Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites “condition acquisition unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “acquire, as a precondition, one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the specification as “a phase difference acquisition unit and cut amount acquisition unit” as shown in Figure 2. These two “structures” also invoke 112(f).
“phase difference acquisition unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “acquire, as a precondition, one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the specification as part of a computer as discussed in published ¶0018.
“cut amount acquisition unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “acquire, as a precondition, one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the specification as part of a computer as discussed in published ¶0018.
Claim 1 recites “air cutting amount acquisition unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “configured to acquire a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the specification as part of a computer as discussed in published ¶0018.
Claim 1 recites “machining control unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “determine, based on the precondition, the information among the three pieces of information that is not acquired by the condition acquisition unit”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based on the specification as part of a computer as discussed in published ¶0018.
Claims 3, 4 and 5 recite “display unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “configured to output the information determined by the machining control unit” or “configured to display the information calculated by the information calculation unit”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. No structure was found in the specification for “display unit”.
Claim 4 recites “condition input unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “receive, as a precondition, an input of one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. No structure for the condition input unit was found in the specification to perform the claimed action.
Claim 4 recites “air cutting amount input unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “receive an input of a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. No structure for the air cutting amount input unit was found in the specification to perform the claimed action.
Claim 4 recites “information calculation unit”. (A) the term unit is a generic placeholder term; (B) “unit” performs the function of “calculate, based on the precondition, the information among the three pieces of information that is not received by the condition input unit”; (C) there is no further structure to perform the claimed action. No structure for the information calculation unit was found in the specification to perform the claimed action.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “display unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No information was found in the specification regarding the structure of the display unit or a structure to perform the claimed action. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea/Mental Process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) without significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(A)). The claim(s) recite(s):
A control device for a machine tool that performs thread cutting with a cutting tool that oscillates relative to a workpiece, the control device comprising:
a condition acquisition unit configured to acquire, as a precondition, one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information including an oscillation phase difference between an n-th thread cutting pass and a thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass, information regarding a cut amount in a radial direction of the workpiece, and information regarding an oscillation amplitude in the radial direction of the workpiece;
an air cutting amount acquisition unit configured to acquire a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction; and
a machining control unit configured to determine, based on the precondition, the information among the three pieces of information that is not acquired by the condition acquisition unit such that an air cutting amount based on an interval between the n-th thread cutting pass and the thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass becomes equal to the designated air cutting amount.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites a control device (generic computer) that performs actions that are capable of being completed within the human mind.
a condition acquisition unit configured to acquire, as a precondition, one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information including an oscillation phase difference between an n-th thread cutting pass and a thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass, information regarding a cut amount in a radial direction of the workpiece, and information regarding an oscillation amplitude in the radial direction of the workpiece;
Receiving information can occur by reading or being verbally provided.
an air cutting amount acquisition unit configured to acquire a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction; and
Once the information is received in step (a), and the workpiece diameter is known, the air cutting amount (range in which the amplitude of vibration is greater than the depth of cut already provided) can be determined using mental math.
a machining control unit configured to determine, based on the precondition, the information among the three pieces of information that is not acquired by the condition acquisition unit such that an air cutting amount based on an interval between the n-th thread cutting pass and the thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass becomes equal to the designated air cutting amount.
Once the information is received, knowing the depth of cut, size of the workpiece, amplitude, and/or the phase a human can determine the air cutting amount (as in ii above) and the remaining variable using mental math.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claim 2 specifies the variables that are determined/used.
Claims 3 and 5 recites a display unit, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional device in the industry that is specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05 (A)).
Claim 4 generally has the same features as Claim 1, but includes the display unit.
Applicant may add features to the claim(s) that amount to significantly more than the mental processes and are not generic well-understood, routine and conventional devices to overcome the currently presented 101 rejection(s).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US20180281090A1) in view of Sagasaki (US20220179388A1).
Claim 1
Watanabe teaches a control device (40) for a machine tool (1) that performs thread cutting (¶0078 “vibration thread cutting”) with a cutting tool (62) that oscillates relative to a workpiece (¶0080 “perform machining while a cutting tool…is vibrated”.), the control device comprising: a condition acquisition unit (storage unit, 43) configured to acquire, as a precondition, one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information including an oscillation phase difference between an n-th thread cutting pass and a thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass, information regarding a cut amount in a radial direction of the workpiece (Figure 1 shows the program (432) is located in the storage. The machine program includes the cut depth (¶0134) and the phase (¶0084).), and information regarding an oscillation amplitude in the radial direction of the workpiece; and a machining control unit (analysis processing unit, 45) configured to determine, based on the precondition, the information among the three pieces of information that is not acquired by the condition acquisition unit. (¶0076 teaches the unit (45) reads the machining program and determines a vibration condition such as the amplitude.)
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose an air cutting amount acquisition unit configured to acquire a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction; an air cutting amount based on an interval between the n-th thread cutting pass and the thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass becomes equal to the designated air cutting amount.
However, Sagasaki teaches an air cutting amount acquisition unit (443a, ¶0076) configured to acquire a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction (¶0076 teaches that the display control unit (443a) compares the oscillatory movements to determine if there is air cutting occurring.); an air cutting amount based on an interval between the n-th thread cutting pass and the thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass becomes equal to the designated air cutting amount. (¶0077 teaches the display control unit (443a) displays guidance on how to rectify the absence or presence of an air cut region (based on whether there is intended to be one or not) including modifying the amplitude of the oscillation conditions.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known air cutting determination unit of Sagasaki to the control system of Watanabe in order to “Display of a guidance for allowing an air-cut region to appear enables even an inexperienced operator to easily take an action on the situation in which vibration cutting is not successfully performed, by seeing what is displayed in the guidance.” (¶0079 of Sagasaki)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known air cutting determination unit of Sagasaki to the control system of Watanabe because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the system of Watanabe will include an air cut detection and remedy system as taught by Sagasaki.
Claim 2
Watanabe in view of Sagasaki teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the condition acquisition unit acquires, as the precondition, the oscillation phase difference and the information regarding the cut amount from among the three pieces of information (Watanabe, Figure 1 shows the program (432) is located in the storage. The machine program includes the cut depth (¶0134) and the phase (¶0084).), and the machining control unit determines the information regarding the oscillation amplitude based on the oscillation phase difference and the information regarding the cut amount (Watanabe, ¶0076 teaches the unit (45) reads the machining program and determines a vibration condition such as the amplitude.) such that the air cutting amount based on the interval between the n-th thread cutting pass and the thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass becomes equal to the designated air cutting amount. (Sagasaki, ¶0077 teaches the display control unit (443a) displays guidance on how to rectify the absence or presence of an air cut region (based on whether there is intended to be one or not) including modifying the amplitude of the oscillation conditions. Modifying the amplitude in Sagasaki is a method of ensuring the air cutting amount is equal to the designated amount.)
Claim 3
Watanabe in view of Sagasaki teaches the control device according to claim 1, further comprising: a display unit configured to output the information determined by the machining control unit. (Watanabe, Figure 1, Item 30. ¶0072 teaches this is a LCD or equivalent.)
Claim 4
Watanabe teaches a display device (30) for a machine tool (1) that performs thread cutting (¶0078 “vibration thread cutting”) with a cutting tool (62) that oscillates relative to a workpiece (¶0080 “perform machining while a cutting tool…is vibrated”.)the display device comprising: a condition input unit (storage unit, 43) configured to receive, as a precondition, an input of one or two pieces of information from among three pieces of information including an oscillation phase difference between an n-th thread cutting pass and a thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass, information regarding a cut amount in a radial direction of the workpiece (Figure 1 shows the program (432) is located in the storage. The machine program includes the cut depth (¶0134) and the phase (¶0084). The machine program can be input (¶0072).), and information regarding an oscillation amplitude in the radial direction of the workpiece; an information calculation unit (analysis processing unit, 45) configured to calculate, based on the precondition, the information among the three pieces of information that is not received by the condition input unit(¶0076 teaches the unit (45) reads the machining program and determines a vibration condition such as the amplitude.); a display unit configured to display the information calculated by the information calculation unit. (Figure 1, Item 30. ¶0072 teaches this is a LCD or equivalent.)
Watanabe does not disclose an air cutting amount input unit configured to receive an input of a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction; an air cutting amount based on an interval between the n-th thread cutting pass and the thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass becomes equal to the designated air cutting amount; and
However, Sagasaki teaches an air cutting amount input unit (443a, ¶0076) configured to receive an input of a designated air cutting amount that indicates a degree of air cutting in an oscillation direction; (¶0076 teaches that the display control unit (443a) compares the oscillatory movements to determine if there is air cutting occurring and compares this to an input (command-based air-cut regions, See ¶0071 or ¶0079). The command-based air cut regions represent air cutting that is desired/input.); an air cutting amount based on an interval between the n-th thread cutting pass and the thread cutting pass subsequent to the n-th thread cutting pass becomes equal to the designated air cutting amount. (¶0077 teaches the display control unit (443a) displays guidance on how to rectify the absence or presence of an air cut region (based on whether there is intended to be one or not) including modifying the amplitude of the oscillation conditions.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known air cutting determination unit of Sagasaki to the control system of Watanabe in order to “Display of a guidance for allowing an air-cut region to appear enables even an inexperienced operator to easily take an action on the situation in which vibration cutting is not successfully performed, by seeing what is displayed in the guidance.” (¶0079 of Sagasaki)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known air cutting determination unit of Sagasaki to the control system of Watanabe because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the system of Watanabe will include an air cut detection and remedy system as taught by Sagasaki.
Claim 5
Watanabe in view of Sagasaki teaches the control device according to claim 1, further comprising: a display unit configured to output the information determined by the machining control unit. (Watanabe, Figure 1, Item 30. ¶0072 teaches this is a LCD or equivalent.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20220161339A1
2020-05-22
Figure 1 teaches a control device (C) for a machine tool that performs thread cutting on a workpiece (W). The control device has functionality of: preliminary (¶0054) set up to determine the oscillation phase and cutting amplitude for each cutting pass (¶0068 “setting a vibration pattern during each cutting process with reciprocal vibration by changing the vibration pattern that is, for example, the phases of the vibrations at the time of cutting in the continuous nth and n+1th cutting process so that the cutting part in the nth cutting processes is partially included in the cutting part in the n+1the cutting process.”). Air cutting is detected (¶0079).
US20210101240A1
2021-04-08
Figure 1 teaches a control device for a machine tool. The control device. The device includes a oscillation condition (amplitude) determination unit that takes other information and calculates the amplitude. (¶0032)
US20220179388A1
2019-06-27
Figure 7 teaches the layout of a control system (40a) for a machining device. The device includes an analysis processing unit (45) that determines preconditions based on the machine code and determines parameters such as oscillation frequency and amplitude. The method also has a step of determining the air cut using a display control unit (¶0076, 443a). The system provides guidance on how to achieve the desired air-cut amount by modifying the oscillation conditions. (Figure 9A and ¶0076-0078)
US20180281090A1
2014-10-28
Figure 1 shows a control system (1) that includes a display unit (30) alongside storage, analysis and interpolation systems. ¶0076 teaches the analysis unit (45) determines the amplitude based on input parameters and the control program. ¶0078 teaches the interpolation unit (48) that calculates the vibration movement and phase of vibration for each cutting process. ¶0134 teaches the program includes information for the depth of cut. ¶0137 teaches the amplitude is calculated based on the cut amount and workpiece diameter. In essence, Watanabe teaches an analysis unit that receives information from the machining program (that include the cut depth (¶0134) and phase (¶0084) and determines the amplitude (¶0076).
US20210389747A1
2019-10-24
Figure 1 teaches a control device (C) for a thread machining tool (100). The control device receives information from the machining program (¶0034) that include the depth of cut (¶0041). ¶0044 teaches the amplitude of the vibration of the tool is set.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights