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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Regarding the interpretation of machining unit under 35 USC 112(f), the amendment is sufficient to overcome the interpretation. The interpretation of this limitation under 35 USC 112(f) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the argument that paragraph [0083] of Onohara doesn't teach "a reception spectrum which is frequency information of the interference light" (page 9 of Remarks filed 07/09/2026), the examiner agrees. Upon further consideration, the citation of Onohara has been changed to paragraphs [0072]-[0095] which will be explained below.
Applicant’s arguments that Onohara fails to teach measuring the surface roughness based on the broadening of the reception spectrum (see page 10 of Remarks filed 07/06/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pernick ("Surface roughness measurements with an optical Fourier spectrum analyzer," Appl. Opt. 18, 796-801. 1979)
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onohara (US20210011157A1) in view of Suzuki (US20230140343A1) and Pernick ("Surface roughness measurements with an optical Fourier spectrum analyzer," Appl. Opt. 18, 796-801. 1979).
Regarding claim 1, Onohara teaches a machine tool ('machining device' - 2, Fig. 1); comprising:
a machining unit including a machining tool ('machining unit' - 4, Fig. 1) to perform machining on a machining surface of a workpiece (paragraphs [0030] and [0031] disclose the machining of a workpiece);
a light sensor ('inspection unit' - 5, Fig. 1) to measure surface roughness of the machining surface of the workpiece after the machining by the machining unit (paragraph [0033] discloses the inspection unit inspects the surface roughness of a measurement target); and
wherein the light sensor includes:
a frequency-swept light emitter ('laser light source' - 12, Fig. 2; paragraph [0044] discloses the light source as frequency-swept) to output frequency-swept light (paragraph [0044] discloses the light source outputs frequency-swept light);
a light splitter ('optical coupler' - 13, Fig. 2) to split the frequency-swept light output by the frequency-swept light emitter into reference light and irradiation light (paragraph [0046] discloses the optical coupler splits the frequency-swept light into two branches);
a sensor head ('reception unit' - 16, Fig. 2) to cause the machining surface of the workpiece (1, Fig. 2) after the machining by the machining unit to be irradiated with the irradiation light obtained by the light splitter, and receive reflection light from the machining surface (Fig. 2 depicts the light going to and being reflected from the workpiece 1; paragraph [0054] further discloses the frequency-swept light is sent to and reflected from the workpiece);
a light interferometer ('optical interference unit' - 21, Fig. 2) to generate interference light of the reference light obtained by the light splitter and the reflection light received by the sensor head (paragraph [0045] discloses the optical coupler is connected to the interference unit; paragraph [0056] discloses a circulator sends the reflected light output to the interference unit) on a basis of the reference light and the reflection light (Fig. 2 depicts the interference unit receiving light from both the optical coupler 13 and the reception unit 16), and convert the interference light into an electric signal (paragraph [0068] discloses the output is converted to an electric signal by a O/E conversion unit);
an analog-to-digital converter (‘A/D conversion unit’ – 23, Fig. 2) to convert the electric signal obtained by the light interferometer, which is an analog signal, into a digital signal (paragraph [0069] discloses the electrical signal is sent to the A/D conversion unit; paragraph [0070] discloses the A/D conversion unit converts the signal to a digital signal);
distance information calculating circuitry ('signal processing unit' - 24, Fig. 2; paragraph [0072] discloses this processing unit includes a distance calculation unit) to calculate a reception spectrum which is frequency information of the interference light (paragraph [0082] discloses the distance calculation unit includes a spectrum calculation unit; paragraphs [0085]-[0088] disclose the spectrum calculation unit processes the frequency spectrum of both the horizontal and vertical components of the digital signals corresponding to the components of signals output by the interference unit; paragraph [0089] then discloses this is output to the distance calculation processing unit; paragraph [0094] discloses the distance calculation processing unit calculates a difference between the frequency of the reflected light and the reference light, thus creating an interference frequency spectrum), as information about a distance from a leading end of the sensor head to the machining surface of the workpiece after the machining by the machining unit, on a basis of the digital signal obtained by the analog-to-digital converter (paragraph [0095] discloses the distance processing unit calculates the distance from the measurement device to the workpiece from the interference frequency spectrum).
Onohara fails to teach a controller that controls the machining unit and the light sensor, and wherein the light sensor includes: roughness measuring circuitry to measure the surface roughness of the machining surface of the workpiece after the machining by the machining unit on a basis of broadening of the reception spectrum calculated by the distance information calculating circuitry.
However, in the same field of endeavor of machining devices, Suzuki discloses a device with a controller ('CNC controller' – 32, Fig. 5) which controls a machining tool and light sensor (paragraph [0013] discloses the CNC controller controls the operation of a rotation shaft, which rotates the tool used to machine the object; paragraph [0040] further discloses the CNC controller controls the tool; Fig. 5 depicts the controller 32 sending and receiving signals to the sensor 10; paragraph [0064] discloses the controller stops or starts data collection by the sensor).
Suzuki discloses the controller allows for synchronization in the measurement data from the light sensor, and therefore a more accurate surface measurement (paragraphs [0010], [0024]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the machine tool of Onohara with the controller taught in Suzuki in order to increase the accuracy in surface measurements.
Onohara as modified by Suzuki fails to teach the light sensor includes: roughness measuring circuitry to measure the surface roughness of the machining surface of the workpiece after the machining by the machining unit on a basis of broadening of the reception spectrum calculated by the distance information calculating circuitry.
However, in the same field of endeavor of surface roughness measurements of machined workpieces, Pernick teaches the calculation of surface roughness from the width of a reception spectrum (page 800, column 2, paragraph 1 discloses surface roughness is proportional to the width of the spatial frequency of the output light signal; page 800, column 2, paragraphs 2-3 disclose determining surface roughness by finding a best fit curve where the width is varied; Fig. 6 depicts the resulting different widths with known surface roughness and how they match the measured surface roughness). Pernick doesn't disclose the circuit which performs this calculation, however this type of calculation would require a circuit of some sort.
Pernick discloses an advantage of this method of determining surface roughness is that it can be integrated into a rapid and in situ non-contacting device (page 797, column 1, paragraph 1). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the machining tool taught by Onohara as modified by Suzuki with the determination of roughness taught by Pernick in order to enable a rapid and in situ method of measuring surface roughness.
Regarding claim 6, Onohara as modified by Suzuki and Pernick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the machining unit is configured to notify the light sensor when movement of the machining unit is complete (Suzuki: paragraph [0041] discloses that after the machining of a workpiece is done, the sensor is moved into position to begin taking measurements. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the machining unit notifies the sensor when machining is done in some manner), and the controller is configured to control the light sensor to measure the surface roughness after being notified that the machining on the machining surface of the workpiece has completed (Suzuki: Fig. 5 depicts the controller 32 sending and receiving signals to the sensor 10; paragraph [0064] discloses the controller stops or starts data collection by the sensor).
Suzuki discloses that performing machining and then surface roughness measurement by a controller leads to a more accurate measurement of the object (paragraph [0024]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the tool of Onohara as modified by Suzuki and Pernick with the controller which causes the tool to measure surface roughness after machining taught by Pernick in order to benefit from more accurate measurements.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onohara (US20210011157A1) in view of Suzuki (US20230140343A1) and Pernick ("Surface roughness measurements with an optical Fourier spectrum analyzer," Appl. Opt. 18, 796-801. 1979) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taniguchi (JP2006326769A).
Regarding claim 2, Onohara as modified by Suzuki and Pernick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the machining mechanism includes:
a tool holder to hold a machining tool to be used for the machining on the machining surface of the workpiece; and
a head body to support the tool holder, and
part of the light sensor is attached to the head body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of machining tools, Taniguchi teaching a tool holder to hold a machining tool (paragraph [0024] discloses the tool magazine 8 has a tool mounting portion which holds a tool), a head to support the tool holder (paragraph [0021] discloses a spindle head 6 which has the tool mounting portion), and a sensor attached to the head (paragraph [0031] discloses the optical measuring instrument 18, which the examiner is interpreting to be analogous to the sensor, is mounted on the head).
The device of Onohara is intended to machine and inspect an object with an uneven surface (paragraph [0033]). Taniguchi discloses the machining mechanism described is able to operate as a non-contact type system (paragraph [0001]), which has the advantage of machining and inspecting a workpiece with an uneven surface without being limited like a contact type system is (paragraph [0006]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Onohara as modified by Suzuki and Pernick with the configuration of the machining mechanism taught in Taniguchi in order to effectively machine and inspect a workpiece with an uneven surface.
Regarding claim 3, Onohara as modified by as modified by Suzuki, Pernick and Taniguchi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the sensor head is attached to the head body (Taniguchi: paragraph [0031] discloses the optical measuring instrument 18, which the examiner is interpreting to be analogous to the sensor, is mounted on the head).
As discussed above in claim 2, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Onohara as modified by Suzuki, Pernick and Taniguchi with the configuration of the machining mechanism taught in Taniguchi in order to effectively machine and inspect a workpiece with an uneven surface.
Regarding claim 4, Onohara by as modified by Suzuki, Pernick and Taniguchi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches a table having a surface on which the workpiece is to be placed (Taniguchi: 2, Fig. 2; paragraph [0020] discloses the object to be machined is placed on the table 2), wherein
the sensor head is attached to an outer circumferential surface which is one of outer circumferential surfaces of the head body, and which faces the surface of the table on which the workpiece is to be placed (Taniguchi: Fig. 2 shows the sensor head 18 attached to the outer side surface of the head body 6 which faces the table, 2).
As discussed above in claim 2, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Onohara as modified by Suzuki, Pernick and Taniguchi with the configuration of the machining mechanism taught in Taniguchi in order to effectively machine and inspect a workpiece with an uneven surface.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onohara (US20210011157A1) ) in view of Suzuki (US20230140343A1) and Pernick ("Surface roughness measurements with an optical Fourier spectrum analyzer," Appl. Opt. 18, 796-801. 1979) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Speake (US20100238456A1).
Regarding claim 5, Onohara as modified by Suzuki and Pernick teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a polarization rotator to rotate polarization of the frequency-swept light output by the frequency-swept light emitter, wherein
the light splitter splits, into the reference light and the irradiation light, the frequency-swept light after the rotation of the polarization by the polarization rotator.
However, in the same field of endeavor of interferometer setups, Speake teaches an interferometer (1, Fig. 1) with a polarization rotator (5, Fig. 1) before the light splitter (11, Fig. 1) splits the light into reference (12, Fig. 1) and irradiation light (18, Fig. 1).
Speake discloses that by placing a polarization rotator before the light is split ensures the light beams have complementary polarizations (paragraph [0035]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Onohara as modified by Suzuki and Pernick with the polarization rotator taught in Speake to ensure the light beams have complementary polarizations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights