DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/874312 filed on December 12, 2024 in which Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending, of which Claims 1-11 are rejected under 103.
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 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) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Patent 2014/0298099) in view of Uchida (US Patent Application 2022/0026892).
Claim 1, Tan teaches an anomaly detection system configured to detect an anomaly in a tool of a machine tool (View Tan ¶ 2, 62, 63; detect fault condition of CNC machine tool), the anomaly detection system comprising: a sensor provided to the tool, the sensor being configured to measure a physical quantity, of the tool, that varies while the machine tool is machining a machining target object by means of the tool (View Tan ¶ 2; monitor running condition of device); and an anomaly detection device configured to detect an anomaly in the tool, based on measurement data obtained by the sensor (View Tan ¶ 5, 41; analyze data collected by sensors, issue alarm).
Tan does not explicitly teach the anomaly detection device including a synchronization unit configured to achieve synchronization between target data being measurement data in time series obtained by the sensor, and reference data being a measurement result in time series of the physical quantity when the tool is in a normal state, a distance calculation unit configured to calculate a distance between the reference data and the target data between which synchronization has been achieved by the synchronization unit, and an anomaly detection unit configured to detect an anomaly in the tool by comparing the distance calculated by the distance calculation unit with a threshold.
However, Uchida teaches the anomaly detection device including a synchronization unit configured to achieve synchronization between target data being measurement data in time series obtained by the sensor, and reference data being a measurement result in time series of the physical quantity when the tool is in a normal state (View Uchida ¶ 30, 40; evaluate target time series data and reference time series data), a distance calculation unit configured to calculate a distance between the reference data and the target data between which synchronization has been achieved by the synchronization unit (View Uchida ¶ 30, 40; degree of similarity), and an anomaly detection unit configured to detect an anomaly in the tool by comparing the distance calculated by the distance calculation unit with a threshold (View Uchida ¶ 5, 30, 40; degree of change exceeds predetermined threshold, anomaly threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tan with the anomaly detection device including a synchronization unit configured to achieve synchronization between target data being measurement data in time series obtained by the sensor, and reference data being a measurement result in time series of the physical quantity when the tool is in a normal state, a distance calculation unit configured to calculate a distance between the reference data and the target data between which synchronization has been achieved by the synchronization unit, and an anomaly detection unit configured to detect an anomaly in the tool by comparing the distance calculated by the distance calculation unit with a threshold since it is known in the art that a distance can be compared to a threshold (View Uchida ¶ 5, 30, 40). Such modification would have allowed an anomaly to be detected based on a threshold.
Claim 9 is the device corresponding to the system of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 10 is the method corresponding to the system of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 11 is the medium corresponding to the system of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Patent 2014/0298099) in view of Uchida (US Patent Application 2022/0026892) and further in view of Vrinda (US Patent Application 2023/0128408).
Claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings does not explicitly teach the anomaly detection device further includes a period setting unit configured to set a target period in a machining step, that is identical, in the reference data and the target data, and the distance calculation unit calculates a distance between the reference data and the target data in the target period set by the period setting unit.
However, Vrinda teaches the anomaly detection device further includes a period setting unit configured to set a target period in a machining step, that is identical, in the reference data and the target data (View Vrinda ¶ 44, 79; baseline and target measurement period), and the distance calculation unit calculates a distance between the reference data and the target data in the target period set by the period setting unit (View Vrinda ¶ 44, 79; similarity analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the anomaly detection device further includes a period setting unit configured to set a target period in a machining step, that is identical, in the reference data and the target data, and the distance calculation unit calculates a distance between the reference data and the target data in the target period set by the period setting unit since it is known in the art that an analysis period can be set (View Vrinda ¶ 44, 79). Such modification would have allowed a distance can be determined between reference and target data.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Patent 2014/0298099) in view of Uchida (US Patent Application 2022/0026892) in view of Vrinda (US Patent Application 2023/0128408) and further in view of Wang (US Patent Application 2015/0363251).
Claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 2. The combination of teachings does not explicitly teach the machining step is an intermittent cutting step in which cutting and non-cutting of the machining target object are repeated.
However, Wang teaches the machining step is an intermittent cutting step in which cutting and non-cutting of the machining target object are repeated (View Wang ¶ 67; metal cutting operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the machining step is an intermittent cutting step in which cutting and non-cutting of the machining target object are repeated since it is known in the art that a machine tool can cut intermittently (View Wang ¶ 67). Such modification would have allowed a machine tool to repeat a cutting process.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Patent 2014/0298099) in view of Uchida (US Patent Application 2022/0026892) and further in view of Joshi (US Patent Application 2016/0070614).
Claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings does not explicitly teach the sensor is a strain sensor configured to measure a strain in the tool as the physical quantity.
However, Joshi teaches the sensor is a strain sensor configured to measure a strain in the tool as the physical quantity (View Joshi ¶ 117; strain sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the sensor is a strain sensor configured to measure a strain in the tool as the physical quantity since it is known in the art that strain can be measured (View Joshi ¶ 117). Such modification would have allowed a strain sensor to measure a strain.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Patent 2014/0298099) in view of Uchida (US Patent Application 2022/0026892) and further in view of Kong (US Patent Application 2016/0378608).
Claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings does not explicitly teach the sensor is an acceleration sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the tool as the physical quantity.
However, Kong teaches the sensor is an acceleration sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the tool as the physical quantity (View Kong ¶ 56; acceleration sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the sensor is an acceleration sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the tool as the physical quantity since it is known in the art that acceleration can be measured (View Kong ¶ 56). Such modification would have allowed an acceleration sensor to measure acceleration.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Patent 2014/0298099) in view of Uchida (US Patent Application 2022/0026892) and further in view of Matsura (US Patent Application 2005/0154562).
Claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings does not explicitly teach the anomaly detection device further includes a correction unit configured to correct a baseline of the target data, and the distance calculation unit calculates a distance between the reference data and the target data of which the baseline has been corrected by the correction unit.
However, Matsura teaches the anomaly detection device further includes a correction unit configured to correct a baseline of the target data (View Matsura ¶ 261, 268; corrected normal group data set), and the distance calculation unit calculates a distance between the reference data and the target data of which the baseline has been corrected by the correction unit (View Matsura ¶ 261, 268; distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the anomaly detection device further includes a correction unit configured to correct a baseline of the target data, and the distance calculation unit calculates a distance between the reference data and the target data of which the baseline has been corrected by the correction unit since it is known in the art that baseline data can be corrected (View Matsura ¶ 261, 268). Such modification would have allowed distance to be determined after baseline data is corrected.
Claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings does not explicitly teach the distance between the reference data and the target data is a distance between a time- series waveform of the reference data and a time-series waveform of the target data, or a difference between a distribution of the reference data and a distribution of the target data.
However, Matsura teaches the distance between the reference data and the target data is a distance between a time- series waveform of the reference data and a time-series waveform of the target data, or a difference between a distribution of the reference data and a distribution of the target data (View Matsura ¶ 8, 239; distance evaluation to determine the degree of similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the distance between the reference data and the target data is a distance between a time- series waveform of the reference data and a time-series waveform of the target data, or a difference between a distribution of the reference data and a distribution of the target data since it is known in the art that distance can be determined (View Matsura ¶ 8, 239). Such modification would have allowed distance to be determined between reference and target data.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US Patent 2014/0298099) in view of Uchida (US Patent Application 2022/0026892) and further in view of Rapoport (US Patent Application 2017/0019308).
Claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings does not explicitly teach the anomaly detection system further comprises a display device configured to display a time-series graph of the distance, between the reference data and the target data, calculated by the distance calculation unit.
However, Rapoport teaches the anomaly detection system further comprises a display device configured to display a time-series graph of the distance, between the reference data and the target data, calculated by the distance calculation unit (View Rapoport ¶ 55; display time-series data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the anomaly detection system further comprises a display device configured to display a time-series graph of the distance, between the reference data and the target data, calculated by the distance calculation unit since it is known in the art that time-series data can be displayed (View Rapoport ¶ 55). Such modification would have allowed a time-series graph to be displayed.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2023/0168961); teaches the Anomaly Detection Module can receive current data from sensors on the deployed machine and/or from the telematics database and feed the data into the ROM created/selected by ROM Development Module. The module compares a current output from the ROM, received from the ROMs system, with a measured output from the current data. The module determines that an operating anomaly exists when the difference between the current output and the measured output exceeds a selected anomaly threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114