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
Drawings have been reviewed and accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 10/28/24 has been entered. Specification has been reviewed and accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted filed on 10/28/24 has been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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: “condition acquisition unit“, “surface roughness acquisition unit”, “actual oscillation amplitude acquisition unit”, “surface roughness calculation unit”, “correction value calculation unit” and “output unit” in claims 1-3, 5-10
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.
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.
Sufficient support is found in the specification for the “condition acquisition unit“, “surface roughness acquisition unit”, “actual oscillation amplitude acquisition unit”, “surface roughness calculation unit”, “correction value calculation unit” and “output unit” [0032] the machine tool control device 1 according to the first embodiment includes an input unit 11, a condition acquisition unit 12, a surface roughness calculation unit 13, a surface roughness output unit 14, and a surface roughness display unit 15, [0054] the machine tool control device 1A according to the second embodiment further includes a correction value calculation unit 16 and an actual surface roughness acquisition unit 17, [0072] machine tool control device 1B according to the third embodiment. As illustrated in FIG. 17 , the machine tool control device 1B according to the third embodiment further includes a correction value calculation unit 16A and an actual oscillation amplitude acquisition unit 18 . Therefore, these units are interpreted as the controller performing these functions as supported in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “calculates a surface roughness, based on the machining condition and the oscillation condition acquired by the condition acquisition unit”.
The limitations of “calculates a surface roughness, based on the machining condition and the oscillation condition acquired by the condition acquisition unit”, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a control device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “control device”, language, “calculates” in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could make a decision, comparison, and observation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements- “acquires a machining condition and an oscillation condition “, and “outputs the surface roughness calculated by the surface roughness calculation unit” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmission by acquiring data and information and “A control device for a machine tool that machines a workpiece by relatively oscillating a cutting tool and the workpiece, the control device comprising: a condition acquisition unit that”, “a surface roughness calculation unit that”, “a surface roughness output unit that” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of acquiring data which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- see MPEP 2106.05(d) buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. (computer receives and sends information over a network), “A control device for a machine tool that machines a workpiece by relatively oscillating a cutting tool and the workpiece, the control device comprising: a condition acquisition unit that”, “a surface roughness calculation unit that”, “a surface roughness output unit that” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits mental abstract ideas from claim 1. Additionally, the claim recites- “The control device for a machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising a surface roughness display unit that displays the surface roughness output by the surface roughness output unit.” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits mental abstract ideas from claim 1. The claim additionally recites- “wherein the condition acquisition unit acquires the machining condition including information on a feed amount per relative revolution of the cutting tool and the workpiece, and information on a shape of a cutting edge of the cutting tool, and the oscillation condition including information on a number of oscillations per relative rotation of the cutting tool and the workpiece, and information on oscillation amplitude relative to a feed amount per relative rotation of the cutting tool and the workpiece.” which further defined the data acquiring function. Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits mental abstract ideas from claim 1. The claim additionally recites- “wherein the surface roughness includes at least one of an arithmetic average roughness, a maximum height, a maximum peak height, a maximum valley depth, an average height, a maximum cross-sectional height, or a bearing length ratio” which further defined the data acquiring function. Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites- “calculates a correction value used for correcting the surface roughness” , and “corrects the surface roughness calculated based on the machining condition and the oscillation condition acquired by the condition acquisition unit, using the correction value calculated by the correction value calculation unit” which is a mental abstract idea. Additionally, the claim recites- “further comprising a correction value calculation unit that”, and “wherein the surface roughness calculation unit” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites- calculates the correction value, based on the surface roughness calculated by the surface roughness calculation unit and the actual surface roughness acquired by the actual surface roughness acquisition unit.” which is a mental abstract idea. The claim recites “that acquires an actual surface roughness obtained by actually performing the machining” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- see MPEP 2106.05(d) buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. (computer receives and sends information over a network). Additionally, the claim recites- “further comprising an actual surface roughness acquisition unit”, and “wherein the correction value calculation unit” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites- “calculates the correction value, based on an attenuation rate of actual oscillation amplitude relative to oscillation amplitude” which is a mental abstract idea. Additionally, the claim recites- “wherein the correction value calculation unit” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites- “calculated based on the oscillation amplitude acquired by the condition acquisition unit and the actual oscillation amplitude acquired by the actual oscillation amplitude acquisition unit.” which is a mental abstract idea. The claim recites “that acquires actual oscillation amplitude obtained by actually performing the machining”, and “ acquires the oscillation amplitude, and the attenuation rate of the actual oscillation amplitude relative to the oscillation amplitude” which is simply insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and transmitting which is considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity- see MPEP 2106.05(d) buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. (computer receives and sends information over a network). Additionally, the claim recites- “an actual oscillation amplitude acquisition unit”, and “wherein the condition acquisition unit” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites- “calculates the correction value for each machining condition” which is a mental abstract idea. Additionally, the claim recites- “wherein the correction value calculation unit” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites- “calculates the correction value for each machining condition, including at least one of a cutting edge material of the cutting tool, a cutting edge shape of the cutting tool, a material of the workpiece, a cutting speed, a cutting depth, or a cutting angle.” which is a mental abstract idea. Additionally, the claim recites- “wherein the correction value calculation unit” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barkman et al. (US20110254496, herein Barkman).
Regarding claim 1, Barkman teaches A control device for a machine tool that machines a workpiece ([0054] There is a data processor system 282. In some embodiments the data processor system 282 is embedded in the motion controller for the machine tool 254. The data processor system 282 includes subsystems) by relatively oscillating a cutting tool and the workpiece ([0029] A dynamic excitation command that establishes a repetitive cyclical pattern typically adds an oscillating motion to a basic tool path), the control device comprising: a condition acquisition unit that acquires a machining condition and an oscillation condition ([0050] “machining process parameters” refers to such variables as workpiece feed rate, tool feed rate, pause time for tool or workpiece settling, turning rotation rate, machine set-up parameters and such modulated tool path parameters as oscillations (waves) per revolution (OPR), oscillation command frequency, and oscillation amplitude, [0060] There is a data processing system, such as the data processor system 282 of FIG. 10) that is provided for: (f) receiving the machining job objective) ; a surface roughness calculation unit that calculates a surface roughness, based on the machining condition and the oscillation condition acquired by the condition acquisition unit ((0052] FIG. 9 illustrates another example of an encoded map that may be used to evaluate machine tool functional performance. FIG. 9 predicts surface finish for a machine tool using the modulated tool-path chip breaking technique with combinations of various oscillations per revolution (OPR) and oscillation amplitudes, [0050] predict the quality of parts that will be produced by a machine tool while using specific machining process parameters. For example, the surface texture of a machined surface is a quality indicator that is typically characterized in terms of specific wavelengths of interest on the part surface, or characterized in terms of a maximum and a minimum surface profile wavelength); and a surface roughness output unit that outputs the surface roughness calculated by the surface roughness calculation unit ([0052] FIG. 9 illustrates another example of an encoded map that may be used to evaluate machine tool functional performance. FIG. 9 predicts surface finish for a machine tool using the modulated tool-path chip breaking technique with combinations of various oscillations per revolution (OPR) and oscillation amplitudes, [0052] a user may employ FIGS. 8 and 9 to determine the modulation parameters needed to deliver a particular chip length and surface finish.) .
Regarding claim 2, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising a surface roughness display unit that displays the surface roughness output by the surface roughness output unit ([0052] FIG. 9 illustrates another example of an encoded map that may be used to evaluate machine tool functional performance. FIG. 9 predicts surface finish for a machine tool using the modulated tool-path chip breaking technique with combinations of various oscillations per revolution (OPR) and oscillation amplitudes, [0052] a user may employ FIGS. 8 and 9 to determine the modulation parameters needed to deliver a particular chip length and surface finish, [0033] A visual indication of machine tool performance may be provided by graphing the first pattern of dynamic excitation commands (planned displacement over time) and the first actual motion (actual displacement over time) on the same chart and visually observing the two graphs, [0060] An input device, such as a computer workstation is provided for accepting a machining job objective expressed as a function of at least a portion of at least one measurable merit of machine tool performance. There is a data processing system, such as the data processor system 282 of FIG. 10) that is provided for: (g) reading at least a portion of the encoded map of machine tool performance )
Regarding claim 3, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the condition acquisition unit acquires the machining condition including information on a feed amount per relative revolution of the cutting tool and the workpiece, and information on a shape of a cutting edge of the cutting tool, and the oscillation condition including information on a number of oscillations per relative rotation of the cutting tool and the workpiece, and information on oscillation amplitude relative to a feed amount per relative rotation of the cutting tool and the workpiece (Fig. 9, [0050] “machining process parameters” refers to such variables as workpiece feed rate, tool feed rate, pause time for tool or workpiece settling, turning rotation rate, machine set-up parameters and such modulated tool path parameters as oscillations (waves) per revolution (OPR), oscillation command frequency, and oscillation amplitude).
Regarding claim 5, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to any one of claim 1, further comprising a correction value calculation unit that calculates a correction value used for correcting the surface roughness, wherein the surface roughness calculation unit corrects the surface roughness calculated based on the machining condition and the oscillation condition acquired by the condition acquisition unit, using the correction value calculated by the correction value calculation unit (Fig. 9, [0033] Typically the first actual motion is quantitatively compared with the first pattern of dynamic excitation commands to establish a first quantification of the dynamic one axis positional accuracy of the machine tool. Such a quantification may be in the form of the calculation of a correction coefficient or calculation of a best-fit curve through the first actual motion position measurements. When the machine tool is configured to manufacture parts, the results of the performance test may be used to program the machine tool with modified process parameters in order to compensate for positional errors indicated by the positional accuracy measurements or to modify servo system settings to optimize the machine's response for a particular application, [0050] a first prediction of a first surface finish may be derived from the machine's response to the first pattern of two-axis dynamic excitation commands. That is, measured errors in the machine's response represent predictable patterns in a surface finish that will be produced by the machine).
Regarding claim 7, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to claim 5, wherein the correction value calculation unit calculates the correction value, based on an attenuation rate of actual oscillation amplitude relative to oscillation amplitude ([0023] The comparison of the commanded axes motions with the sensor measurements provides performance information (much like a Bode Plot) that defines the machine's dynamic performance capabilities as seen by the mechanical loop between a workpiece and a cutting tool or measurement probe. FIG. 1 illustrates a map of machine tool accuracy, showing a first axis motion response ratio version frequency of sinusoidal motion for several oscillation command amplitudes, [0033] Typically the first actual motion is quantitatively compared with the first pattern of dynamic excitation commands to establish a first quantification of the dynamic one axis positional accuracy of the machine tool. Such a quantification may be in the form of the calculation of a correction coefficient or calculation of a best-fit curve through the first actual motion position measurements. When the machine tool is configured to manufacture parts, the results of the performance test may be used to program the machine tool with modified process parameters in order to compensate for positional errors indicated by the positional accuracy measurements or to modify servo system settings to optimize the machine's response for a particular application).
Regarding claim 8, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to claim 7, further comprising an actual oscillation amplitude acquisition unit that acquires actual oscillation amplitude obtained by actually performing the machining, wherein the condition acquisition unit acquires the oscillation amplitude, and the attenuation rate of the actual oscillation amplitude relative to the oscillation amplitude is calculated based on the oscillation amplitude acquired by the condition acquisition unit and the actual oscillation amplitude acquired by the actual oscillation amplitude acquisition unit ([0023] The comparison of the commanded axes motions with the sensor measurements provides performance information (much like a Bode Plot) that defines the machine's dynamic performance capabilities as seen by the mechanical loop between a workpiece and a cutting tool or measurement probe. FIG. 1 illustrates a map of machine tool accuracy, showing a first axis motion response ratio version frequency of sinusoidal motion for several oscillation command amplitudes, [0033] Typically the proximity sensor (i.e., one of the proximity sensors 42, 46, or 50) associated with the axis or the spindle that is the movable element being tested is used to measure actual displacement of the “first axis slide” over time under the first pattern of dynamic excitation. A visual indication of machine tool performance may be provided by graphing the first pattern of dynamic excitation commands (planned displacement over time) and the first actual motion (actual displacement over time) on the same chart and visually observing the two graphs. Typically the first actual motion is quantitatively compared with the first pattern of dynamic excitation commands to establish a first quantification of the dynamic one axis positional accuracy of the machine tool. Such a quantification may be in the form of the calculation of a correction coefficient or calculation of a best-fit curve through the first actual motion position measurements. When the machine tool is configured to manufacture parts, the results of the performance test may be used to program the machine tool with modified process parameters in order to compensate for positional errors indicated by the positional accuracy measurements or to modify servo system settings to optimize the machine's response for a particular application).
Regarding claim 9, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to any one of claims 5, wherein the correction value calculation unit calculates the correction value for each machining condition ([0030] FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a first sinusoidal dynamic pattern of motion. In any case, with dynamic excitation commands there is a directed change in the slope of an axis displacement vs. time curve. The rate of motion may be constant over portions of the cycle (e.g., sawtooth) or variable (e.g., sinusoidal). Changing between a first pattern of dynamic excitation commands and a second pattern of dynamic excitation commands produces a measurement of a machine's ability to respond to a range of machining conditions such as a change in cutting speed, a change in frequency, a change in oscillation amplitude, or a change in waveform, [0033] Typically the first actual motion is quantitatively compared with the first pattern of dynamic excitation commands to establish a first quantification of the dynamic one axis positional accuracy of the machine tool. Such a quantification may be in the form of the calculation of a correction coefficient or calculation of a best-fit curve through the first actual motion position measurements. When the machine tool is configured to manufacture parts, the results of the performance test may be used to program the machine tool with modified process parameters in order to compensate for positional errors indicated by the positional accuracy measurements or to modify servo system settings to optimize the machine's response for a particular application).
Regarding claim 10, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to claim 9, wherein the correction value calculation unit calculates the correction value for each machining condition, including at least one of a cutting edge material of the cutting tool, a cutting edge shape of the cutting tool, a material of the workpiece, a cutting speed, a cutting depth, or a cutting angle ([0030] FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a first sinusoidal dynamic pattern of motion. In any case, with dynamic excitation commands there is a directed change in the slope of an axis displacement vs. time curve. The rate of motion may be constant over portions of the cycle (e.g., sawtooth) or variable (e.g., sinusoidal). Changing between a first pattern of dynamic excitation commands and a second pattern of dynamic excitation commands produces a measurement of a machine's ability to respond to a range of machining conditions such as a change in cutting speed, a change in frequency, a change in oscillation amplitude, or a change in waveform, [0051] When a lathe is used to turn a surface on a part made of a ductile material, the material is removed from the part in the form of chips).
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.
Claim(s) 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkman et al. (US20110254496, herein Barkman), and in view of Eckstein et al. (US20110238200, herein Eckstein).
Regarding claim 4, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to any one of claim 1,
Barkman does not teach wherein the surface roughness includes at least one of an arithmetic average roughness, a maximum height, a maximum peak height, a maximum valley depth, an average height, a maximum cross-sectional height, or a bearing length ratio.
Eckstein teaches wherein the surface roughness includes at least one of an arithmetic average roughness, a maximum height, a maximum peak height, a maximum valley depth, an average height, a maximum cross-sectional height, or a bearing length ratio (Fig. 4 average roughness height, [0026] FIG. 4 shows measured surface roughness values as a selected machining quality in comparison to values determined according to the invention.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkman’s teaching of predicting a surface texture with Eckstein’s teaching of the surface texture including an average roughness height. The combined teaching provides an expected result of predicting a surface texture including an average roughness height. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency and accuracy by enabling a reduction in cost and time consuming off line quality test as shown by Eckstein [0021].
Regarding claim 6, Barkman teaches The control device for a machine tool according to claim 5, further…, wherein the correction value calculation unit calculates the correction value, based on the surface roughness calculated by the surface roughness calculation unit …([0050] the actual surface finish that the machine will achieve will be somewhat rougher than what is indicated by just the measured machine response errors. Further steps in predicting the surface finish capability of a machine tool may involve electronically instructing the machine tool to drive the first axis slide along the first motion axis and to drive the second axis slide along the second motion axis using a second pattern of two-axis dynamic excitation commands, such that a second prediction of surface texture is obtained or the machine performance is predicted when functioning with a second set of operating parameters by using the machine's response to the second pattern of two-axis dynamic excitation commands, [0032] calculation of a correction coefficient or calculation of a best-fit curve through the first actual motion position measurements. When the machine tool is configured to manufacture parts, the results of the performance test may be used to program the machine tool with modified process parameters in order to compensate for positional errors indicated by the positional accuracy measurements ).
Barkman does not teach comprising an actual surface roughness acquisition unit that acquires an actual surface roughness obtained by actually performing the machining… and the actual surface roughness acquired by the actual surface roughness acquisition unit
Eckstein teaches comprising an actual surface roughness acquisition unit that acquires an actual surface roughness obtained by actually performing the machining… and the actual surface roughness acquired by the actual surface roughness acquisition unit ([0042] The linking of these exemplary characteristics to a characteristic pattern with a clear relation to a sought component machining quality is performed here by way of example by training of a neural network. In doing so, the signal characteristics corresponding to FIG. 3 are recorded for a sequence of drilled holes (in the present example, 34 drilled holes), which were carried out using the same tool. For these drilled holes, the “surface roughness of the drilled wall” was measured as the component of machining quality and used as a target variable for the network training. Next, by means of the neural network trained in this way, the surface roughness was determined by a corresponding correlation method from the linked signal characteristics for further drilled holes and the result was checked on the basis of actually measured values to determine its informative nature, [0043] FIG. 4 shows these actually measured surface roughness values and the values that were determined from the aforementioned characteristics by means of the neural network according to the method of linking characteristics according to the invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkman’s teaching of calculating a correction value from measured machine response error which is used to predict surface texture with Eckstein’s teaching of measuring the surface values and calculating the deviation of measured and predicted. The combined teaching provides an expected result of calculating the correction value based on the predicted and measured surface texture. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency and accuracy by enabling a reduction in cost and time consuming off line quality test as shown by Eckstein [0021].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Statnikov (US20070244595) discloses ultrasonic machining of surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 1pm - 9pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert, Fennema can be reached on (571) 272-2748 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786- 9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights