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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the specification. For clarification, Examiner respectfully points out that the attached, marked-up copy of the specification identifies informalities to assist the Applicant, and as such, Applicant is requested to make appropriate corrections and submit a substitute specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 9-12 will be read as “an imaging control unit configured to control the drive unit and to control the imaging unit to image a groove machined on the surface of the workpiece on the table, through scanning from a start position above the surface of the workpiece to an end position deeper than a bottom surface of the groove in the direction of the Z-axis,”
In Claim 8, line 1 will be read with a colon (“:”) at the end
In Claim 10, line 1 will be read with a colon (“:”) at the end
In Claim 10, line 5, “picked up” will be read as hyphenated “picked-up”
In Claim 11, line 1 will be read with a colon (“:”) at the end
In Claim 11, line 2, “picked up” will be read as hyphenated “picked-up”
In Claim 11, line 5, “picked up” will be read as hyphenated “picked-up”
In Claim 12, line 2, “picked up” will be read as hyphenated “picked-up”
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a workpiece information acquisition unit” in claim 9; “an imaging condition setting unit” in claim 9; “an output range setting unit” in claim 10; and “an output range setting unit” in claim 11.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokyo Seimitsu Co Ltd (JP 2021-84201 A, hereinafter “Tokyo”) in view of Sakai et al. (US 2017/0248409 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Tokyo discloses a machining device comprising:
a table configured to hold a workpiece on a holding surface (Figure 2; [0038] “Table 31 has a porous work-holding surface 31a, which holds the workpiece W by suction from the back side”) perpendicular to a Z-axis (Figure 2: shows a Z-axis along the vertical);
a machining unit configured to machine the workpiece (Figure 2; [0030] “processing section 16 performs dicing on the workpieces W”) on the table (Figure 2; [0032] “a table 31”);
an imaging unit (Figure 4; [0045] “an imaging unit 56”) configured to image (implicit for an imaging unit to image) a surface of the workpiece (Figure 4: [0048] “workpiece W”) using an optical interferometry (Figure 4; [0050] “interference signal L4 passes through the glass plate 54, the objective lens 53, and the first beam splitter 52 before entering the imaging unit 56”);
a drive unit configured to move the imaging unit relative to the table (Figure 5; [0058] “movement control unit 72 drives the relative movement mechanism 49, which includes the X drive unit 35 (X carriage 36), the rotary drive unit 38 (rotary unit 37), the Y drive unit 46 (Y carriage 43), and the Z drive unit 48 (Z carriage 44), to move the blades 21A and 21B, the microscope 23, and the white-light interferometer 24 relative to the table 31”), along a direction of the Z-axis (Figure 5; [0062] “movement control unit 72 drives the relative movement mechanism 49 to adjust the position of the white interferometer 24 and perform vertical scanning”, wherein “vertical scanning” is along the Z-axis); and
an imaging control unit configured to control the drive unit and to control the imaging unit to image a groove machined on the surface of the workpiece (Figure 5; [0072] “measurement control unit 80 corresponds to the first measurement control unit of the present invention and operates the movement control unit 72 and the white interferometer 24 when measuring the machining quality of grooves 25A and 25B formed on the workpiece W”) on the table (Figure 2; [0032] “a table 31”), through scanning from a start position above the surface of the workpiece to an end position deeper than a bottom surface of the groove in the direction of the Z-axis (Figures 4-6; [0073] “measurement control unit 80 first drives the relative movement mechanism 49 via the movement control unit 72 to adjust the position of the white-light interferometer 24 so that it can irradiate the measurement light L2 onto the groove 25A of the workpiece W to be measured”; [0074] “measurement control unit 80 activates the white light interferometer 24 (white light source 51 and imaging unit 56) at a position where the measurement light L2 can be irradiated onto the groove 25A. This allows the measurement light L2 from the white light interferometer 24 to be irradiated onto the groove 25A, while the imaging unit 56 outputs the interference signal L4 for each pixel. Also, while the measurement light L2 from the white light interferometer 24 is being irradiated and the interference signal L4 for each pixel is being output, the measurement control unit 80 drives the relative movement mechanism 49 via the movement control unit 72 to perform vertical scanning with the white light interferometer 24”; [0075] “measurement control unit 80 controls the movement control unit 72 and the white interferometer 24 to adjust the position of the white interferometer 24 relative to groove 25B, operate the white interferometer 24, and perform vertical scanning”), but does not specifically teach:
wherein the imaging control unit picks up an image of the groove through scanning in the direction of the Z-axis, in accordance with an imaging condition determined for each site to be imaged.
However, Sakai, in the same field of measuring shapes, teaches that the imaging control unit picks up an image of the groove (Figure 1; [0033] “imaging unit 15 is provided, in a removable manner, with an image optical head 151 that images a two-dimensional image of the object W and a light interference optical head 152 that measures a three-dimensional shape of the object W through light interference measurement”) through scanning in the direction of the Z-axis (Figure 1; [0032] “imaging unit 15 is provided movable in the direction of the X-axis along the X-axis guide 14 due to an X-axis driving mechanism not illustrated, and is provided movable in the direction of the Z-axis due to a Z-axis driving mechanism not illustrated”), in accordance with an imaging condition determined for each site to be imaged ([0009] “acquiring a first measurement result by setting a measurement condition suitable for the measurement of a first region of the object and by measuring a first scanning range of the surface with a first scanning pitch; determining a second region of the surface from the first measurement result; and acquiring a second measurement result by setting a measurement condition suitable for the measurement of the second region and by measuring a second scanning range of the surface narrower than the first scanning range with a second scanning pitch finer than the first scanning pitch”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tokyo with the teachings of Sakai, wherein the imaging control unit picks up an image of the groove through scanning in the direction of the Z-axis, in accordance with an imaging condition determined for each site to be imaged, because “An object of the present invention is to provide a measurement method and a measurement program, capable of measuring the shape of a surface of an object including regions each having a different optimum measurement condition, in a short time.” (Sakai, [0008])
Regarding Claim 2, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging control unit applies illumination light having a light intensity determined for each site (Figures 4-6; [0074] “measurement control unit 80 activates the white light interferometer 24 (white light source 51 and imaging unit 56) at a position where the measurement light L2 can be irradiated onto the groove 25A. This allows the measurement light L2 from the white light interferometer 24 to be irradiated onto the groove 25A”), to pick up the image of the groove (Figure 4; [0074] “imaging unit 56 outputs the interference signal L4 for each pixel”, wherein “interference signal L4” is interpreted as image of the groove via optical interferometry).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging control unit outputs from each pixel, a pixel value falling within an output range determined for each site, to pick up the image of the groove (Figure 4; [0052] “imaging unit 56 captures the interference signal L4 coming in from the first beam splitter 52 for each pixel while the white interferometer 24 performs a single vertical scan (or multiple scans). In this way, it detects (acquires) the interference signal L4 for each pixel and outputs the pixel-by-pixel interference signals L4 to the overall control unit 60”).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, and the imaging condition (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that in a case where the groove is imaged, the imaging condition is determined for each of a first site including the surface of the workpiece, a third site including the bottom surface of the groove, and a second site between the first site and the third site.
However, Sakai, in the same field of measuring shapes, teaches that the imaging condition is determined for each of a first site including the surface of the workpiece, a third site including the bottom surface of the groove, and a second site between the first site and the third site ([0009] “acquiring a first measurement result by setting a measurement condition suitable for the measurement of a first region of the object and by measuring a first scanning range of the surface with a first scanning pitch; determining a second region of the surface from the first measurement result; and acquiring a second measurement result by setting a measurement condition suitable for the measurement of the second region and by measuring a second scanning range of the surface narrower than the first scanning range with a second scanning pitch finer than the first scanning pitch”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tokyo with the teachings of Sakai, such that in a case where the groove is imaged, the imaging condition is determined for each of a first site including the surface of the workpiece, a third site including the bottom surface of the groove, and a second site between the first site and the third site, because “An object of the present invention is to provide a measurement method and a measurement program, capable of measuring the shape of a surface of an object including regions each having a different optimum measurement condition, in a short time.” (Sakai, [0008])
Regarding Claim 8, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an image processing unit configured to process the image of the groove ([0080] “the processing quality measurement unit 82 can generate three-dimensional shape information 86 that shows the 3D shapes of grooves 25A and 25B, as illustrated in Figure 9”) picked up through scanning in the direction of the Z-axis ([0010] “a processing quality measurement unit that measures the processing quality of the portion being processed based on pixel-wise interference signals output from the white light interferometer during vertical scanning”), and measure a shape of the groove ([0079] “Figure 9 is an illustration to explain the three-dimensional shape measurement of grooves 25A and 25B by the machining quality measurement unit 82. Figure 10 is an illustration to explain the shape measurement of cross-sections along the Y-axis direction of grooves 25A and 25B by the machining quality measurement unit 82”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach:
a workpiece information acquisition unit configured to acquire workpiece information including information on a shape of a cross-section of the workpiece; and
an imaging condition setting unit configured to set the imaging condition based on the workpiece information.
However, Sakai, in the same field of measuring shapes, teaches:
a workpiece information acquisition unit (Figure 5; [0063] “a central processing unit (CPU) 311” is interpreted as a workpiece information acquisition unit) configured to acquire workpiece information including information on a shape of a cross-section of the workpiece ([0069] “FIG. 7A schematically illustrates the measuring region R of the cylindrical inner wall. The angle of a cylindrical axis and the position of a depth in a direction at the cylindrical axis are specified so that the measuring region R of the cylindrical inner wall is set. A region including a recess (a pit) on the cylindrical inner wall is the first region R1, and a region. except that is the second region R2”); and
an imaging condition setting unit (Figure 5; [0063] “an input unit 314” is interpreted as an imaging condition setting unit; [0065] “input unit 314 receives information from the user”) configured to set the imaging condition based on the workpiece information (Figure 6; [0069] “At step S101, the measurement condition suitable for the measurement of the first region R1, namely, a measurement condition suitable (e.g., the light intensity) to the measurement of the recess (the pit) is set”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tokyo with the teachings of Sakai, for a workpiece information acquisition unit configured to acquire workpiece information including information on a shape of a cross-section of the workpiece; and an imaging condition setting unit configured to set the imaging condition based on the workpiece information, because setting an imaging condition based on workpiece information ensures that the vision system captures high-quality, accurate images for automated inspection, measurement, or robot guidance.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, wherein
the imaging unit (Figure 4; [0045] “an imaging unit 56”) images the surface of the workpiece (Figure 4: [0048] “workpiece W”) using a white-light interferometry (Figure 4; [0052] “imaging unit 56 captures the interference signal L4 coming in from the first beam splitter 52 for each pixel while the white-light interferometer 24 performs a single vertical scan”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokyo Seimitsu Co Ltd (JP 2021-84201 A, hereinafter “Tokyo”) and Sakai et al. (US 2017/0248409 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doi et al. (US 2021/0404801 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, and the imaging control unit (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the imaging control unit performs gain adjustment based on a setting determined for each site, to pick up the image of the groove.
However, Doi, in the same field of measuring the depth of a recess formed in a sample, teaches that the imaging control unit performs gain adjustment based on a setting determined for each site (Figures 1 and 5; [0053] “imaging unit 101 or the like sets image acquisition conditions in accordance with information stored in the recipe (program) (step 151), and the signal processing unit 103 or the like adjusts a gain of a photoelectron multiplier tube and an offset of an amplifier such that the image has a predetermined luminance and contrast (step 152)”), to pick up the image of the groove (Figures 1 and 5; [0054] “based on detection of electrons obtained by electron beam scanning, at least one (an image or the like) of a signal waveform or an image is generated and acquired (step 154)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tokyo with the teachings of Doi, wherein the imaging control unit performs gain adjustment based on a setting determined for each site, to pick up the image of the groove, because “the depth of the recess formed in the sample can be measured with high accuracy even when a material or a pattern density of the sample is different.” (Doi, [0007])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokyo Seimitsu Co Ltd (JP 2021-84201 A, hereinafter “Tokyo”) and Sakai et al. (US 2017/0248409 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bankhead (US 2006/0018514 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, and the imaging control unit (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the imaging control unit controls an exposure time based on a setting determined for each site, to pick up the image of the groove.
However, Bankhead, in the same field of surface profiling, teaches that the imaging control unit controls an exposure time based on a setting determined for each site (Figure 3; [0121] “the control apparatus may control the exposure time of the 2D image sensor detector 10”), to pick up the image of the groove (implicit for an image sensor detector to pick up an image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tokyo with the teachings of Bankhead, such that the imaging control unit controls an exposure time based on a setting determined for each site, to pick up the image of the groove, to “enable a user to select image processing functions that process the image data supplied by the 2D image sensor detector 10 to enhance the visibility of the fringes and so facilitate detection of the region of interference by the user.” (Bankhead, [0092])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokyo Seimitsu Co Ltd (JP 2021-84201 A, hereinafter “Tokyo”) and Sakai et al. (US 2017/0248409 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2020/0006087 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 1, and the imaging control unit (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the imaging control unit performs gradation correction based on a setting determined for each site, to pick up the image of the groove.
However, Yamaguchi, in the same field of processing workpieces, teaches that the imaging control unit performs gradation correction based on a setting determined for each site ([0201] “the image taken with the ultrasonic microscope was subjected to color tone correction and two gradations using image processing software”), to pick up the image of the groove ([0201] “Grooves having 40 μm width and 40 μm depth were formed at intervals of 100 μm on the surface of a silicon mirror wafer (6 inches) having 625 μm thickness by blade dicing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tokyo with the teachings of Yamaguchi, such that the imaging control unit performs gradation correction based on a setting determined for each site, to pick up the image of the groove, because by applying site-specific gradation curves, the optical imaging unit standardizes the contrast across the entire workpiece, allowing edge-detection algorithms to perform reliably despite varying light angles or surface materials.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokyo Seimitsu Co Ltd (JP 2021-84201 A, hereinafter “Tokyo”) and Sakai et al. (US 2017/0248409 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Mori (US 2002/0075526 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Tokyo discloses the machining device according to claim 9, the information on the shape of the cross-section of the workpiece (see claim 9 rejection), and the imaging control unit (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach:
an output range setting unit configured to set an image output range, based on the information on the shape of the cross-section of the workpiece, wherein
the imaging control unit extracts an image within the image output range set by the output range setting unit from the picked-up image, and outputs the extracted image.
However, Mori, in the same field of image reading, teaches:
an output range setting unit configured to set an image output range ([0118] “the lighting control means controls an amount of light emitted by the lighting means within a predetermined range to set an image pickup signal output from the image pickup means at proper level”), based on the information on the shape of the cross-section of the workpiece (see claim 9 rejection), wherein
the imaging control unit extracts an image within the image output range set by the output range setting unit from the picked-up image, and outputs the extracted image ([0124] “a dark image pickup detecting circuit for determining a dark image pickup state on the basis of the image pickup signal output from the image pickup element”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Tokyo with the teachings of Mori, for an output range setting unit configured to set an image output range, based on the information on the shape of the cross-section of the workpiece, wherein the imaging control unit extracts an image within the image output range set by the output range setting unit from the picked-up image, and outputs the extracted image, because extracting an image with a specific image output range for a processed workpiece helps isolate the region of interest, normalize pixel intensities, and verify manufacturing quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest an output range setting unit configured to analyze the picked-up image and set an output range, wherein the imaging control unit extracts an image within the output range set by the output range setting unit from the picked-up image, and outputs the extracted image.
Claims 12-13 are dependent thereupon, and also included in the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2021/0066129-A1 discloses a recognition method of a kerf including a bonding step of bonding a workpiece to a dicing tape greater in size than the workpiece, a pre-machining imaging step of imaging an optimal region of the dicing tape where the workpiece is not bonded, a kerf forming step of forming a kerf in the optimal region by a cutting machine, a post-machining imaging step of imaging the optimal region with the kerf formed therein, and a recognition step of comparing intensities of light received at each two corresponding pixels in respective images of the optimal region as acquired by the pre-machining imaging step and the post-machining imaging step, subtracting the each two pixels where intensities of received light are the same, and recognizing as the kerf a region formed by the remaining pixels.
US-2016/0096249-A1 discloses a machining device, in particular a grinding device, for the machining of slots in a component, in particular radially lying slots in a stationary blade carrier, with a base carrier, a clamping device, which is attached to the base carrier pivotably about a pivot axis and is designed to fix the base carrier on the component to be machined, a guiding rail, which is guided on the base carrier displaceably in a straight line in a guiding plane lying perpendicularly in relation to the pivot axis, and a tool holder head, which is held on the guiding rail pivotably about a rotation axis parallel to the pivot axis and carries fastening means for the attachment of a machining tool is provided.
US-2015/0066193-A1 discloses that in a method for compensating step value of a processing product placed on a machining device using a computing device, a machining tool of the machining device is controlled to be moved to each benchmark point in sequence. Actual coordinate values of each benchmark point are calculated by a laser detection device of the machining device. The acquired actual coordinate values are fitted to be a benchmark plane. New coordinate values of each machining point in a machining program are acquired by rotating each of the machining points to the benchmark plane. The machining tool is controlled to move to each machining point according to the calculated new coordinate values and an actual z-coordinate value of each machining point is acquired using the laser detection device. The step compensation value in Z-axis of each machining point is calculated and transmitted to the machining device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
