a different feature that is predicted to consume only 15% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114. This allows the cutting tools 114 to be used closer to their maximum life, thus reducing waste."; Agudelo teaches a setup interface that includes tool life in Agudelo [0063] "FIG. 6 is a diagram of setup interface 600 for a one or more kits of cutting tools 114 (e.g. tool kits) for operations to be performed on a workpiece 116 comprising an forward section of an aircraft. This setup interface 600 may be presented, for example, on an HRM 202 associated with the CTM 104 of the CSM 106. Column 602 lists an identifying number for each kit. Column 604 lists the cutting tool type, while column 606 presents the cutting dimension (e.g. diameter) of the cutting tool 114. Column 608 lists the serial number associated with the cutting tool 114, and column 610 indicates the date that the cutting tool 114 was set up. Column 612 indicates the initial tool life (e.g. how much the tool was worn) when the set up was performed, and column 614 indicates the current tool life.").
None of Chang, Wi, or Agudelo appear to explicitly teach “based on the threshold cumulative tool load and the target cumulative tool load, deriving a target quantity of units of the first part for machining via implementation of the first instance of the first cutting tool; generating a notification indicating the target quantity of units” However, Matsui does teach this claim limitation (Matsui teaches a display window which displays a ratio of the necessary time to perform an operation to the lifetime of the tool, indicating how many times a tool Is usable in a program in Matsui [0080] "The tool characteristics display window 340 displays, as necessary time 346, the sum of the usage times for which the tool Ta has been used per execution of the machining program 157. Referring to FIG. 5, the usage time of the tool Ta used in the machining process corresponding to the machining process display window 312 a is 3 minutes and 17 seconds; and the usage time of the tool Ta used in the machining process corresponding to the machining process display window 312 b is 9 seconds. Therefore, the necessary time 346 displayed in the tool characteristics display window 340 in FIG. 4 is 3 minutes and 26 seconds. When the tool Ta has a lifetime set, the tool characteristics display window 340 may display a ratio 347 of the necessary time 346 to lifetime 344. This enables the user to know a standard indicating how many times the tool Ta is usable in the machining program 157.").
Additionally, Matsui teaches “accessing a threshold cumulative tool load defined for the first cutting tool and corresponding to a maximum tool life of the first cutting tool;” (Matsui teaches a lifetime of a tool may be a characteristic of the tool stored in the tool information in Matsui [0079] “The characteristic of the tool Ta includes at least one of the following stored in the tool information 158: the material of the tool Ta; the dimension of the tool Ta; the usage state (worn state) of the tool Ta; the lifetime of the tool Ta”).
Chang, Wi, Agudelo, and Matsui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, Agudelo, and Matsui before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi, further modified to include the adjustment of cutting parameters based on wear of Agudelo to include the calculation and display of the times a tool is usable in a program of Matsui because adding the tool load displaying method for machine tool of Matsui would make it easier to find a high load tool in a machining program as described in Matsui [0211] "The tool load displaying method according to the first aspect in a machine tool, the machine tool according to the twenty-fourth aspect, and the program according to the forty-seventh aspect for the machine tool make it easier to find a high-load tool in a machining program.”
Claim 6:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above. None of Chang, Wi, or Agudelo appear to explicitly teach “wherein accessing the baseline load profile defined for execution of the first tool-cutting process comprises: accessing a first set of operating parameters defined for execution of the first tool-cutting process, the first set of operating parameters comprising a first feed rate and a first cutting speed of the first cutting tool; and based on the first set of operating parameters, characteristics of the first part, and characteristics of the first cutting tool, estimating the baseline load profile for the first tool-cutting process.”, however Matsui does teach those claim limitations (Matsui teaches estimating cutting power based on a cutting speed, feed rate, tool diameter i.e. characteristics of the first cutting tool, and tapping resistivity factor i.e. characteristics of the first part in Matsui [0053] "The estimated value of the cutting power applied to tool Ta can be calculated in the manner described below. The nominal diameter of the tool Ta, the tool diameter, the teeth count, Z, and the cutting edge width, which are stored as the tool information 158, will be denoted as D, Ds, Z, and De, respectively. The specific machining resistance value and the tapping resistivity factor, which are stored as the material information 161, will be denoted as kc and Kr, respectively. The mechanical efficiency, the motive power correction factor, the percentage of thread engagement, the flank angle, and the tapping shape factor, which are stored as the machine constant data 162, will be denoted as η, Kc, Pte, a, and K, respectively. The cutting speed, the feed per revolution, the axial cutting depth of the workpiece rotation axis or the tool rotation axis, and the radial cutting depth of the workpiece rotation axis or the tool rotation axis, which are defined in the machining process, will be denoted as Vc, fr, ap, and ae, respectively. The thread pitch set in the information for identifying the machining content of the machining unit will be denoted as M. With relevant items thus denoted, the estimated value P of the cutting power can be calculated on a machining-kind basis as illustrated in FIG. 6. That is, the processor (210) (151) is able to calculate the cutting power parameter based on the cutting depths ap and ae, the feed rate fr, and the cutting speed Vc. It is to be noted that the kind of machining is identifiable from the information for identifying the machining content of the machining unit. In performing a simulation of the machining program 157, the processor (210) (151) outputs the estimated value of the cutting power thus calculated to the machining simulation data 164."; Matsui teaches that power is used when calculating a load in Matsui [0052] "In this embodiment, the usage time of tool Ta, the volume of the cut part that is cut by the tool Ta, the path length of the tool Ta for cutting work, the average value of the cutting power parameter corresponding to cutting power applied to tool Ta, and the peak value of the cutting power parameter will be collectively referred to as load information of tool Ta. The load information of tool Ta represents usage conditions of the tool which cause degradation of the tool Ta. For example, at least one piece of the load information of tool Ta includes at least one of: the usage time for which each tool is used in the machining process; the volume of a cut part that is cut by each tool in the machining process; the length of a path of each tool in the machining process; the average value of the cutting power parameter corresponding to cutting power applied to the tools in the machining process; and the maximum value of the cutting power parameter in the machining process.”).
Chang, Wi, Agudelo, and Matsui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, Agudelo, and Matsui before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi, further modified to include the adjustment of cutting parameters based on wear of Agudelo to include the simulation of load parameters of Matsui because adding the tool load displaying method for machine tool of Matsui would make it easier to find a high load tool in a machining program as described in Matsui [0211] " The tool load displaying method according to the first aspect in a machine tool, the machine tool according to the twenty-fourth aspect, and the program according to the forty-seventh aspect for the machine tool make it easier to find a high-load tool in a machining program.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US20200089191A1) in view of Wi et al. (KR20200043619A) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Agudelo (US20180085878A1), further in view of Nordell et al. (US20210247736A1).
Claim 7:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Agudelo teaches “The method of claim 1” as described above. None of Chang, Wi, or Agudelo appear to explicitly teach the remainder of the claim, however Nordell does teach those claim limitations.
Nordell teaches “further comprising, during an initial time period: receiving a request for a machining strategy for machining the first part defining a set of features;” (Nordell teaches a method including receiving a user input of prioritized aspects of manufacturing an object i.e. the user selects priorities for the strategies the method will generate in Nordell [0062-0064] "FIG. 2 shows a flow chart of a method 200 performed by the system 180 for providing instructions for causing the one or more machine tools 110 to manufacture the object via subtractive manufacturing. The method 200 comprising: Step 210: receiving 210 user input indicative of prioritized aspects of manufacturing of an object, the prioritized aspects comprising tool life or surface quality or object manufacturing speed/time. In one embodiment, the user input may be indicative of relative importance of the prioritized aspects of manufacturing of the object. In one example, an indication of a high number for tool life and indications of low numbers for surface quality and/or object manufacturing speed/time indicate that tool life is the most prioritized aspect of manufacturing the object.”),
“for a first feature, in the set of features, accessing a first set of feature characteristics defined for the first feature;” (Nordell teaches obtaining a model to be manufactured and identifying a feature to be machined i.e. feature characteristics in Nordell [0066-0067] "Step 220: obtaining a model of an object to be manufactured via subtractive manufacturing. In the present embodiment, the model may be a computer-aided design, CAD, model generated by a component designer at a remote computer, and the CAD model is received by the system 180. However, embodiments may also be envisaged in which the CAD model 150 is generated by the system 180, or by a user of the system 180. In one embodiment, the model further comprises PMI 160. Step 230: identifying, based on the model, a geometric feature to be machined as part of manufacturing the object.”),
“based on the set of feature characteristics and the strategy-generating model, generating a set of recommended machining strategies for machining the first feature, each recommended machining strategy, in the set of recommended machining strategies, defining a sequence of machining operations and a set of operation parameters for each machining operation in the sequence of machining operations;” (Nordell teaches obtaining a plurality of strategies for machining the feature by accessing the database to determine ways to machine the feature including a sequence of operations and cutting data in Nordell [0071-0073] "Step 240: obtaining a plurality of strategies for machining the geometric feature 310, 320, 330, by accessing the database 170, the plurality of strategies defining alternative ways of machining the geometric feature; The database 170 may be accessed 240 for each of the identified geometric features. The database 170 comprises strategies for machining different geometric features. As described above, example geometric features are shown in FIG. 3. The database 170 includes a plurality of strategies defining different ways of machining an identified geometric feature. Strategy characteristics indicative of each strategy's impact on the prioritized aspects of manufacturing of the object, such as tool life or surface quality or object manufacturing speed is associated and/or comprised in the plurality of strategies. A strategy may e.g. include at least one of: a sequence of operations including for example facing, hole-making, and threading; one or more machine tools 110 for performing the manufacturing; one or more cutting tools 120 for use by the one or more machine tools 110, one or more work pieces 130, one or more fixtures 140 for holding the work piece 130; and tool paths for the one or more cutting tools 110." and in Nordell [0081] "The strategy may also include means for determining suitable cutting data based on the circumstances and/or suitable or proposed cutting data, such as feed rate, cutting speed, and depth of cut. The cutting data may for example be determined based on the material of the work piece 130, a tolerance e.g. set by the PMI 160, a selected or proposed tool path, and a selected or proposed cutting tool 120."),
“serving the set of recommended machining strategies to a user associated with the request via an instance of a user portal executing on a computing device accessed by the user; and receiving selection of a first recommended machining strategy, in the set of recommended machining strategies, from the user via the user portal, the first recommended machining strategy defining a first sequence of machining operations for machining the first feature;” (Nordell teaches selecting at least one strategy from the plurality of strategies in Nordell [0083] "Step 250: selecting at least one strategy from said plurality of strategies by ranking the plurality of strategies using the prioritized aspects of manufacturing and selecting at least one strategy having the highest ranking."; Nordell teaches providing instructions to the machine based on the selected strategy and that the strategies may be simulated before providing the instructions in Nordell [0093-0095] "Step 260: providing, based on the at least one selected strategy, instructions for causing the one or more machine tools 110 to manufacture the object via subtractive manufacturing. The system 180 may for example comprise a machine code generator 183 for generating the instructions for the machine tool 110 (or the instructions may be generated by the one or more processors 182). The instructions for the machine tool 110 may for example be provided in the form of CNC code. Optionally, a computer simulation (not shown in FIG. 2) is further performed to evaluate the selected strategies before instructions executable by the machine tools 110 are generated."; Nordell teaches a user selecting one of the simulated strategies to generate instructions in Nordell [0103] "In a first example scenario, the system 180 selects four strategies for machining a geometric surface. During the simulation, the performance of these selected strategies is evaluated, so that the user may select between them at the user interaction step. The simulation may for example reveal that one of the strategies is unsuitable due to collisions, while other strategies appear to work. Factors such as manufacturing time, tool wear and precision may be evaluated via the simulation, and the user may make a suitable tradeoff to select one of the strategies. The user-selected strategy may then be employed to generate machine tool instructions."), and
“and wherein triggering the automated machine to execute the first instance of the first tool-cutting process during execution of the first instance of the first tool-cutting process comprises triggering the automated machine to execute the first instance of the first tool-cutting process during execution of the first instance of the first tool-cutting process during a first time period succeeding the initial time period, the first tool-cutting process including a subset of machining operations, in the first sequence of machining operations, executed via implementation of the first cutting tool and defined by the first recommended machining strategy.” (Nordell teaches that when instructions are generated, they may be conveyed to machine tools to manufacture the object in Nordell [0135] "A further advantage of the present disclosure is that complexity of manufacturing can be reduced. When the machine tool instructions have been generated, these instructions may be conveyed to the machine tools 110 so that the object defined by the CAD model 150 may be manufactured. In other words, a user having a CAD model 150 of an object, and associated PMI 160, may employ the system 180 to generate instructions for the machine tools 110, so that the machine tools 110 may manufacture the object. Hence, the user does not need any CAM software or CAM programming skills to be able to manufacture the object.").
Chang, Wi, Agudelo, and Nordell are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, Agudelo, and Nordell before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi, further modified to include the adjustment of cutting parameters based on wear of Agudelo to include the strategy generation and selection of Nordell because adding the Machining based on strategies selected based on prioritized aspects of manufacturing of Nordell would reduce complexity of manufacturing as described in Nordell [0013] "At least one advantage of this aspect is that complexity of manufacturing is reduced by presenting a plurality of selected and/or proposed strategies for how to machine an identified geometric feature of the object, thereby reducing a very complicated manufacturing process planning task into a selection between one or more selected strategies. A further advantage of the present disclosure is that complexity of manufacturing can be reduced.”
Claims 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US20200089191A1) in view of Wi et al. (KR20200043619A) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Iijima et al. (WO2023135796A1) (citations to examiner provided translation).
Claim 13:
Chang teaches “A method comprising: accessing a baseline load profile defined for execution of a first tool-cutting process, in a set of tool-cutting processes of a machining program defined for machining units of a first part at an automated machine, the first tool-cutting process corresponding to operations executed via implementation of a first cutting tool, in a set of cutting tools, during machining of a unit of the first part;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data multiple times to determine meaningful loading data during execution of a machining section and performing a best-fit calculation of the loading run i.e. it determines a baseline load profile for execution of a tool-cutting process in Chang [0050-0054] "Referring now to FIG. 6A through FIG. 6D, a method for capturing an actual machining section in accordance with this disclosure includes the steps as follows. Step i: calculate an average or mean value X 1 from the loading data of the entire machining section, as shown in FIG. 6A. Step ii: locate point X01 and point Xn1, both of which have the loading equal substantially to the mean value X 1 obtained in the preceding step i, as shown in FIG. 6B. Step iii: capture all the loading data between point X01 and point Xn1 to form a first-captured meaningful loading data, as shown in FIG. 6C. Step iv: repeat aforesaid steps i-iii for about 2-5 times. Thereupon, a more reasonable machining section can be defined, as shown in FIG. 6D. Referring now to FIG. 1A, the fit-calculating unit 40 is to process the actual-cutting loading data temporarily stored in individual machining sections. Preferably, by introducing a regression analysis and a statistic algorithm, coefficients for a linear regression equation and corresponding standard deviations for the every axis actual-cutting loading data in individual machining sections can be obtained. In this disclosure, the fitting line and the corresponding standard deviation are the reference for judging abnormality of machining. After the captured time-series loading data are transmitted into the fit-calculating unit 40, the calculation of fitted lines for the first loading run can be performed (step S7). Namely, coefficients for the fitted lines from the first curve-fitting upon the actual-cutting loading data can be obtained, and these coefficients are then transmitted to the calculating and comparing unit 50."),
“and during execution of a first instance of a first tool-cutting process corresponding to machining of a first unit of the first part: triggering the automated machine to regulate tool load experienced by the first cutting tool according to the baseline load profile;” (Chang teaches monitoring the load data during execution of a command i.e. the command determines the load the tool will experience in Chang [0041-0042] "The, step S3 is performed to judge if the line number is changed. If negative (the same line number), then go to step S2 for keeping collecting the loading data in the same machining section. If positive (different line number), then go to collect the loading data for the next machining section. In addition, the loading data already collected for the now-preceding machining section are transmitted to the data-capturing unit 30, and then step S4 is performed to determine whether the current stage is a state of actual machining (cutting in progress) or an idle state (no cutting at all). Namely, in step S4, the NC code is judged to be G00 or not (G00: linear rapid positioning without cutting). In a machining process, by having the machining section as a basic for collecting data, then machining actions can be concisely separated into individual actions (G00/G01 linear feeding, G02/G03 arc feeding, G04 stop temporarily), such that the collection of the loading data can be simplified into a consequence of performing a specific machining action." and in Chang [0047] "If the determination of step S4 is negative (i.e., the NC code of the machining section is a feed command like G01, G02 or G03), then it implies that the workpiece contact is inevitable upon performing machining related to the instant line number. Thus, the loading data being collected now are the actual-cutting loading data of the current machining section (step S5)."),
“accessing a first timeseries of load data output by a set of sensors integrated into the automated machine;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data in Chang [0040] "As shown in FIG. 1B, the data-collecting unit 20 is used for collecting loading data from the machine tool (step S2). According to different cutting tools and axial directions, continuous actual loading data are collected. In addition, the line number can be used to divide the loading data into sections. Namely, if the line number changes, then the loading data are divided accordingly." and in Chang [0038] "As shown in FIG. 2, while in performing “continuous and repetitive machining cycle upon identical workpieces”, as the machining goes back to the same machining section, the time-loading variations would exhibit similar patterns. After experiencing reciprocal machining, the cutting tool T would be gradually ground down to present a trend of loading typically shown in FIG. 2. Here, the so-called loading is the push acting on the cutting tool during the machining, and is obtained by transforming detections of force sensors. The loading data is consisted of all loading information varying in a time series."),
“generating a first load profile for the first tool-cutting process based on the first timeseries of load data, the first load profile representing change in loads experienced by a first instance of the first cutting tool implemented during execution of the first instance of the first tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data of a current machining section i.e. it collects a load profile of loads experienced during a cutting process in Chang [0047] "If the determination of step S4 is negative (i.e., the NC code of the machining section is a feed command like G01, G02 or G03), then it implies that the workpiece contact is inevitable upon performing machining related to the instant line number. Thus, the loading data being collected now are the actual-cutting loading data of the current machining section (step S5)."), and
“and in response to the remaining tool life falling below a threshold tool life: generating a notification indicating the remaining tool life of the first instance of the first cutting tool and comprising a prompt to install a second instance of the first cutting tool in replacement of the first instance of the first cutting tool; and transmitting the notification to the user via the user portal.” (Chang teaches alerting personnel to replace the cutting tool in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time."; Chang teaches the message-issuing unit 60 being part of a computer i.e. the notification to the user is via a user portal in Chang [0036] "Referring now to FIG. 1A, the method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion can be executed by a cutting-tool abrasion-monitoring system 1 consisted of an abrasion-control unit 10, a data-collecting unit 20, a data-capturing unit 30, a fit-calculating unit 40, a calculating and comparing unit 50 and a message-issuing unit 60. The cutting-tool abrasion-monitoring system 1 can be a computer or a controller which coupled with a machine tool MT.”).
Chang does not appear to explicitly teach “deriving a cumulative tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool based on the first load profile;” or “accessing a threshold cumulative tool load defined for the first cutting tool and corresponding to a maximum tool life of the first cutting tool;” However, Wi does teach these claim limitations.
Wi teaches “deriving a cumulative tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool based on the first load profile;” (Wi teaches calculating a total machining load for machining a part based on a load reference pattern i.e. the best fit calculation may be integrated to determine the cumulative load in Wi [0035] "First, the processing load reference pattern (10) refers to a reference value for processing the part and includes a pattern and value from the starting point to the ending point of the processing of the part. Considering the tool status set by the operator, the sensing value of the current sensor and the machining position of the CNC controller are synchronized to generate a machining load reference pattern and machining load values for each position. Then, using integral calculations, the total machining load required for machining the corresponding part based on the machining load reference pattern is calculated."), and
“accessing a threshold cumulative tool load defined for the first cutting tool and corresponding to a maximum tool life of the first cutting tool;” (Wi teaches determining a difference between total machining load and tool wear in order to determine whether to change the tool i.e. it stores a value of when wear is severe enough to cause defects or maximum tool life in Wi [0037-0038] "In the next step, whenever machining proceeds for each workpiece, the total machining load is compared with the total machining load of the machining load reference pattern to calculate the difference in the total machining load. (40) Finally, the difference in total machining load (integral difference) is linked with the degree of tool wear to diagnose the degree of tool wear and enable related measures to be taken.(50) In other words, if tool wear is severe enough to cause defects in the dimensional accuracy of the workpiece, a tool change command is issued." and in Wi [0042] "In particular, when machining with a new tool having a non-wearing edge, the integral of the machining load pattern is set as a reference, and the difference between the reference integral and the integral of the ongoing machining load pattern is used for each number of times the part is machined to determine whether tool replacement is required due to tool wear.").
Chang and Wi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang and Wi before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi because adding the methods of integral impedance of tool, and the method of tool changing time of Wi would overcome errors when determining wear as described in Wi [0006-0007] "A technology proposed to solve the above problems is Registered Patent No. 10-0952619 (April 6, 2010). There is a registered prior art 1), and the prior art 1 detects the amount of current through a specific current sensor on a servo axis (commonly referred to as an X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis, etc., as a feed axis) rather than the main spindle of a machine tool, and determines tool wear, etc. based on the amount of current. After detecting the current amount of the servo axis and establishing a reference curve formed by the current amount through about three experiments, values such as the maximum peak (the pole of the reference curve) and local peak in the reference curve are designated as limit values, and diagnosis is performed by checking whether these limit values are exceeded. However, the above prior art 1 has a possibility of error because it determines whether the processing load is exceeded at certain points, such as the peak of the current amount reference chart. Since wear of the machining tool does not occur rapidly in a short period of time during the actual machining operation, it is necessary to utilize the machining load generated over the entire duration of the machining operation in order to overcome errors similar to the above-mentioned prior art 1."
Neither Chang or Wi appear to explicitly teach “characterizing a remaining tool life of the first instance of the first cutting tool based on a difference between the cumulative tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool and the threshold cumulative tool load defined for the first cutting tool; serving the remaining tool life to a user associated with the automated machine via an instance of a user portal executing on a computing device accessed by the user;” However, Iijima does teach these claim limitations (Iijima teaches a control unit displaying the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached in Iijima [0052] "The display control unit 301 displays the limit wear amount of the cutting tool and the time when the limit wear amount will be reached, as calculated by the wear estimation unit 107. The limit wear amount of a cutting tool and the time it takes to reach that limit wear amount may be expressed numerically or graphically, as shown in Figure 5."; Iijima teaches calculating the time remaining in Iijima [0041] "The wear estimation unit 107 estimates the limit wear amount of the cutting tool and the time when that limit wear amount will be reached. The limit wear amount W<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> can be calculated using formula 7 or formula 9 by setting the limit cutting distance L<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub>. The limit cutting distance L<sub>ｍｉｎ</sub> is not the set lifespan, but the cutting distance that can be used up to the limit, and it will vary depending on the desired machining accuracy, so enter an appropriate value as needed. The time at which the limit wear amount is reached is the same as the time at which the limit cutting distance L<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> is reached. The time t<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> until the limit cutting distance L<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> is reached can be estimated using the following formula 13 (equation 13 below), given that the cycle time t<sub>ｃｔ</sub> is the time required for one NC program execution, and the cutting distance L<sub>１</sub> per cycle time is known. In this way, the critical wear amount and the time it takes to reach the critical cutting distance are calculated from the critical cutting distance and the time it takes to reach the critical cutting distance. Figure 5 is an explanatory diagram showing the estimated wear amount and the change in wear amount under actual cutting force. Figure 5 shows the set lifespan for wear, the limit wear amount, and the time it takes to reach the limit wear amount.").
Chang, Wi, and Iijima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, and Iijima before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi to include the displaying of the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached of Iijima because adding the Device for estimating change in industrial machinery of Iijima would make it possible to predict changes in the machinery as described in Iijima [0009] "According to each aspect of this disclosure, it is possible to provide a cutting force estimation device for a cutting tool that can modify the basic cutting data using data obtained from actual machining, can handle each machining operation, and can complete the estimation calculation within the actual machining time. This makes it possible to apply this to predicting changes in industrial machinery and to preventive maintenance.
Claim 15:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Iijimag teaches “The method of claim 13: wherein characterizing the remaining tool life of the first instance of the first cutting tool based on the difference between the cumulative tool load and the threshold cumulative tool load comprises: defining a target cumulative tool load experienced by the first cutting tool for each instance of the first tool-cutting process based on the baseline load profile;” (Wi teaches calculating a total machining load for machining a part based on a machining load reference pattern i.e. it defines a target cumulative tool load during a cutting process based on a baseline load profile in Wi [0035] "First, the processing load reference pattern (10) refers to a reference value for processing the part and includes a pattern and value from the starting point to the ending point of the processing of the part.Considering the tool status set by the operator, the sensing value of the current sensor and the machining position of the CNC controller are synchronized to generate a machining load reference pattern and machining load values for each position. Then, using integral calculations, the total machining load required for machining the corresponding part based on the machining load reference pattern is calculated."),
“characterizing a first difference between the cumulative tool load and the threshold cumulative tool load;” (Wi teaches determining a difference between total machining load and tool wear in order to determine whether to change the tool i.e. it stores a value of when wear is severe enough to cause defects or maximum tool life in Wi [0037-0038] "In the next step, whenever machining proceeds for each workpiece, the total machining load is compared with the total machining load of the machining load reference pattern to calculate the difference in the total machining load. (40) Finally, the difference in total machining load (integral difference) is linked with the degree of tool wear to diagnose the degree of tool wear and enable related measures to be taken.(50) In other words, if tool wear is severe enough to cause defects in the dimensional accuracy of the workpiece, a tool change command is issued." and in Wi [0042] "In particular, when machining with a new tool having a non-wearing edge, the integral of the machining load pattern is set as a reference, and the difference between the reference integral and the integral of the ongoing machining load pattern is used for each number of times the part is machined to determine whether tool replacement is required due to tool wear."),
“and characterizing a remaining tool load based on the first difference;” (Iijima teaches a control unit displaying the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached in Iijima [0052] "The display control unit 301 displays the limit wear amount of the cutting tool and the time when the limit wear amount will be reached, as calculated by the wear estimation unit 107.The limit wear amount of a cutting tool and the time it takes to reach that limit wear amount may be expressed numerically or graphically, as shown in Figure 5."),
“in response to the remaining tool load falling below the target cumulative tool load, generating the notification indicating the remaining tool life” (Iijima teaches a control unit displaying the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached i.e. it displays the remaining tool life in Iijima [0052] "The display control unit 301 displays the limit wear amount of the cutting tool and the time when the limit wear amount will be reached, as calculated by the wear estimation unit 107.The limit wear amount of a cutting tool and the time it takes to reach that limit wear amount may be expressed numerically or graphically, as shown in Figure 5."), and
“and wherein generating the notification indicating the remaining tool life and comprising the prompt to install the second instance of the first cutting tool in replacement of the first instance of the first cutting tool in response to the remaining tool life falling below the threshold tool life comprises, in response to the remaining tool load falling below the target cumulative tool load, (Chang teaches alerting personnel to replace the cutting tool in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time.").
Claim 16:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Iijima teaches “The method of claim 13: wherein accessing the baseline load profile defined for execution of the first tool-cutting process comprises, during an initial time period: accessing an initial timeseries of load data captured by the set of sensors, integrated into the automated machine, during execution of a first sequence of instances of the first tool-cutting process corresponding to machining of a first set of units of the first part; and based on the initial timeseries of load data, deriving the baseline load profile for the first tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches collecting loading data multiple times to determine meaningful loading data during execution of a machining section and performing a best-fit calculation of the loading run i.e. it determines a baseline load profile for execution of a tool-cutting process in Chang [0050-0054] "Referring now to FIG. 6A through FIG. 6D, a method for capturing an actual machining section in accordance with this disclosure includes the steps as follows. Step i: calculate an average or mean value X 1 from the loading data of the entire machining section, as shown in FIG. 6A. Step ii: locate point X01 and point Xn1, both of which have the loading equal substantially to the mean value X 1 obtained in the preceding step i, as shown in FIG. 6B. Step iii: capture all the loading data between point X01 and point Xn1 to form a first-captured meaningful loading data, as shown in FIG. 6C. Step iv: repeat aforesaid steps i-iii for about 2-5 times. Thereupon, a more reasonable machining section can be defined, as shown in FIG. 6D. Referring now to FIG. 1A, the fit-calculating unit 40 is to process the actual-cutting loading data temporarily stored in individual machining sections. Preferably, by introducing a regression analysis and a statistic algorithm, coefficients for a linear regression equation and corresponding standard deviations for the every axis actual-cutting loading data in individual machining sections can be obtained. In this disclosure, the fitting line and the corresponding standard deviation are the reference for judging abnormality of machining. After the captured time-series loading data are transmitted into the fit-calculating unit 40, the calculation of fitted lines for the first loading run can be performed (step S7). Namely, coefficients for the fitted lines from the first curve-fitting upon the actual-cutting loading data can be obtained, and these coefficients are then transmitted to the calculating and comparing unit 50."; Chang teaches detecting loading using sensors in Chang [0084] "By introducing the method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion in this disclosure, following advantages can be obtained.Avoid tool crushing, and prevent the cutting-tool abrasion from reducing the machining quality Achieve monitoring goal by high-efficiency technique with the least number of pilot machining with the least number of sensors, need only sensors to detect loading (current or torque)"),
“and further comprising: accessing a target deviation defined for the first tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches a user setting a tolerance range before machining in Chang [0037] "Referring now to FIG. 1B through FIG. 3B, the abrasion-control unit 10 is to define a tolerance range of abrasion for the cutting tool before a machining is initiated, according to expected machining types and precision demands (step S1)."; Chang teaches performing comparison of abrasion a calculation and comparison according to standard deviations and tolerance range in Chang [0074] "Referring back to FIG. 1A, the calculating and comparing unit 50 can base on the tolerance range of abrasion of the cutting tool defined by the user (step S1) to perform comparison of the cutting-tool abrasion (step S8). Calculation and comparison are performed according to the standard deviations and the predetermined out-of-range percentages setup by the abrasion-control unit 10, and then (in step S9) determine if the abrasion of the cutting tool exceeds the tolerance range."),
“defining an upper baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation, the upper baseline load profile defining loads exceeding loads defined by the baseline load profile during execution of the first tool-cutting process; defining a lower baseline load profile based on the baseline load profile and the target deviation, the lower baseline load profile defining loads falling below loads defined by the baseline load profile during execution of the first tool-cutting process;” (Chang teaches the linear regression equation and standard deviations define upper and lower limits for the loading data in Chang [0083] "In summary, the method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion provided by this disclosure is applied to a situation of “continuous and repetitive machining cycle upon identical workpieces”. Whenever the same machining section is executed, the corresponding time-loading variations would present similar trends. The loading data of individual machining section are used to calculate linear regressive results and corresponding standard deviations. In particular, the linear regression equation defines the fitted lines, and the standard deviations of the fitted lines corresponding to the actual-cutting loading data are to define the upper/lower limits for distributing the loading data."),
“and wherein triggering the automated machine to regulate tool load experienced by the first cutting tool according to the baseline load profile comprises triggering the automated machine to regulate tool load experienced by the first instance of the first cutting tool between the upper baseline load profile and the lower baseline load profile;” (Chang teaches monitoring the load data during execution of a command i.e. the command determines the load the tool will experience in Chang [0041-0042] "The, step S3 is performed to judge if the line number is changed. If negative (the same line number), then go to step S2 for keeping collecting the loading data in the same machining section. If positive (different line number), then go to collect the loading data for the next machining section. In addition, the loading data already collected for the now-preceding machining section are transmitted to the data-capturing unit 30, and then step S4 is performed to determine whether the current stage is a state of actual machining (cutting in progress) or an idle state (no cutting at all). Namely, in step S4, the NC code is judged to be G00 or not (G00: linear rapid positioning without cutting). In a machining process, by having the machining section as a basic for collecting data, then machining actions can be concisely separated into individual actions (G00/G01 linear feeding, G02/G03 arc feeding, G04 stop temporarily), such that the collection of the loading data can be simplified into a consequence of performing a specific machining action." and in Chang [0047] "If the determination of step S4 is negative (i.e., the NC code of the machining section is a feed command like G01, G02 or G03), then it implies that the workpiece contact is inevitable upon performing machining related to the instant line number. Thus, the loading data being collected now are the actual-cutting loading data of the current machining section (step S5)."),
“and further comprising, during execution of the first instance of the first tool-cutting process at the automated machine, in response to the tool load profile depicting a first tool load at a first time exceeding an upper tool load defined by the upper baseline load profile at the first time: interpreting a first risk event at the first time;” (Chang teaches that if an out of range percentage reaches 10%, an alert message is issued i.e. it interprets a risk event in Chang [0039] "As shown in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, for example, while in machining a workpiece, a 5% out-of-range percentage is normally allowed (i.e., two standard deviations (G), or 95% coverage), and thus 2 standard deviations can be defined according to machining demands. If the out-of-range percentage reaches 10%, then a state of relative mild abrasion/wear is hit, and an alert message for meeting the “relative mild abrasion/wear” would be issued."), and
“generating a first notification indicating occurrence of the first risk event and the first tool load; and serving the first notification to the user via the user portal.” (Chang teaches that related personnel will be alerted when loading data is out of range by the predetermined percentage in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time.").
Claim 20:
Chang teaches “The method of claim 18” as described above. Chang additionally teaches “in response to the remaining tool life falling below a threshold tool life: generating a second notification (Chang teaches alerting personnel to replace the cutting tool in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time.").
Chang does not appear to explicitly teach “accessing a target cumulative tool load defined for the tool-cutting process and corresponding to a maximum tool life of the first cutting tool;” or “calculating a cumulative tool load for the first instance of the first cutting tool based on the tool load profile;” However, Wi does teach these claim limitations.
Wi teaches “accessing a target cumulative tool load defined for the tool-cutting process and corresponding to a maximum tool life of the first cutting tool;” (Wi teaches calculating a total machining load for machining a part based on a load reference pattern i.e. the best fit calculation may be integrated to determine the cumulative load in Wi [0035] "First, the processing load reference pattern (10) refers to a reference value for processing the part and includes a pattern and value from the starting point to the ending point of the processing of the part. Considering the tool status set by the operator, the sensing value of the current sensor and the machining position of the CNC controller are synchronized to generate a machining load reference pattern and machining load values for each position. Then, using integral calculations, the total machining load required for machining the corresponding part based on the machining load reference pattern is calculated."), and
“calculating a cumulative tool load for the first instance of the first cutting tool based on the tool load profile;” (Wi teaches calculating a total machining load for machining a part based on a load reference pattern in Wi [0035] "First, the processing load reference pattern (10) refers to a reference value for processing the part and includes a pattern and value from the starting point to the ending point of the processing of the part. Considering the tool status set by the operator, the sensing value of the current sensor and the machining position of the CNC controller are synchronized to generate a machining load reference pattern and machining load values for each position. Then, using integral calculations, the total machining load required for machining the corresponding part based on the machining load reference pattern is calculated."; Wi teaches determining a difference between total machining load and tool wear in order to determine whether to change the tool in Wi [0037-0038] "In the next step, whenever machining proceeds for each workpiece, the total machining load is compared with the total machining load of the machining load reference pattern to calculate the difference in the total machining load. (40) Finally, the difference in total machining load (integral difference) is linked with the degree of tool wear to diagnose the degree of tool wear and enable related measures to be taken. (50) In other words, if tool wear is severe enough to cause defects in the dimensional accuracy of the workpiece, a tool change command is issued.").
Chang and Wi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang and Wi before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi because adding the methods of integral impedance of tool, and the method of tool changing time of Wi would overcome errors when determining wear as described in Wi [0006-0007] "A technology proposed to solve the above problems is Registered Patent No. 10-0952619 (April 6, 2010). There is a registered prior art 1), and the prior art 1 detects the amount of current through a specific current sensor on a servo axis (commonly referred to as an X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis, etc., as a feed axis) rather than the main spindle of a machine tool, and determines tool wear, etc. based on the amount of current. After detecting the current amount of the servo axis and establishing a reference curve formed by the current amount through about three experiments, values such as the maximum peak (the pole of the reference curve) and local peak in the reference curve are designated as limit values, and diagnosis is performed by checking whether these limit values are exceeded. However, the above prior art 1 has a possibility of error because it determines whether the processing load is exceeded at certain points, such as the peak of the current amount reference chart. Since wear of the machining tool does not occur rapidly in a short period of time during the actual machining operation, it is necessary to utilize the machining load generated over the entire duration of the machining operation in order to overcome errors similar to the above-mentioned prior art 1."
Neither Chang or Wi appear to explicitly teach “characterizing a remaining tool life of the first instance of the first cutting tool based on a difference between the cumulative tool load and the target cumulative tool load; in response to the remaining tool life falling below a threshold tool life: generating a second notification indicating the remaining tool life of the first instance of the first cutting tool” However, Iijima does teach these claim limitations (Iijima teaches a control unit displaying the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached in Iijima [0052] "The display control unit 301 displays the limit wear amount of the cutting tool and the time when the limit wear amount will be reached, as calculated by the wear estimation unit 107. The limit wear amount of a cutting tool and the time it takes to reach that limit wear amount may be expressed numerically or graphically, as shown in Figure 5."; Iijima teaches calculating the time remaining in Iijima [0041] "The wear estimation unit 107 estimates the limit wear amount of the cutting tool and the time when that limit wear amount will be reached. The limit wear amount W<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> can be calculated using formula 7 or formula 9 by setting the limit cutting distance L<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub>. The limit cutting distance L<sub>ｍｉｎ</sub> is not the set lifespan, but the cutting distance that can be used up to the limit, and it will vary depending on the desired machining accuracy, so enter an appropriate value as needed. The time at which the limit wear amount is reached is the same as the time at which the limit cutting distance L<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> is reached. The time t<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> until the limit cutting distance L<sub>ｌｉｍ</sub> is reached can be estimated using the following formula 13 (equation 13 below), given that the cycle time t<sub>ｃｔ</sub> is the time required for one NC program execution, and the cutting distance L<sub>１</sub> per cycle time is known. In this way, the critical wear amount and the time it takes to reach the critical cutting distance are calculated from the critical cutting distance and the time it takes to reach the critical cutting distance. Figure 5 is an explanatory diagram showing the estimated wear amount and the change in wear amount under actual cutting force. Figure 5 shows the set lifespan for wear, the limit wear amount, and the time it takes to reach the limit wear amount.").
Chang, Wi, and Iijima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, and Iijima before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi to include the displaying of the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached of Iijima because adding the Device for estimating change in industrial machinery of Iijima would make it possible to predict changes in the machinery as described in Iijima [0009] "According to each aspect of this disclosure, it is possible to provide a cutting force estimation device for a cutting tool that can modify the basic cutting data using data obtained from actual machining, can handle each machining operation, and can complete the estimation calculation within the actual machining time. This makes it possible to apply this to predicting changes in industrial machinery and to preventive maintenance.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US20200089191A1) in view of Wi et al. (KR20200043619A) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Iijima et al. (WO2023135796A1) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Matsui et al. (US20220155750A1).
Claim 14:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Iijima teaches “The method of claim 13” as described above. Additionally, Chang teaches “and comprising a prompt to replace the first instance of the first cutting tool with a second instance of the first cutting tool responsive to machining the target quantity of units of the first part via implementation of the first instance of the first cutting tool; and serving the notification to a user associated with the automated machine via a user portal executing on a computing device accessed by the user.” (Chang teaches alerting personnel to calibrate or replace the cutting tool i.e. the notification will be provided to a user when the tool needs to be replaced in Chang [0082] "Referring now back to FIG. 1A, when the loading data in any axial direction and in any machining section exceed the predetermined out-of-range percentage at the preset standard deviation selected by the abrasion-control unit 10, the message-issuing unit 60 would then get involved to alert related personnel to calibrate or to replace the cutting tool in time."; Chang teaches the message-issuing unit 60 being part of a computer i.e. the notification to the user is via a user portal in Chang [0036] "Referring now to FIG. 1A, the method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion can be executed by a cutting-tool abrasion-monitoring system 1 consisted of an abrasion-control unit 10, a data-collecting unit 20, a data-capturing unit 30, a fit-calculating unit 40, a calculating and comparing unit 50 and a message-issuing unit 60. The cutting-tool abrasion-monitoring system 1 can be a computer or a controller which coupled with a machine tool MT. ").
None of Chang, Wi, or Iijima appear to explicitly teach the remainder of the claim, however Nordell does teach those claim limitations.
Agudelo teaches “further comprising: defining a target cumulative tool load experienced by the first cutting tool for each instance of the first tool-cutting process based on the baseline load profile;” (Matsui teaches a lifetime of a tool may be a characteristic of the tool stored in the tool information in Matsui [0079] “The characteristic of the tool Ta includes at least one of the following stored in the tool information 158: the material of the tool Ta; the dimension of the tool Ta; the usage state (worn state) of the tool Ta; the lifetime of the tool Ta”), and
“based on the threshold cumulative tool load and the target cumulative tool load, deriving a target quantity of units of the first part for machining via implementation of a first instance of the first cutting tool; generating a notification indicating the target quantity of units” (Matsui teaches a display window which displays a ratio of the necessary time to perform an operation to the lifetime of the tool, indicating how many times a tool Is usable in a program in Matsui [0080] "The tool characteristics display window 340 displays, as necessary time 346, the sum of the usage times for which the tool Ta has been used per execution of the machining program 157. Referring to FIG. 5, the usage time of the tool Ta used in the machining process corresponding to the machining process display window 312 a is 3 minutes and 17 seconds; and the usage time of the tool Ta used in the machining process corresponding to the machining process display window 312 b is 9 seconds. Therefore, the necessary time 346 displayed in the tool characteristics display window 340 in FIG. 4 is 3 minutes and 26 seconds. When the tool Ta has a lifetime set, the tool characteristics display window 340 may display a ratio 347 of the necessary time 346 to lifetime 344. This enables the user to know a standard indicating how many times the tool Ta is usable in the machining program 157.").
Chang, Wi, Iijima, and Matsui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, Iijima, and Matsui before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi further modified to include the displaying of the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached of Iijima, to include the calculation and display of the times a tool is usable in a program of Matsui because adding the tool load displaying method for machine tool of Matsui would make it easier to find a high load tool in a machining program as described in Matsui [0211] "The tool load displaying method according to the first aspect in a machine tool, the machine tool according to the twenty-fourth aspect, and the program according to the forty-seventh aspect for the machine tool make it easier to find a high-load tool in a machining program.”
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US20200089191A1) in view of Wi et al. (KR20200043619A) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Iijima et al. (WO2023135796A1) (citations to examiner provided translation), further in view of Agudelo (US20180085878A1).
Claim 17:
Chang in view of Wi, further in view of Iijima teaches “The method of claim 13” as described above. None of Chang, Wi, or Iijima appear to explicitly teach the remainder of the claim, however Nordell does teach those claim limitations.
Agudelo teaches “further comprising, during execution of the first instance of the first tool-cutting process: triggering the automated machine to execute the first instance of the first tool-cutting process according to a first set of operating parameters defined for the first tool-cutting process, the first set of operating parameters comprising a first feed rate and a first cutting speed;” (Agudelo teaches cutting information for an operation includes drill speed and feed rate i.e. it operates the cutting tool according to those parameters at a first time in Augdelo [0048] "The CNC system 212 provides cutting tool machine 104 activity information to an electro impact (EI) data collection system (DCS) 212 of the HMI 202. The cutting tool activity information includes, for example, what operations the CTM 104 has performed or will perform (according to the NC program implemented on the CTM 104) with which cutting tools 114 and at which time. For example, in one embodiment, the activity information collected by the DCS 212 includes an identifier of each hole drilled, along with associated information such as the coordinates of the hole, drill speed, a feed rate, drill duration used to drill the hole."), and
“and in response to the difference between the cumulative tool load and the threshold cumulative tool load falling below a threshold difference: selecting a second set of operating parameters comprising a second feed rate and a second cutting speed; and triggering the automated machine to execute the first tool-cutting process via the first instance of the first cutting tool according to the second set of operating parameters in replacement of the first set of operating parameters.” (Agudelo teaches adjusting cutting parameters based on wear and a prediction of tool wear after executing the cutting operation of a cutting tool in Agudelo [0061] "Turning next to FIG. 5C, block 510 measures the wear of the cutting tool 114. Block 512 updates the cutting parameters according to the measured cutting tool 114 wear. In one example, changes may be made in the speed of the cutting tool, whether coolant is used with the cutting tool when in use, or the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut different features 118 in the workpiece 116.").
Chang, Wi, Iijima, and Agudelo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of machining cutting tool management It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chang, Wi, Iijima, and Agudelo before him/her, to modify the teachings of a Method for monitoring cutting-tool abrasion of Chang modified to include the determination of a total machining load of Wi further modified to include the displaying of the limit wear amount of a cutting tool and when the wear amount will be reached of Iijima, to include the adjustment of cutting parameters based on wear of Agudelo because adding the cutting information for an operation including drill speed and feed rate of Agudelo would allow cutting tools to be used closer to their maximum life, reducing waste as described in Agudelo [0061] "Turning next to FIG. 5C, block 510 measures the wear of the cutting tool 114. Block 512 updates the cutting parameters according to the measured cutting tool 114 wear. In one example, changes may be made in the speed of the cutting tool, whether coolant is used with the cutting tool when in use, or the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut different features 118 in the workpiece 116. For example, if cutting one feature 118 is predicted to consume 20% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114, and the cutting tool wear is 85% of maximum life, the cutting tool 114 may be reassigned to cut a different feature that is predicted to consume only 15% of the remaining life of the cutting tool 114. This allows the cutting tools 114 to be used closer to their maximum life, thus reducing waste.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12 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 8 and 19 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, and if rewritten to correct the objections pointed out above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asada (US20160170404A1) teaches automatically replacing a blade i.e. cutting tool if an evaluation value is larger than the tool life value in Asada [0064-0065] "As a result of the determination, if the evaluation value is smaller than the tool life value (Step S10: NO), the first threshold processing unit 48 outputs a warning for prompting replacement of the blade corresponding to the evaluation value (Step S14). This enables the user to know that the blade comes to the end of its tool life soon and to prepare a backup replacement blade in advance or replace the blade with a new blade well in advance. On the other hand, if the evaluation value is equal to or larger than the tool life value (Step S10: YES), the second threshold processing unit 49 prohibits the machining by the working machine 5, and/or automatically replaces the blade corresponding to the evaluation value with a backup replacement blade (Step S11). As a result, the blade that has come to the end of its tool life can be prevented from being erroneously used for the machining, and is automatically replaced with a new blade. Moreover, the evaluation value of the new blade after the replacement is initialized in the blade data storing unit 32 (Step S12)."
VENKATESH , K., ZHOU , M. & CAUDILL , R.J. Design of artificial neural networks for tool wear monitoring. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 8, 215–226 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018573224739 teaches an artificial neural network that outputs wear based on inputs including feed and velocity (See Fig. 1).
Soori, Mohsen. "Cutting tool wear prediction in machining operations, a review." Journal of New Technology and Materials (2022). Teaches artificial neural network that outputs wear based on inputs including feed and cutting velocity in Mohsen [Page 17 Section 2.1 first paragraph] "The use of artificial neural networks (ANNs) in an on-line approach for tool wear monitoring has been proposed. Cutting velocity, feed, cutting force, and machining time are all sent into the ANN, which then estimates flank wear."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Cain whose telephone number is (571)272-4503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:30 CST.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/Z.A.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2116 /KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights