DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-16 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
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;
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
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imanishi (WO 2022/224425 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2024/0219885).
As per Claim 1, Imanishi discloses a processing system (1) (Figs. 1-2; ¶19-20, 24-25) comprising:
a machine tool (20) configured to process (as per “machines” in ¶22) a workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) into a product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) based on an operation command (as per “predetermined numerical control program to generate a machine tool instruction signal serving as an instruction to the machine tool 20” in ¶21) (Figs. 1-2; ¶19-22, 30);
a robot (30) configured to load (as per “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78) the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) onto the machine tool (20) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-26, 76-78);
robot control circuitry (3) (Figs. 1-2; ¶20-25, 51-65) configured to
set workpiece weight data (as per “weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on … the weight of the payload” in ¶29) as one of control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) of the robot (30), the workpiece weight data (as per “weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on … the weight of the payload” in ¶29) indicating a first weight (as per “payload information storage unit 21 stores pieces of payload information about a workpiece pre-machined” in ¶30) that is a weight of the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) (Figs. 1-4; ¶20-22, 27, 29-30), and
control the robot (30) to load (as per “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78) the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) onto the machine tool (20) based on the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) and loading path data (as per “in the robot numerical control program, the robot control device 3 first causes the positions of the robot 30 to move straight forward and at the specified position (the position of the workpiece) in the rectangular coordinate system” in ¶77, “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78, and “causing the robot 30 to withdraw to outside the machine tool 20” in ¶79) that specifies a loading path of the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-29, 76-79); and
numerical control circuitry (2) (Figs. 1-2; ¶20-22, 24-27) configured to
transmit (via 26 to 32) the workpiece weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) or {first basic data based on which the first weight is calculated} to the robot control circuitry (3) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-27, 76-85), and
generate an operation command (as per “it is sequentially instructed … in the machine tool numerical program, executing machining on the loaded workpiece 1” in ¶80) by executing a processing program (as per “machine tool numerical control program” in ¶76) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-27, 75-85).
As per Claim 2, Imanishi discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Imanishi further discloses:
wherein the numerical control circuitry (2) is configured to transmit (via 26 to 32) the workpiece weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) to the robot control circuitry (3) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-27, 76-85), and
wherein the robot control circuitry (3) is configured to set the workpiece weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) acquired from the numerical control circuitry (2) as one of the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29; as per “analysis unit 33 analyzes the robot instruction signals inputted from the data transmission/reception unit 32” in ¶54; as per “The payload setting update control unit 38 executes, when the payload setting update instruction is detected and the pieces of payload setting information are notified by the analysis unit 33 … an update to the notified payload setting” in ¶56) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶20-29, 51-65, 76-85).
As per Claim 11, Imanishi discloses a machine tool system (1) (Figs. 1-2; ¶19-20, 24-25) comprising:
a machine tool (20) (Figs. 1-2; ¶19-22, 30) configured to
receive (as per “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78) a workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) from a robot (30) that is configured to be controlled by robot control circuitry (3) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-26, 51-65, 76-78), and
process (as per “machines” in ¶22) the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) into a product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) based on an operation command (as per “predetermined numerical control program to generate a machine tool instruction signal serving as an instruction to the machine tool 20” in ¶21) (Figs. 1-2; ¶19-22, 30); and
numerical control circuitry (2) (Figs. 1-2; ¶20-22, 24-27) configured to
transmit (via 26 to 32) workpiece weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) or {first basic data based on which a first weight is calculated} to the robot control circuitry (3) such that the workpiece weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) is set as one of control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29; as per “analysis unit 33 analyzes the robot instruction signals inputted from the data transmission/reception unit 32” in ¶54; as per “The payload setting update control unit 38 executes, when the payload setting update instruction is detected and the pieces of payload setting information are notified by the analysis unit 33 … an update to the notified payload setting” in ¶56) of the robot (30), the workpiece weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) indicating the first weight that indicates a weight of the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶20-29, 51-65, 76-85), and
generate the operation command (as per “predetermined numerical control program to generate a machine tool instruction signal serving as an instruction to the machine tool 20” in ¶21, as per “it is sequentially instructed … in the machine tool numerical program, executing machining on the loaded workpiece 1” in ¶80) by executing a processing program (as per “machine tool numerical control program” in ¶76) to send the operation command (as per “predetermined numerical control program to generate a machine tool instruction signal serving as an instruction to the machine tool 20” in ¶21, as per “it is sequentially instructed … in the machine tool numerical program, executing machining on the loaded workpiece 1” in ¶80) to the machine tool (20) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-27, 75-85).
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-8, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi (WO 2022/224425 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2024/0219885) in view of Iijima (US Pub. No. 2018/0364684).
As per Claim 3, Imanishi discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Imanishi further discloses wherein the robot (30) is configured to unload (as per “the workpiece 1 post-machined is unloaded” in ¶81) the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) from the machine tool (20) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-30, 76-81),
wherein the numerical control circuitry (2) is configured to transmit (via 26 to 32) product weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) or {second basic data} to the robot control circuitry (3), the product weight data indicating the second weight (as per “The payload setting for the robot 30 is then switched to a payload setting 3 (the workpiece 1 post-machined)” in ¶81) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-30, 76-81), and
wherein the robot control circuitry (3) (Figs. 1-2; ¶20-25, 51-65) is configured to
set the product weight data (as per “The payload setting for the robot 30 is then switched to a payload setting 3 (the workpiece 1 post-machined)” in ¶81) as one of the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) of the robot (30) (Figs. 1-4, 8; ¶20-22, 27, 29-30, 76-81), and
control the robot (30) to unload (as per “the workpiece 1 post-machined is unloaded” in ¶81) the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) from the machine tool (20) based on the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) including the product weight data (as per “The payload setting for the robot 30 is then switched to a payload setting 3 (the workpiece 1 post-machined)” in ¶81) and unloading path data (as per “it is sequentially instructed with … (open chuck) … (withdraw to outside machine) … (close door)” in ¶81) that specifies an unloading path of the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-29, 76-81).
Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the second weight is a weight of the product and that is calculated based on the second basic data.
Iijima discloses a machine tool (1) that includes a numerical controller (20) for controlling the machine tool (1) to machine a work (W) (Fig. 1; ¶27-29). The numerical controller (20) has machining information including target shape and calculation of a volume decrease (V) resulting from machining by computation (Figs. 1, 4; ¶44-45). By multiplying the calculated volume decrease (V) by a predetermined density, it is possible to acquire a weight decrease (¶45). In this way, the system operates to move the work (W) more efficiently and accurately and to improve machining accuracy (¶59). Like Imanishi, Iijima is concerned with machine tool systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates “wherein the second weight is a weight of the product and that is calculated based on the second basic data” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations as per Iijima.
As per Claim 4, Imanishi discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the robot control circuitry and the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a first calculation mode that calculates the first weight based on workpiece volume data indicating a first volume and based on workpiece density data indicating a first density, the first volume is a volume of the workpiece, and the first density is a density of a material constituting the workpiece.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates “wherein at least one of the robot control circuitry and the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a first calculation mode that calculates the first weight based on workpiece volume data indicating a first volume and based on workpiece density data indicating a first density, the first volume is a volume of the workpiece, and the first density is a density of a material constituting the workpiece” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations involving volume and density as per Iijima.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Imanishi and Iijima teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a second calculation mode that calculates the first volume based on shape data of the workpiece that is used to generate the processing program.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates “wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a second calculation mode that calculates the first volume based on shape data of the workpiece that is used to generate the processing program” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations involving shape and volume as per Iijima.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Imanishi and Iijima teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a second calculation mode that calculates the first volume based on shape data of the workpiece that is generated by execution of a processing simulation.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates “wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a second calculation mode that calculates the first volume based on shape data of the workpiece that is generated by execution of a processing simulation” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations involving shape as per Iijima.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Imanishi and Iijima teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Imanishi further discloses wherein the numerical control circuitry (2) is configured to execute a processing program generation mode (as per “The numerical control device 2 follows a predetermined numerical control program to generate a machine tool instruction signal serving as an instruction to the machine tool 20” in ¶21) that generates the processing program based on data that specifies a kind of a processing tool (as per “The machine coordinate value storage unit stores machine coordinate values that indicate positions of various kinds of shafts of the machine tool 20” in ¶33).
Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the processing program is based on the shape data of the workpiece, data that specifies a processing range, and data that specifies a processing speed.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima. Iijima further discloses wherein machining information includes shape data (¶44-45, 47), range data (¶12, 39), and processing speed (¶34-36).
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing program is based on the shape data of the workpiece, data that specifies a processing range, and data that specifies a processing speed” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by calculations involving shape, range, and speed as per Iijima.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Imanishi and Iijima teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the robot control circuitry and the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a third calculation mode that calculates the second weight based on product volume data indicating a second volume and based on product density data indicating a second density, the second volume is a volume of the product, and the second density is a density of a material constituting the product.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates “wherein at least one of the robot control circuitry and the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a third calculation mode that calculates the second weight based on product volume data indicating a second volume and based on product density data indicating a second density, the second volume is a volume of the product, and the second density is a density of a material constituting the product” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations involving volume and density as per Iijima.
As per Claim 12, Imanishi discloses all limitations of Claim 11. Imanishi further discloses wherein the numerical control circuitry (2) is configured to transmit (via 26 to 32) the workpiece weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) to the robot control circuitry (3) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-27, 76-85).
Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute
a second calculation mode that calculates a first volume that is a volume of the workpiece based on shape data of the workpiece to be used to generate the processing program or shape data of the workpiece generated by executing a processing simulation, and
a first calculation mode that calculates the first weight based on workpiece volume data indicating the first volume and workpiece density data indicating a first density that is a density of a material constituting the workpiece.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute:
“a second calculation mode that calculates a first volume that is a volume of the workpiece based on shape data of the workpiece to be used to generate the processing program or {shape data of the workpiece generated by executing a processing simulation}” that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations involving volume and shape as per Iijima; and
“a first calculation mode that calculates the first weight based on workpiece volume data indicating the first volume and workpiece density data indicating a first density that is a density of a material constituting the workpiece” that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations involving volume and density as per Iijima.
As per Claim 14, Imanishi discloses a workpiece processing method (as per operation of control system 1) (Figs. 1-2; ¶19-20, 24-25) comprising:
setting, by the robot control circuitry (3), the weight (as per “weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on … the weight of the payload” in ¶29) of the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) as one of control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) of a robot (30) (Figs. 1-4, 8; ¶19-27, 29-30, 76-78);
generating, by the robot control circuitry (3), a loading operation command (as per “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78) based on the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) and loading path data (as per “in the robot numerical control program, the robot control device 3 first causes the positions of the robot 30 to move straight forward and at the specified position (the position of the workpiece) in the rectangular coordinate system” in ¶77, “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78, and “causing the robot 30 to withdraw to outside the machine tool 20” in ¶79) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-29, 76-79);
loading (as per “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78), by the robot (40) that receives the loading operation command (as per “the workpiece 1 is loaded into the machine tool 20” in ¶78), the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22) onto a machine tool (20) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-29, 76-79);
generating, by the numerical control circuitry (2), an operation command (as per “predetermined numerical control program to generate a machine tool instruction signal serving as an instruction to the machine tool 20” in ¶21, as per “it is sequentially instructed … in the machine tool numerical program, executing machining on the loaded workpiece 1” in ¶80) by executing a processing program (as per “machine tool numerical control program” in ¶76) associated with the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22; as per “loaded workpiece 1” in ¶80) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-27, 76-80); and
processing, by the machine tool (20) that receives the operation command (as per “predetermined numerical control program to generate a machine tool instruction signal serving as an instruction to the machine tool 20” in ¶21, as per “it is sequentially instructed … in the machine tool numerical program, executing machining on the loaded workpiece 1” in ¶80), the workpiece (as per “non-illustrated workpiece” in ¶22; as per “loaded workpiece 1” in ¶80) into a product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-22, 30, 76-80).
Imanishi does not expressly disclose:
calculating a volume of a workpiece based on shape data of the workpiece by at least one of robot control circuitry, numerical control circuitry, a simulator, and a CAD/CAM system; and
calculating a weight of the workpiece, by at least one of the robot control circuitry, the numerical control circuitry, the simulator, and the CAD/CAM system, based on the volume of the workpiece that has been calculated and workpiece density data indicating a density of a material constituting the workpiece;
wherein the weight of the workpiece has been calculated.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates:
by “calculating a volume of a workpiece based on shape data of the workpiece by at least one of {robot control circuitry}, numerical control circuitry, {a simulator, and a CAD/CAM system}” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to perform volume calculations based on shape data of the workpiece by numerical control circuitry as per Iijima;
by “calculating a weight of the workpiece, by at least one of {the robot control circuitry}, the numerical control circuitry, {the simulator, and the CAD/CAM system}, based on the volume of the workpiece that has been calculated and workpiece density data indicating a density of a material constituting the workpiece” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to perform weight calculations based on volume and density of the workpiece by numerical control circuitry as per Iijima; and
“wherein the weight of the workpiece has been calculated” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to perform weight calculations as per Iijima.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Imanishi and Iijima teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 14. Imanishi further discloses:
setting, by the robot control circuitry (3), the weight (as per “weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on … the weight of the payload” in ¶29) of the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) as one of the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) of the robot (30) (Figs. 1-4; ¶20-25, 27, 29-30, 51-65);
generating, by the robot control circuitry (3), an unloading operation command (as per “the workpiece 1 post-machined is unloaded” in ¶81), based on the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) and unloading path data (as per “it is sequentially instructed with … (open chuck) … (withdraw to outside machine) … (close door)” in ¶81) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-29, 76-81); and
unloading (as per “the workpiece 1 post-machined is unloaded” in ¶81), by the robot (30) that receives the unloading operation command (as per “the workpiece 1 post-machined is unloaded” in ¶81), the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) from the machine tool (20) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-29, 76-81).
Imanishi does not expressly disclose:
calculating, by at least one of the numerical control circuitry, the simulator, and the CAD/CAM system, a volume of the product, based on shape data of the product or a processing simulation;
calculating, by at least one of the robot control circuitry, the numerical control circuitry, the simulator, and the CAD/CAM system, a weight of the product, based on the volume of the product that has been calculated and product density data indicating a density of a material constituting the product; and
wherein the weight of the workpiece has been calculated.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates:
by “calculating, by at least one of the numerical control circuitry, {the simulator, and the CAD/CAM system}, a volume of the product, based on shape data of the product or {a processing simulation}” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to perform volume calculations based on shape data of the workpiece by numerical control circuitry as per Iijima;
by “calculating, by at least one of {the robot control circuitry}, the numerical control circuitry, {the simulator, and the CAD/CAM system}, a weight of the product, based on the volume of the product that has been calculated and product density data indicating a density of a material constituting the product” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to perform weight calculations based on volume and density of the workpiece by numerical control circuitry as per Iijima; and
“wherein the weight of the workpiece has been calculated” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to perform weight calculations as per Iijima.
As per Claim 16, Imanishi discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Imanishi further discloses wherein the robot (30) is configured to unload (as per “the workpiece 1 post-machined is unloaded” in ¶81) the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) from the machine tool (20) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-30, 76-81),
wherein the numerical control circuitry (2) is configured to transmit (via 26 to 32) product weight data (as per “numerical control device 2 includes … a payload information storage unit 21” in ¶26, “payload information including … the weights of various kinds of payloads” in ¶27, and “data transmission/reception unit 26 … transmits the payload setting selected by the payload selection unit 25 to the payload setting update control unit 38 of the robot control device 3” in ¶84) or {second basic data} to the robot control circuitry (3), the product weight data indicating the second weight that is a weight of the product (as per “The payload setting for the robot 30 is then switched to a payload setting 3 (the workpiece 1 post-machined)” in ¶81) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-30, 76-81), and
wherein the robot control circuitry (3) (Figs. 1-2; ¶20-25, 51-65) is configured to
set the product weight data (as per “The payload setting for the robot 30 is then switched to a payload setting 3 (the workpiece 1 post-machined)” in ¶81) as one of the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) of the robot (30) (Figs. 1-4, 8; ¶20-22, 27, 29-30, 76-81), and
control the robot (30) to unload (as per “the workpiece 1 post-machined is unloaded” in ¶81) the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) from the machine tool (20) based on the control parameters (as per “pieces of payload information” in ¶27; as per “payload setting for the robot 30 is set based on pieces of payload information” in ¶29) including the product weight data (as per “The payload setting for the robot 30 is then switched to a payload setting 3 (the workpiece 1 post-machined)” in ¶81) and unloading path data (as per “it is sequentially instructed with … (open chuck) … (withdraw to outside machine) … (close door)” in ¶81) that specifies an unloading path of the product (as per “a workpiece … post-machined” in ¶30) (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶19-29, 76-81).
Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the product weight data is calculated based on the second basic data.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Iijima, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining. Applying the teachings of Iijima to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates “wherein the product weight data is calculated based on the second basic data” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by weight calculations as per Iijima.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi (WO 2022/224425 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2024/0219885) in view of Iijima (US Pub. No. 2018/0364684), further in view of Kiryu (US Pub. No. 2013/0090755).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Imanishi and Iijima teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a processing simulation that virtually processes the workpiece, and
wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a fourth calculation mode that calculates the second volume based on the processing simulation.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Iijima.
Kiryu discloses a numerically-controlled machine tool (100) that includes a control device (106) and a display device (112) (Figs. 1-2; ¶18-20). The control device (106) operates to: control operation of a drive motor (108) of the machine tool (101); determine three-dimensional external shape, position, and orientation of a workpiece (1); and performs simulation of machining the workpiece (1) (Figs. 1-3; ¶20, 25, 30). In operation, the control device (106) carries out the machining simulation (as per step S9) and displays a warning (as per step S11) on the display device (112) in response to a determination that a portion of the workpiece (1) is left unmachined (Fig. 3; ¶22, 30-32). Like Imanishi, Kiryu is concerned with machining systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi, Iijima, and Kiryu, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima and Kiryu to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by: improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining; and providing appropriate alerts. Applying the teachings of Iijima and Kiryu to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a processing simulation that virtually processes the workpiece” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by simulations as per Kiryu; and
“wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to execute a fourth calculation mode that calculates the second volume based on the processing simulation” in that the system of Imanishi would be informed by simulations as per Kiryu and weight calculations involving volume as per Iijima.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi (WO 2022/224425 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2024/0219885) in view of Iijima (US Pub. No. 2018/0364684), further in view of Ryoki (US Pub. No. 2022/0147027).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Imanishi and Iijima teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the robot is configured to execute loading of the workpiece onto the machine tool and unloading of the product from the machine tool in parallel,
wherein the robot control circuitry is configured to set each of the workpiece weight data indicating the first weight and the product weight data indicating the second weight as one of the control parameters, and
wherein the robot control circuitry is configured to, when the robot is supporting both the workpiece and the product, control the robot based on the control parameters that reflect both the workpiece weight data and the product weight data and based on the loading path data and the unloading path data.
Ryoki discloses a machining cell (100) that includes: two or more machines (102, 104) for performing machining on a workpiece; and a robot (110) that conveys the workpiece (Fig. 1; ¶48-51). The robot (110) includes a double-hand (111) in which one hand (111a) is for the workpiece before machining and another hand (11b) is for the workpiece after machining (Fig. 1; ¶52). In operation, the robot (110) can perform a process of detaching a preceding workpiece from the machine and a process of attaching the succeeding workpiece to the machine in parallel (¶117). In this way, it is possible to shorten a time by executing these processes in parallel (¶116-118). Like Imanishi, Ryoki is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi, Iijima, and Ryoki, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Iijima and Ryoki to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by: improving efficiency of movements and improving accuracy of machining; and shortening processing time. Applying the teachings of Iijima and Ryoki to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the robot is configured to execute loading of the workpiece onto the machine tool and unloading of the product from the machine tool in parallel” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to include a robot having a double-hand as per Ryoki;
“wherein the robot control circuitry is configured to set each of the workpiece weight data indicating the first weight and the product weight data indicating the second weight as one of the control parameters” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to operate by applying payload data adapted for a robot having a double-hand as per Ryoki;
“wherein the robot control circuitry is configured to, when the robot is supporting both the workpiece and the product, control the robot based on the control parameters that reflect both the workpiece weight data and the product weight data and based on the loading path data and the unloading path data” in that the system of Imanishi would be adapted to operate by applying payload data and according to loading as well as unloading paths adapted for a robot having a double-hand as per Ryoki.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi (WO 2022/224425 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2024/0219885) in view of Kiryu (US Pub. No. 2013/0090755).
As per Claim 13, Imanishi discloses all limitations of Claim 11. Imanishi does not expressly disclose wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to communicate with at least one of a simulator and a CAD/CAM system, and
wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to receive, from at least one of the simulator and the CAD/CAM system, the processing program and at least one of the workpiece weight data and workpiece volume data indicating a first volume that is a volume of the workpiece.
See rejection of Claim 9 for discussion of teachings of Kiryu.
Therefore, from these teachings of Imanishi and Kiryu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiryu to the system of Imanishi since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate alerts. Applying the teachings of Kiryu to the system of Imanishi would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to communicate with at least one of a simulator and {a CAD/CAM system}” in that the control devices (2, 3) of Imanishi would be adapted to receive information from a control device (106) as per Kiryu that performs simulation; and
“wherein the numerical control circuitry is configured to receive, from at least one of the simulator and {the CAD/CAM system}, the processing program and at least one of {the workpiece weight data} and workpiece volume data indicating a first volume that is a volume of the workpiece” in that the control devices (2, 3) of Imanishi would be adapted to receive information describing three-dimensional external shape of the workpiece from a control device (106) as per Kiryu that performs simulation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshida (US Patent No. 6,535,788), Nishi (US Pub. No. 2010/0211220), Morimoto (US Pub. No. 2016/0327934), Inoue (US Pub. No. 2017/0014999), Nishi (US Pub. No. 2018/0222047), and Zhang (US Pub. No. 2019/0160678) disclose robot control systems and/or machine tool control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
