DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/851,140 and the preliminary amendment filed on 09/26/2024.
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application is a national phase of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/018072 filed 04/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024 and 12/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0081], references “1” and “2” have been used to designate the plurality of control systems. However, reference number “1” has been used to designate the numerical control system 1, and reference number “2” has been used to designate the numerical control device. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“program input unit” in claims 1, 4;
“analysis unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5;
“system setting unit” in claims 1, 4;
“data communication unit” in claims 1, 4;
“numerical control device” in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9;
“control systems” in claims 3, 6, 8, 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses the corresponding structure for:
“program input unit” in paragraph [0037];
“analysis unit” in paragraph [0038];
“system setting unit” in paragraph [0053];
“data communication unit” in paragraph [0054];
“numerical control device” in paragraph [0076];
“control systems” in paragraph [0081].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant provide the claim limitation “a system setting unit which outputs a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system based on information acquired by the analysis unit”, however, however based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “information acquired by the analysis unit” encompass and further how the claimed “information acquired by the analysis” are applied. It is also unclear whether the term “information” is referring to “system information” in line 6 of claim 1. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the Applicant provides the claim limitation “a variable of the target system” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the claimed “a variable of the target system” in lines 15-16 is referring to the claimed “a variable of the target system” in lines 13-14. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the Applicant provide the claim limitation “a system setting unit which outputs a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system based on information acquired by the analysis unit”, however, however based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “information acquired by the analysis unit” encompass and further how the claimed “information acquired by the analysis” are applied. It is also unclear whether the term “information” is referring to “system information” in line 10 of claim 4. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the Applicant provides the claim limitation “a variable of the target system” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the claimed “a variable of the target system” in lines 12-13 is referring to the claimed “a variable of the target system” in lines 10-11. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the Applicant provide the claim limitation “a system setting step of outputting a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system based on information acquired in the analysis step”, however, however based on the currently provided claim limitations, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “information acquired in the analysis step” encompass and further how the claimed “information acquired in the analysis step” are applied. It is also unclear whether the term “information” is referring to “system information” in line 7 of claim 7. Therefore, these reasons render the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency on independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sagasaki et al. (WO2021049028A1, hereinafter “Sagasaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Sagasaki discloses a robot control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, robot control device/numerical control device 1X) comprising:
a program input unit which acquires a robot control program for controlling a robot from a storage unit (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0024, 0031-0032, 0085], the analysis processing unit 37 reads the NC program from the memory 34. The NC program includes commands for controlling machine tool 100 and commands for controlling robot 60);
an analysis unit which analyzes the robot control program inputted from the program input unit (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0035, 0085], “The robot command analysis unit 371 analyzes the robot commands included in the NC program”), and acquires a read command and a write command (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0031], the analysis processing unit 47 information is written and read via the memory unit 34) in which a variable of a numerical control program controlling a numerical control device and system information specifying a target system from a plurality of control systems possessed by the numerical control device are set (Sagasaki, see at least par. [0032-0034] the analysis processing unit 37 performs analysis processing on each block of the NC program by reading the NC program to determine whether the NC program is G codes (commands relating to axis movement, etc.), T codes (tool change commands, etc.), S codes (spindle motor rotation speed commands), and M codes (machine operation commands). The analysis result is then written to the memory unit 34);
a system setting unit which outputs a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system based on information acquired by the analysis unit (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0029-0034], the control signal processing unit 35 writes and reads the analysis result from the memory unit 34. For example, the control signal processing unit 35 reads and writes the analysis result that is analyzed by the analysis processing unit 37, and sends it to the PLC 36); and
a data communication unit which causes update of the variable of the target system to be executed in the numerical control device, by transmitting a command for reading and writing the variable of the target system to the numerical control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0012, 0030-0031], the PLC receives the analysis result and causes machine tool 100 to execute processing corresponding to the analysis result based on writing and reading command from the control signal processing unit 35).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Sagasaki, Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
812
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Sagasaki, Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
608
456
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Sagasaki, Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 2, Sagasaki teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sagasaki further teaches wherein the analysis unit outputs a command to perform robot control so as to interlock with the plurality of control systems controlled by the numerical control device based on the variable of the target system which has been updated (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0039], “The robot control unit 41 converts the command to the robot 60 into a robot program based on the result of the analysis by the robot command analysis unit 371. That is, the robot control unit 41 generates a robot command that can be interpreted by the robot controller 50 based on the analysis result of the robot command sent from the robot command analysis unit 371 . The robot control unit 41 sends the generated robot command to the robot controller 50 . The robot controller 50 generates position data for each axis of the robot 60 based on a robot command sent from the robot control unit 41, and controls the robot 60 using the position data”).
Regarding claim 3, Sagasaki teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Sagasaki further teaches wherein each of the plurality of control systems machines a workpiece by controlling at least one among a tool post (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0016], “It should be noted that machine tool 100 may be equipped with two or more tool rests. In this case, the drive unit 90 includes a set of an X-axis servo control unit 91, a Z-axis servo control unit 92, servo motors 901 and 902, and detectors 97 and 98 for each tool post”), a turret, a table and a spindle (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0017-0018], “The drive unit 90 also includes a spindle motor 911 that rotates a spindle for rotating the workpiece”), and
wherein at least one among of the tool post, the turret, the table and the spindle is controlled based on the variable of the target system updated by the numerical control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0014-0019, 0037-0038], the interpolation processing unit 38 generates data for controlling the machine tool 100 using commands to the machine tool 100 from the analysis results by the analysis processing unit 37, and sends the data to the acceleration/deceleration processing unit 39 and axis data output unit 40 to output a speed command to the drive unit 90, e.g. a speed command for the X-axis to the X-axis servo control unit 91 and outputs a speed command for the Z-axis to the Z-axis servo control unit 92 . The axis data output unit 40 also outputs a rotation speed command for the spindle to the spindle servo control unit 200).
Regarding claim 4, Sagasaki discloses a numerical control system (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, robot control device/numerical control device 1X) comprising:
a numerical control device having a plurality of control systems (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0037-0039], the machine tool 100 comprises a plurality of control systems, e.g. the X-axis servo control unit 91, the Z-axis servo control unit 92, the spindle servo control unit 200); and
a robot control device which interlocks with the numerical control device to controls a robot (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0039], the numerical control device 1X is configured to generate a robot command that can be interpreted by the robot controller 50 based on the analysis result of the robot command sent from the robot command analysis unit 371),
wherein the robot control device includes:
a program input unit which acquires a robot control program for controlling a robot from a storage unit (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0024, 0031-0032, 0085], the analysis processing unit 37 reads the NC program from the memory 34. The NC program includes commands for controlling machine tool 100 and commands for controlling robot 60);
an analysis unit which analyzes the robot control program inputted from the program input unit (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0035, 0085], “The robot command analysis unit 371 analyzes the robot commands included in the NC program”), and acquires a read command and a write command (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0031], the analysis processing unit 47 information is written and read via the memory unit 34) in which a variable of a numerical control program controlling the numerical control device and system information specifying a target system from a plurality of control systems possessed by the numerical control device are set (Sagasaki, see at least par. [0032-0034] the analysis processing unit 37 performs analysis processing on each block of the NC program by reading the NC program to determine whether the NC program is G codes (commands relating to axis movement, etc.), T codes (tool change commands, etc.), S codes (spindle motor rotation speed commands), and M codes (machine operation commands). The analysis result is then written to the memory unit 34);
a system setting unit which outputs a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system based on information acquired by the analysis unit (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0029-0034], the control signal processing unit 35 writes and reads the analysis result from the memory unit 34. For example, the control signal processing unit 35 reads and writes the analysis result that is analyzed by the analysis processing unit 37, and sends it to the PLC 36); and
a data communication unit which transmits a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system to the numerical control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0012, 0030-0031], the PLC receives the analysis result and causes machine tool 100 to execute processing corresponding to the analysis result based on writing and reading command from the control signal processing unit 35), and
wherein the numerical control device executes update of the variable of the target system based on a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system received from the robot control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0012, 0030-0031], the PLC receives the analysis result and causes machine tool 100 to execute processing corresponding to the analysis result based on writing and reading command from the control signal processing unit 35).
Regarding claim 5, Sagasaki teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Sagasaki further teaches wherein the analysis unit outputs a command to perform robot control so as to interlock with the plurality of control systems controlled by the numerical control device based on the variable of the target system which has been updated (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0039], “The robot control unit 41 converts the command to the robot 60 into a robot program based on the result of the analysis by the robot command analysis unit 371. That is, the robot control unit 41 generates a robot command that can be interpreted by the robot controller 50 based on the analysis result of the robot command sent from the robot command analysis unit 371 . The robot control unit 41 sends the generated robot command to the robot controller 50 . The robot controller 50 generates position data for each axis of the robot 60 based on a robot command sent from the robot control unit 41, and controls the robot 60 using the position data”).
Regarding claim 6, Sagasaki teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Sagasaki further teaches wherein each of the plurality of control systems machines a workpiece by controlling at least one among a tool post, a turret, a table and a spindle (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0016], “It should be noted that machine tool 100 may be equipped with two or more tool rests. In this case, the drive unit 90 includes a set of an X-axis servo control unit 91, a Z-axis servo control unit 92, servo motors 901 and 902, and detectors 97 and 98 for each tool post”), a turret, a table and a spindle (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0017-0018], “The drive unit 90 also includes a spindle motor 911 that rotates a spindle for rotating the workpiece”), and
wherein at least one among the tool post, the turret, the table and the spindle is controlled based on the variable of the target system updated by the numerical control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0014-0019, 0037-0038], the interpolation processing unit 38 generates data for controlling the machine tool 100 using commands to the machine tool 100 from the analysis results by the analysis processing unit 37, and sends the data to the acceleration/deceleration processing unit 39 and axis data output unit 40 to output a speed command to the drive unit 90, e.g. a speed command for the X-axis to the X-axis servo control unit 91 and outputs a speed command for the Z-axis to the Z-axis servo control unit 92 . The axis data output unit 40 also outputs a rotation speed command for the spindle to the spindle servo control unit 200).
Regarding claim 7, Sagasaki discloses a numerical control method for interlock controlling a robot control device and a numerical control device with each other (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 8, a numerical control method for interlock controlling a robot control device and a numerical control device with each other), the numerical control method comprising:
a program input step of acquiring a robot control program for controlling a robot from a storage unit (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0024, 0031-0032, 0085], the analysis processing unit 37 reads the NC program from the memory 34. The NC program includes commands for controlling machine tool 100 and commands for controlling robot 60);
an analysis step of analyzing the robot control program inputted in the program input step (Sagasaki, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0035, 0085], “The robot command analysis unit 371 analyzes the robot commands included in the NC program”), and acquiring a read command and a write command (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0031], the analysis processing unit 47 information is written and read via the memory unit 34) in which a variable of a numerical control program controlling the numerical control device and system information specifying a target system from a plurality of control systems possessed by the numerical control device are set (Sagasaki, see at least par. [0032-0034] the analysis processing unit 37 performs analysis processing on each block of the NC program by reading the NC program to determine whether the NC program is G codes (commands relating to axis movement, etc.), T codes (tool change commands, etc.), S codes (spindle motor rotation speed commands), and M codes (machine operation commands). The analysis result is then written to the memory unit 34);
a system setting step of outputting a command for reading and writing a variable of the target system based on information acquired in the analysis step (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0029-0034], the control signal processing unit 35 writes and reads the analysis result from the memory unit 34. For example, the control signal processing unit 35 reads and writes the analysis result that is analyzed by the analysis processing unit 37, and sends it to the PLC 36); and
an updating step of the robot control device causing update of a variable of the target system to be executed in the numerical control device, by transmitting a command for reading and writing the variable of the target system to the numerical control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0012, 0030-0031], the PLC receives the analysis result and causes machine tool 100 to execute processing corresponding to the analysis result based on writing and reading command from the control signal processing unit 35).
Regarding claim 8, Sagasaki teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Sagasaki further teaches wherein each of the plurality of control systems machines a workpiece by controlling at least one among a tool post, and a spindle (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0016], “It should be noted that machine tool 100 may be equipped with two or more tool rests. In this case, the drive unit 90 includes a set of an X-axis servo control unit 91, a Z-axis servo control unit 92, servo motors 901 and 902, and detectors 97 and 98 for each tool post”), and
wherein at least one among of the tool post, and the spindle is controlled based on the variable of the target system updated by the numerical control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0014-0019, 0037-0038], the interpolation processing unit 38 generates data for controlling the machine tool 100 using commands to the machine tool 100 from the analysis results by the analysis processing unit 37, and sends the data to the acceleration/deceleration processing unit 39 and axis data output unit 40 to output a speed command to the drive unit 90, e.g. a speed command for the X-axis to the X-axis servo control unit 91 and outputs a speed command for the Z-axis to the Z-axis servo control unit 92 . The axis data output unit 40 also outputs a rotation speed command for the spindle to the spindle servo control unit 200).
Regarding claim 9, Sagasaki teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 5. Sagasaki further teaches wherein each of the plurality of control systems machines a workpiece by controlling at least one among a tool post, and a spindle (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0016], “It should be noted that machine tool 100 may be equipped with two or more tool rests. In this case, the drive unit 90 includes a set of an X-axis servo control unit 91, a Z-axis servo control unit 92, servo motors 901 and 902, and detectors 97 and 98 for each tool post”), and
wherein at least one among of the tool post, and the spindle is controlled based on the variable of the target system updated by the numerical control device (Sagasaki, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0014-0019, 0037-0038], the interpolation processing unit 38 generates data for controlling the machine tool 100 using commands to the machine tool 100 from the analysis results by the analysis processing unit 37, and sends the data to the acceleration/deceleration processing unit 39 and axis data output unit 40 to output a speed command to the drive unit 90, e.g. a speed command for the X-axis to the X-axis servo control unit 91 and outputs a speed command for the Z-axis to the Z-axis servo control unit 92 . The axis data output unit 40 also outputs a rotation speed command for the spindle to the spindle servo control unit 200).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagata et al. (US 20210286340 A1) discloses a production system, comprising: a first industrial machine configured to control a second industrial machine based on each of a plurality of variables; and circuitry configured to input, to the first industrial machine, a control command relating to an operation of at least one of the first industrial machine or the second industrial machine, wherein the first industrial machine rewrites, based on the control command, at least one variable defined as a rewritable variable among the plurality of variables.
Takahashi et al. (US 20150346714 A1) discloses a numerical control device includes a program storage unit storing machining programs of systems; and a program analysis unit executing the machining programs independently for each system by analyzing the machining programs of the systems, wherein when control variable is not being executed in machining program of any system, if control variable is executed in machining program of any system, the program analysis unit permits only a system having executed the control variable to execute the control variable, and does not permit another system other than the system having executed the control variable to execute the control variable even when an attempt is made to execute the control variable in machining program of the other system, and when execution of the control variable is completed in the machining program being executed, the program analysis unit permits machining program of any system to execute the control variable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656