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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for benefit based on Parent US applications 17/370,473 filed on July 8, 2021, and 15/683,387 filed on August 22, 2017.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 has a misspelling: “…results m a status…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Esterling (US PG Pub. No. 20040236529), herein “Esterling.”
Regarding claim 1,
Esterling teaches a method comprising: tapping a tool blank to generate a vibration of the tool blank, (Par. 0088: “The results have been compared to those from standard hammer impact tests. The resonant frequencies and peak widths in the Frequency Response Functions from the two methods are in close agreement. FIG. 4 shows the resulting Frequency Response Function when a swept sine wave force is applied to a flat end tool blank with a 4.75 inch overhang (length below the base of the tool holder). The predicted resonant frequency matches that from a standard hammer impact test, both at approximately 550 Hz. The damping (related to the height of the Frequency Response Function) is also very similar to the hammer impact results.” Par. 0055: “The advantages of the present device over standard hammer impact measurements of the FRF may be summarized as: [1] The device is non-contact with an automatically controlled and shaped electromagnetic force. The hammer test requires contact with the tool, with a near-impulsive force profile whose shape depends on the manual dexterity and experience of the user. [2] As a non-contact device, measurements may be taken on a rotating as well as a stationary tool. Hammer impact tests are difficult to impossible when attempting impact on a rapidly rotating tool surface.” Par. 0021: “The operator hits the tool with a calibrated hammer. The hammer impact supplies a near-impulsive force profile. The resulting displacements are detected with a displacement sensor and the combined force and displacement signals are read and analyzed to produce the Frequency Response Function.” See also Par. 0018. Examiner’s Note – Esterling teaches a hammer test (tapping) on a spindle tool. The sensed frequency response obtained from the hammer impact method is used to determine speeds to achieve optimal cutting conditions. (Par. 0018). The frequency response function may also be applied to a tool blank and thus it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to apply the hammer test to a tool blank. See MPEP
§
2183
.
See also Schmitz cited below that teaches a hammer test on a tool blank.)
the vibration of the tool blank corresponding to vibration of a tool caused
by a tooling machine to which the tool is attached and by which the tool is spun; (Par. 0088. Par. 0013: “Part errors arising from machine dynamics may be surface location errors from forced vibrations or chatter marks due to an instability in the cutting process. The invention is specific to the determination of the Frequency Response Function and these two sources of part errors are offered only as important examples of the use of the Frequency Response Function in CNC machining.” Par. 0011: “The commands instruct the control on what tool paths the machine tool should take and sets various machining conditions such as the feed, or speed the tool cuts into the part, and spindle speed, or the speed with which the tool rotates when cutting the part. There are many factors that can influence whether the as-machined part meets specifications. These include incorrectly programmed tool paths (e.g. tool gouging into a design surface), tool wear causing the actual cutting surface to be off-set from the expected cutting surface, and too aggressive feed values causing--for example--the tool to break or chip. These and similar factors may be classified as "static" errors. Another class of machining errors is related to "dynamic" or vibrational effects. A key determinant of these vibrational effects is the Frequency Response Function which is a measure of the CNC machine dynamics.”)
receiving data relating to the vibration of the tool blank via a sensor on the tool blank; (Par. 0021: “The most commonly used procedure to determine the Frequency Response Function of a tool sited in a CNC is the hammer impact method. This method is described by Altintas and by N. Maia, et al., "Theoretical and Experimental Modal Analysis," John Wiley & Sons, NY, N.Y. (1997), the entire contents of each are hereby incorporated by reference. The operator hits the tool with a calibrated hammer. The hammer impact supplies a near-impulsive force profile. The resulting displacements are detected with a displacement sensor and the combined force and displacement signals are read and analyzed to produce the Frequency Response Function.” Par. 0047. See also Schmitz Par. 0066 that teaches a transducer as a sensor in communication with modules such as a machine tool. See also Ono, Par. 0007, cited in conclusion section, that teaches a sensor attached to the tip end of a tool. )
storing the data relating to vibration of the tool blank; (Par. 0087: “The time-varying displacements and forces were Fourier transformed to the frequency domain. The Frequency Response Function is the Fourier transformed displacement divided by the Fourier transformed force. This function was recorded on the user interface device and may be used with a software analysis program that predicts chatter or forced tool vibrations.”)
and determining an optimum operating value and a range of optimum operating values of at least one parameter for the tooling machine to operate based on the data. (Par. 0018: “The present invention will provide CNC programmers and CNC machine operators with the dynamics information required to predict, in advance of cutting, when excessive forced vibrations and/or chatter may occur. In addition, the device will assist CNC programmers and operators in adjusting the parameters in the CNC program, such as the speed at which the tool rotates, to achieve optimal cutting conditions.” Par. 0048.)
Regarding claim 5,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 5 depends. Esterling also teaches determining of operative values of at least one parameter for the tooling machine includes determining whether the received value of the at least one parameter is optimal for operation. (Par. 0048: “This information may be read by a tool vibration or chatter analysis software program "SW"209 which combines information about the tool and workpiece "TW"210, e.g. the type of material being cut, the diameter and number f flutes on the tool to output optimal spindle speeds and stable depths of cut over a range of spindle speeds.” Par. 0072: “The determination of stable ( chatter free) depths of cut over a range of spindle speeds is important for the optimal use of CNC machines. The "best' spindle speeds determined by the peaks in the Frequency Response Function allow high speed CNC machines to machine at depths of cut which are much larger than those available at moderate spindle speeds. See also Par. 0065, full paragraph 0072, and 0074.)
Regarding claim 6,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 6 depends. Esterling also teaches a status condition which includes at least one of chatter, stable resonant risk, stable chatter risk, or stable preferred speed, wherein the optimum operating value of the at least one parameter results m a status condition of stable preferred speed. (Par. 0041: “For the purposes of the present invention, with respect to a milling tool, the term "best stable speed" refers to a speed at which a milling tool is the most immune to the effects of chatter when compared to nearby cutting speeds, as shown, for example, by speed S1…” Par. 0074: “The "safe at any spindle speed" depth of cut along with a table of the stable depths of cut over the operating range of spindle speeds will assist in the development of chatter free programs for CNC machines. The CNC programmer can instruct the CNC machine to operate at an optimal, but still safe, depth of cut for normal speeds and at exceptional stable depths of cut at high spindle speeds.” See also Schmitz Par. 0006 and 0014.)
Regarding claim 7,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 7 depends. Esterling also teaches that the tool is an end mill. (Par. 0043: “For the purposes of the present invention, with respect to a milling tool…” See also Par. 0036 and 0059 – flutes in a milling tool (similar to end mill).)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Esterling in view of Schmitz et al. (PG Pub. No. 20070088456), herein “Schmitz.”
Regarding claim 2,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 2 depends. Esterling does not teach an assembly. However, Schmitz teaches a tooling machine and at least one assembly of a tool holder and a tool configured to operate at the at least one of the optimum operating value and range of optimum operating values of the at least one parameter. (Par. 0064: “Another embodiment of the invention is a system for generating frequency response predictions for a rotating spindle-holder-tool assembly. As already noted, high-speed milling machines used for industrial purposes are typically equipped with a tool magazine that contains a number of different tool-holder combinations or assemblies. In order to reduce measurement times, it is advantageous to predict tool tip response frequency functions (FRF) for the different assemblies rather than performing impact testing to measure the FRF for each assembly. The system for generating frequency response predictions for a rotating spindle-holder-tool assembly, according to this embodiment, predicts the tool tip FRF while overcoming many of the problems inherent in conventional measurements.” See also Par. 0009 and 0010. Examiner’s Note - Schmitz also teaches a hammer impact test on a tool and then measuring the vibrations. (Par. 0005). The technique also could be applied to a tool blank. (Par. 0059).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method and system that adjusts the parameters of a CNC machine after a hammer test is performed on a tool and the frequency response is applied to tool blank wherein it would obvious to perform a hammer test on a tool blank as in Esterling with a system and method of performing a hammer test on a tool blank wherein the spinning machine comprises a tool assembly and holder as in Schmitz in order to reduce the unwanted effects of vibration and chatter to the whole machine tool. (Par. 0004)
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Esterling in view of Schmitz in further view of Jalluri et al. (PG Pub. No. 20060089743), herein “Jalluri.”
Regarding claim 3,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 2 which claim 3 depends. Esterling also teaches at least one of a selectable value of at least one parameter and an input field in which the value of the at least one parameter is inputtable; and receiving the value of the at least one parameter from the user computing device. (Par. 0032: “…the system 100 further includes an input/output (l/O) interface 110, as will be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The receptance data as well as the predictions generated by data manipulation performed by the respective modules 102-108 are received and supplied, respectively, via the I/O interface 110.” Par. 0018: “The present invention will provide CNC programmers and CNC machine operators with the dynamics information required to predict, in advance of cutting, when excessive forced vibrations and/or chatter may occur. In addition, the device will assist CNC programmers and operators in adjusting the parameters in the CNC program, such as the speed at which the tool rotates, to achieve optimal cutting conditions.” Par. 0081: “…a user interface device. The later informs the user when the tool is properly sited relative to the electromagnetic actuator, starts the measurement process and records the data. The user interface device for the example was a laptop computer.”)
Esterling does not teach a network; however, Jalluri teaches providing over a communications network to a display of a user computing device a graphical user interface (Par. 0010: “Another advantage of the present invention is that it provides a data networking system and method which reduces the size of the raw data to conserve data storage space and bandwidth, while still providing operation specific machine tool data to an end user.” Par. 0025: “FIG. 2 shows a data management and networking system 30 in accordance with the present invention. The system 30 includes an operator interface 32 operatively connected between the first processing unit 22 and a second processing unit, or machine PC 34. The machine PC 34 can be a personal computer attached to a machine tool, such as the machine tool 11, or it may be a specialized processing unit, particularly configured for use with the machine tool.” Par. 0035. See also paragraphs 0033, 0034, and 0038 that teach a machine tool where vibrations are sensed and stored in a database. Examiner’s Note – Jalluri teaches 53 instances of network[ing].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method and system that adjusts the parameters of a CNC machine after a hammer test is performed on a tool and the frequency response is applied to tool blank wherein it would obvious to perform a hammer test on a tool blank as in Esterling with a system and method of performing a hammer test on a tool blank wherein the spinning machine comprises a tool assembly and holder as in Schmitz with a system and method that comprises a rotating tool where vibrations are sensed and data is sent over a network to be accessed by a user as in Jalluri in order to allow an operator or user to access the tool data by a remote terminal and also allow for automatic management of a machine tool . (Par. 0002).
Regarding claim 4,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 3 which claim 4 depends. Esterling also teaches providing to the display of the user computing device a status condition of the tooling machine if operated at the received value of the at least one parameter. (Par. 0081: “The test version consisted of a tool sited in a CNC machine, an electromagnetic actuator, voltage detectors, a power supply, a controller board to control the power output to the actuator and a user interface device. The later informs the user when the tool is properly sited relative to the electromagnetic actuator, starts the measurement process and records the data. The user interface device for the example was a laptop computer.” See also Schmitz Par. 0032.)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Esterling in view of Jalluri.
Regarding claim 8,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 8 depends. Esterling does not teach a database for storing tool data. However, Jalluri teaches receiving data related to usage of at least one of the tooling machine or an assembly of a tool holder and tool; and storing said data in the database. (Par. 0032: “Once the data bridge application 38 generates the statistical parameter or parameters, and selectively filters out redundant data, it associates the data with respective machining operation data and sends the associated data to a data storage unit, such as a database server 40 residing on a network server 42.” See also Par. 0034 and full paragraph 0032.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method and system that adjusts the parameters of a CNC machine after a hammer test is performed on a tool and the frequency response is applied to tool blank wherein it would obvious to perform a hammer test on a tool blank as in Esterling with a system and method that comprises a rotating tool where vibrations are sensed and data is sent over a network to be accessed by a user wherein the data is stored in a database as in Jalluri in order to allow a server to access the database for analyzing a frequency domain. (Par. 0007 and 0008)
Regarding claim 9,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 8 which claim 9 depends. Jalluri also teaches comprising providing said data related to the usage of at least one of the tooling machine or the assembly of the tool holder and the tool to a user computing device in communication with at least one of the server and the database over a communications network. (Par. 0010: “Another advantage of the present invention is that it provides a data networking system and method which reduces the size of the raw data to conserve data storage space and bandwidth, while still providing operation specific machine tool data to an end user.” See also Par. 0020 and 0025.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ONO KATSUHIKO (EP 2947528 A2) teaches an apparatus includes vibration data obtainer obtaining data on vibration caused by a tool in cutting. Also teaches a sensor that is attached at the end of a tool in paragraph 0007: “Further, the real part G(ω.sub.c) of the compliance transfer function is obtained by attaching a vibration detector (acceleration sensor) to a tip end of a tool attached to a spindle of a machine tool and then striking the tip end portion of the tool with an impact hammer having a force sensor (load cell) attached to its striking portion, and processing the resultant output signal of the acceleration sensor (signal relating to free vibration of the tool) and output signal of the force sensor (signal relating to the striking force) using a dedicated processor, which is summarized and disclosed also in Patent Literature 1.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 3pm or 4pm EST..
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights