DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 11 contains the limitation “measurement means” but does not contain the structure needed. The closest support found in the specification is in ¶52 “a measurement device 240”. Claim 12 refers to the same means but also mentions the measuring of current, which is sufficient structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitations “a force component during a forward stroke and a force component during a return stroke in relative vibration of the workpiece and the tool,” has a singular force component for both the forward and returning stroke. It is unclear whether “the force component” is simply one, the other, or both force components. For the purposes of examination, it was interpreted to mean “each of the force components”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation “a trajectory angle between a tangent to a trajectory of the distal end of the tool in a direction parallel to the direction of movement relative to a rotation direction of the workpiece and a plane perpendicular to the direction of movement.” appears to claim a trajectory angle between the distal end of the tool in relation to the workpiece, but it worded in such a way that it is unclear what the difference is between the first trajectory angle and the one that is tangent to the distal end of the tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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, 2, 4, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariki US-20140102268-A1 2014-04-17 in view of NAKAMU JP-H08132334-A 1996-05-28.
Hariki discloses a spindle on which a workpiece is to be attached (a spindle motor 3a, and to a main shaft 3b of that spindle motor 3a, a chuck mechanism 3c);
a rotation mechanism configured to rotate the spindle (a rotation mechanism 3);
a tool configured to cut the workpiece (the cutting tool 4);
a movement mechanism configured to move the spindle and the tool relatively (¶19 “(the rotation mechanism 3 and the workpiece chuck mechanism 32) is controlled by the control mechanism (the control device 8), and when the workpiece (2) and the cutting tool (4) are fed relative to each other in multiple axial directions, the workpiece (2) and the cutting tool (4) are fed synchronously”); and
a vibration mechanism configured to vibrate the spindle and the tool relatively in a direction parallel to a direction of movement by the movement mechanism (¶2 “This vibration exciter 105 has a vibration mechanism for generating vibration in a feed direction parallel to the axial center O of the workpiece W, and a device for attachably and detachably fixing a cutting tool 106.”),
the machine tool being configured to cut the workpiece by concurrently vibrating and moving the workpiece and the tool relatively by using the movement mechanism and the vibration mechanism while rotating the spindle by using the rotation mechanism, (¶72 “a machine tool 40 according to the fifth embodiment shown in FIG. 10 is composed of a CNC lathe and includes a workpiece chuck mechanism 32 for supporting a workpiece 2 which is an object to be machined, a rotation mechanism 31 for rotatably supporting a cutting tool 4 for cutting the workpiece 2, and a workpiece feed mechanism 11 provided on a lower portion of the workpiece chuck mechanism 32 and advanceably and retreatably (see arrow P6) feeding the workpiece 2 provided on a base 41. The machine tool 40 is equipped with a control device 8 for controlling operation of the workpiece feed mechanism 11 via a servo amplifier 9 so as for the workpiece 2 to vibrate at a desired low frequency. It is noted that only the workpiece feed mechanism 11 on the Z-axis is shown in FIG. 10 but the machine tool also has a workpiece feed mechanism on the X-axis orthogonal thereto.”) and
the machine tool further comprising a determination means for determining a degree of wear during a forward stroke and during a return stroke in relative vibration of the workpiece and the tool, that is received by the tool from the workpiece and that is in a direction parallel to the direction of movement (Hariki claim 1 “advancing and retreating movements of the cutting tool relative to the workpiece along the interpolation trajectory, where the repeating advancing and retreating movements are operable to relatively feed the cutting tool and workpiece along the interpolation trajectory from the first point to the second point and to simultaneously relatively vibrate the cutting tool and workpiece at a low frequency along the interpolation trajectory;” This is read as a forward and returning stroke that is parallel to the direction of the movement. ).
Hariki does not disclose expressly a force component or a difference in a force component during a cutting stroke or wear on the cutting tool.
NAKAMU recognizes that force components can be used to determine tool wear. NAKAMU specifically discloses a feed force and a back force component that is determined by a difference of the torque values during and while cutting. If the torque values are outside the ratio (the threshold) the motor will be stopped due to wear on the cutting tool to prevent damage (¶18-23 wear, feed force and back force components, ¶24 stopping the motor and issuing and alert/alarm. ).
Hariki and NAKAMU are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor detecting damage of a machine tool without the need of sensors.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to adapt the tool damage detection of NAKAMU to modify Hariki to stop the motor of the machine tool when the ratio of the threshold is breached and alerting the user.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to increase efficiency by automatically detecting cutting tool wear allowing automation ( NAKAMU ¶26 “Therefore, since cutting tool breakage can be automatically detected at all times, even during long machining operations, it may be possible to automate the machining process.”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine Hariki and NAKAMU for the benefit of using the forces applied to the cutting tool to determine damage to the tool to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein the determination means determines the degree of wear of the distal end of the tool from the difference between the force component during the forward stroke and the force component during the return stroke within a predetermined range of a cutting thickness in a direction parallel to the direction of movement of the workpiece (Hariki and NAKAMU discloses cutting chips, Hariki ¶42 discloses “Further, according to the present embodiment, the control device 8 controls the cutting tool 4 so as to synchronize in multiple axial directions and vibrate at low frequency, so that low-frequency vibration cutting capable of finely fragmenting chips can be realized.” Hariki and NAKAMU doesn’t explicitly disclose a predetermined range of cutting thickness. However, One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a cutting tool would need to be programmed with a desired cutting depth in order to perform the machine tool functionality.).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, further comprising a notification means for externally notifying that wear of the tool has exceeded a predetermined amount when the determination means determines that the degree of wear has exceeded a predetermined threshold (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses notifying wear has exceeded a predetermined amount. NAKAMU ¶24 “If it is determined that the cutting edge of tool bit 33 is damaged, the cutting process can be stopped or an indicator light or alarm can be activated to notify the user.”) .
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein control is performed to stop a cutting operation when the determination means determines that the degree of wear has exceeded a predetermined threshold (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses stopping if the wear has exceeded a predetermined amount. NAKAMU ¶24 “If it is determined that the cutting edge of tool bit 33 is damaged, the cutting process can be stopped, or an indicator light or alarm can be activated to notify the user.”).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein the movement mechanism includes:
a first movement mechanism configured to move the spindle and the tool relatively in an axial direction of the spindle (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses a z axis, Hariki ¶47 “It is noted that only the workpiece feed mechanism 11 on the Z axis is shown in FIG. 6”); and
a second movement mechanism configured to move the spindle and the tool relatively in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses a orthogonal X axis, Hariki ¶47 “the machine tool also has a workpiece feed mechanism on the X-axis orthogonal (perpendicular) thereto.”),
the vibration mechanism includes: a first vibration mechanism configured to vibrate the spindle and the tool relatively in the axial direction of the spindle (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses a vibration mechanism on the z axis. Hariki ¶2 “This vibration exciter 105 has a vibration mechanism for generating vibration in a feed direction parallel to the axial center O of the workpiece W, and a device for attachably and detachably fixing a cutting tool 106.”), This is interpreted to mean that it could be attached to either the z axis or the orthogonal x axis); and
a second vibration mechanism configured to vibrate the spindle and the tool relatively in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses a vibration mechanism on the x axis, Hariki ¶2 “This vibration exciter 105 has a vibration mechanism for generating vibration in a feed direction parallel to the axial center O of the workpiece W, and a device for attachably and detachably fixing a cutting tool 106.”), This is interpreted to mean that it could be attached to either the z axis or the orthogonal (perpendicular) x axis), and
the machine tool has a first cutting mode that concurrently vibrates and moves the workpiece and the tool relatively in the axial direction of the spindle by using the first movement mechanism and the first vibration mechanism while rotating the spindle by using the rotation mechanism (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses cutting in the axial direction, Hariki ¶47 “as shown in FIG. 6, includes a cutting tool holder 5 holding a cutting tool 4 for cutting a workpiece 2 which is an object to be machined, a rotation mechanism 3 for rotatably supporting the workpiece 2, a workpiece feed mechanism 11 for feeding the workpiece 2 provided on a lower portion of the rotation mechanism 3, advanceably and retreatably (see arrow P2) with respect to the cutting tool 4, and a control device 8 for controlling operation of the workpiece feed mechanism 11 via a servo amplifier 9 so as for the workpiece 2 to vibrate at a desired low frequency. It is noted that only the workpiece feed mechanism 11 on the Zaxis is shown in FIG. 6 but the machine tool also has a workpiece feed mechanism on the X-axis orthogonal thereto.”), and
a second cutting mode that cuts the workpiece by concurrently vibrating and moving the workpiece and the tool relatively in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction by using the second movement mechanism and the second vibration mechanism while rotating the spindle by using the rotation mechanism(Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses cutting in the axial direction, Hariki ¶47 as shown in FIG. 6, can also perform this on the orthogonal axis “also has a workpiece feed mechanism on the X-axis orthogonal thereto.”).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, further comprising a measurement means for, in order to derive the difference, measuring a force received by the tool from the workpiece (Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses a torque measuring device to determine the difference between the current and predetermine ratio. NAKAMU ¶23 “the difference between the torque (holding torque) value of the Z-axis motor 14 during cutting, as detected by the torque detector 15, and the torque value before cutting.”).
Claims 3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariki US-20140102268-A1 2014-04-17 in view of NAKAMU JP-H08132334-A 1996-05-28 further in view of OZEKI US 20240152119 A1 priority 2021-03-30 .
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses determining the wear of a tool based on a threshold and stopping the machine.
Hariki in view of NAKAMU does not disclose expressly based on the machine stopping, an operator determining if the machine should still operate based on predetermining threshold.
OZEKI discloses stopping a machine based on the “necessity” of the task, one measure being the tool wear which is determined from the temperature and torque. When the “necessity” of the repairs reaches a critical level (threshold) the machine stops and notifies the operator of the potential repairs. The operator then decides what operations need to be done to keep the machine running the longest possible based on many initial thresholds for the different operations (¶39, 40, 49, 53, 65).
Hariki in view of NAKAMU and OZEKI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor operating a machine tool efficiently to prevent downtime.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to adapt the operator based decision making with the machine tool of Hariki in view of NAKAMU to temporally stop the machine so necessary actions can be taken.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been there is a need to assist operators in determining operation necessity, allowing the most efficient use of the machine tools increasing machine operation time (OZEKI ¶10 discloses “Therefore, in the field of machine tools, there is a need for a machining operation assisting device for assisting in the execution of an operation whose necessity changes depending on the operating state of a machine”¶54 “the stopped machine tool 200 may help the operator to determine if performing the operations at a time will be more efficient than stopping the machine tool 200 more than once.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine Hariki in view of NAKAMU and OZEKI for the benefit of temporarily stopping the machine to determine the necessary operations allowing the machine to continue to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein a relationship between the difference and the degree of wear is established in advance, and the determination means is configured to determine the degree of wear from the relationship established in advance (Hariki in view of NAKAMU in view of OZEKI disclose If the torque values are outside the ratio (the threshold) the motor will be stopped due to wear on the cutting tool to prevent damage” ¶18 “Therefore, the back force component H is calculated from the difference between the torque (holding torque) value of the X-axis motor 27 during cutting, as detected by the torque detector 29, and the torque value before cutting.”).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 4 are discussed above, wherein the threshold is set according to the difference in an initial state of use of the tool (Hariki in view of NAKAMU in view of OZEKI disclose different states of necessity (thresholds) that could need to be performed on the cutting tool, OZEKI ¶65 discloses “The result of the determination of the necessity is updated on an as-needed basis. That is, the necessity of each operation item, such as “correction of positional deviation of the central axis of the rotating shaft,” “re-measurement of tool offset,” “re-application of a paste to the tool,” and “removal of chips” changes on an as-needed basis. The numerical control device 100 constantly informs the operator of the necessity of each operation item that changes depending on the operating state of the machine tool 200.” To be able to detect wear an initial state would have to have been set to be able to compare it too, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art in view of OZEKI that a threshold could be set for many different initial states.).
Claims 12, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariki US-20140102268-A1 2014-04-17 in view of NAKAMU JP-H08132334-A 1996-05-28 further in view of MIYAMOTO JP-2010162623-A 2010-07-29.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 11 are discussed above, Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses measuring a force received by the tool (see claim 1).
Hariki in view of NAKAMU does not disclose expressly using a current value of the motor.
MIYAMOTA discloses using a current value of the motor (MIYAMOTO ¶44 discloses “Furthermore, instead of directly comparing real-time measurements (load values) to a reference value, by comparing the difference between the current measurement and the maximum or minimum value of previous measurements to the reference value, it becomes less susceptible to the influence of sudden vibrations occurring within the processing machine, variations in tool manufacturing, and fluctuations in the operating environment such as temperature, allowing for accurate life determination.” ¶17-19, ¶31-34 ¶40-44 further discuss the application of using current to determine the wear. ).
Hariki in view of NAKAMU and MIYAMOTA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor determining the wear of a machine tool using detected values.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to adapt the current detection of MIYAMOTO with the machine tool of Hariki in view of NAKAMU to determine the wear.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been knowing the life span of a machine tool allows increased use of the tool, reduced need to change it and lower labor costs. (MIYAMOTO ¶45 discloses “Furthermore, since tool 3 can be used until just before it breaks, tool costs can be reduced. Furthermore, this reduces the frequency of tool replacement, resulting in lower labor costs associated with replacement.”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine Hariki in view of NAKAMU and MIYAMOTA for the benefit of using current to detect the wear of the machine tool to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Hariki in view of NAKAMU discloses a spindle on which a workpiece is to be attached();
a rotation mechanism configured to rotate the spindle (Hariki discloses a rotation mechanism 3);
a tool configured to cut the workpiece (Hariki discloses the cutting tool 4);
a movement mechanism configured to move the spindle and the tool relatively (Hariki discloses ¶19 “(the rotation mechanism 3 and the workpiece chuck mechanism 32) is controlled by the control mechanism (the control device 8), and when the workpiece (2) and the cutting tool (4) are fed relative to each other in multiple axial directions, the workpiece (2) and the cutting tool (4) are fed synchronously”);
a vibration mechanism configured to vibrate the spindle and the tool relatively in a direction parallel to a direction of movement by the movement mechanism (Hariki discloses ¶2 “This vibration exciter 105 has a vibration mechanism for generating vibration in a feed direction parallel to the axial center O of the workpiece W, and a device for attachably and detachably fixing a cutting tool 106.”), and
a motor configured to drive the movement mechanism (Hariki discloses motor 7a),
the machine tool being configured to cut the workpiece by concurrently vibrating and moving the workpiece and the tool relatively by using the movement mechanism and the vibration mechanism while rotating the spindle by using the rotation mechanism (Hariki discloses ¶72 “a machine tool 40 according to the fifth embodiment shown in FIG. 10 is composed of a CNC lathe and includes a workpiece chuck mechanism 32 for supporting a workpiece 2 which is an object to be machined, a rotation mechanism 31 for rotatably supporting a cutting tool 4 for cutting the workpiece 2, and a workpiece feed mechanism 11 provided on a lower portion of the workpiece chuck mechanism 32 and advanceably and retreatably (see arrow P6) feeding the workpiece 2 provided on a base 41. The machine tool 40 is equipped with a control device 8 for controlling operation of the workpiece feed mechanism 11 via a servo amplifier 9 so as for the workpiece 2 to vibrate at a desired low frequency. It is noted that only the workpiece feed mechanism 11 on the Z-axis is shown in FIG. 10 but the machine tool also has a workpiece feed mechanism on the X-axis orthogonal thereto.”),
the machine tool further comprising a forward stroke and a return stroke in relative vibration of the workpiece and the tool, (Hariki claim 1 “advancing and retreating movements of the cutting tool relative to the workpiece along the interpolation trajectory, where the repeating advancing and retreating movements are operable to relatively feed the cutting tool and workpiece along the interpolation trajectory from the first point to the second point and to simultaneously relatively vibrate the cutting tool and workpiece at a low frequency along the interpolation trajectory;” This is read as a forward and returning stroke that is parallel to the direction of the movement. ).
Hariki in view of NAKAMU does not disclose expressly using a current value of the motor to determine wear.
MIYAMOTA discloses using a current value of the motor (MIYAMOTO ¶44 discloses “Furthermore, instead of directly comparing real-time measurements (load values) to a reference value, by comparing the difference between the current measurement and the maximum or minimum value of previous measurements to the reference value, it becomes less susceptible to the influence of sudden vibrations occurring within the processing machine, variations in tool manufacturing, and fluctuations in the operating environment such as temperature, allowing for accurate life determination.” ¶17-19, ¶31-34 ¶40-44 further discuss the application of using current to determine the wear. ).
Hariki and NAKAMU are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor detecting damage of a machine tool without the need of sensors.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to adapt the tool damage detection of NAKAMU to modify Hariki to stop the motor of the machine tool when the ratio of the threshold is breached and alerting the user.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to increase efficiency by automatically detecting cutting tool wear allowing automation ( NAKAMU ¶26 “Therefore, since cutting tool breakage can be automatically detected at all times, even during long machining operations, it may be possible to automate the machining process.”)
Hariki in view of NAKAMU and MIYAMOTA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor determining the wear of a machine tool using detected values.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to adapt the current detection of MIYAMOTO with the machine tool of Hariki in view of NAKAMU to determine the wear.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been knowing the life span of a machine tool allows increased use of the tool, reduced need to change it and lower labor costs. (MIYAMOTO ¶45 discloses “Furthermore, since tool 3 can be used until just before it breaks, tool costs can be reduced. Furthermore, this reduces the frequency of tool replacement, resulting in lower labor costs associated with replacement.”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine Hariki in view of NAKAMU and MIYAMOTA for the benefit of using current to detect the wear of the machine tool to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 13.
Regarding claim 14 the limitations of claim 13 are discussed above, wherein the determination means is configured to determine the degree of wear of the distal end of the tool from the difference between the current value during the forward stroke and the current value during the return stroke within a predetermined range of a cutting thickness in a direction parallel to the direction of movement of the workpiece (Hariki in view of NAKAMU in view of MIYAMOTO discloses cutting chips, Hariki ¶42 discloses “Further, according to the present embodiment, the control device 8 controls the cutting tool 4 so as to synchronize in multiple axial directions and vibrate at low frequency, so that low-frequency vibration cutting capable of finely fragmenting chips can be realized.” Hariki and NAKAMU doesn’t explicitly disclose a predetermined range of cutting thickness. However, One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a cutting tool would need to be programmed with a desired cutting depth in order to perform the machine tool functionality.).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 13 are discussed above, wherein a relationship between the difference and the degree of wear is established in advance, and the determination means is configured to determine the degree of wear from the relationship established in advance (Hariki in view of NAKAMU in view of OZEKI disclose If the torque values are outside the ratio (the threshold) the motor will be stopped due to wear on the cutting tool to prevent damage” ¶18 “Therefore, the back force component H is calculated from the difference between the torque (holding torque) value of the X-axis motor 27 during cutting, as detected by the torque detector 29, and the torque value before cutting.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is currently rejected under 112B as being unclear and needs to be amended to overcome the 112B rejection to be allowable. If the 112B is overcome the subject matter of claim 6 in addition to the limitations of claim 1 are not taught in the art presented.
Claim 6 would be allowable upon resolution of the 112B rejections and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR D COUSINEAU whose telephone number is (571)447-9620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/C.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 October 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights