Application No.: l l/987,44l
`Examiner: Chang, Sunray
`Art Unit: 2121
`
`REMARKS
`
`The claims were finally rejected in the Office action of September 14, 2010.
`
`This response amends the claims as described below. A Request for Continued
`
`Examination is concurrently filed herewith to gain entry of the present claims.
`
`In
`
`View of the following particulars, reconsideration of the pending application is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`1.
`
`In the claims
`
`Claims 1 and 5 are amended to recite that the working process monitoring
`
`device fiirther comprises
`
`a training sample
`
`storage unit
`
`stores amounts of
`
`characteristics extracted from target signals obtained while processing a workpiece
`
`made of a normal quality material by the amount of characteristics extracting unit.
`
`Support
`
`for
`
`this amendment
`
`is
`
`found in paragraphs
`
`[0038],
`
`[0039] of the
`
`specification, as originally filed.
`
`It
`
`is clear that
`
`there is support
`
`in the specification for the amendatory
`
`language; thus, no new matter is added by these amendments.
`
`Entry of the Amendment to the claims is respectfully requested in the next
`
`Office action.
`
`2.
`
`§ 1031a) as being
`Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
`un,atentable over US. in ,atent a, ,lication ,ublication 2004/0179915 Hi1
`
`
`
`
`
`View of US.
`
`atent 5 402 521 Niida
`
`and further in View of US.
`
`atent
`
`6,378,408 {Smith
`
`Reconsideration of this rejection is respectfiilly requested in View of the
`
`amendments to independent claims 1 and 5, from which the remaining claims in the
`
`rejection depend, and the following remarks which demonstrate that the proposed
`
`combination of Hill, Niida and Smith fails to render the pending claims prima facie
`
`obvious .
`
`

`

`Application No.: l l/987,44l
`Examiner: Chang, Sunray
`Art Unit: 2121
`
`In observing claim 1, the claim is amended to now require a training sample
`
`storage unit for storing amounts of characteristics extracted from target sigpals obtained
`
`while processing a workpiece made of a normal guality material.
`
`A material inspecting unit detects whether a material of a portion of the
`
`workpiece currently being processed is normal
`
`in quality or not, and the material
`
`inspecting unit employs a neural network trained by using the amounts of characteristics
`
`stored in the training sample storage unit.
`
`Early wood portions and late wood portions of the workpiece are treated as
`
`material portions of normal quality among portions being machined, and the amounts of
`
`characteristics stored in the trainin sam le stora e unit are cate orized into a late wood
`
`group and an early wood group corresponding respectively to the late wood portions and
`
`the early wood portions.
`
`Claim 5 recites similar features.
`
`The proposed combination of Hill, Niicla and Smith does not disclose a training
`
`sample storage unit for storing amounts of characteristics extracted from target signals
`
`obtained while processing a workpiece made of a normal quality material, wherein the
`
`amounts of characteristics stored in the training sample storage unit are categorized into
`
`a late wood group and an early wood group corresponding respectively to the late wood
`
`portions and the early wood portions, as required by amended claims 1 and 5.
`
`Hill discloses an instrument for machining comprising a sensor responsive to
`
`a non—rotating part of a machine proximate the tool of the machine for outputting a
`
`vibration signal, and a processor responsive to the sensor output configured to
`
`calculate a plurality of signature quantities which characterize the dynamics of the
`
`vibration signal and correlate the signature quantities to detect parameters associated
`
`with the operation of the machine (paragraphs [0009] — [0018]).
`
`

`

`Application No.: l l/987,44l
`Examiner: Chang, Sunray
`Art Unit: 2121
`
`The parameters that are detected include a measurement of the surface finish
`
`of a workpiece,
`
`the state of the machine tool bit, and the status of the
`
`cooling/lubrication of the machine (paragraph [0018]).
`
`It is noted that the surface finish discussed in Hill relates to the surface of the
`
`workpiece after the machining of the workpiece. Thus, the detection of surface finish
`
`in Hill does not relate to cut resistance or guality of the workpiece, but rather
`
`deviation of the cutting tool resulting in inconsistency of the surface finish 34 after
`
`machining (Fig. 1; paragraph [0055]).
`
`As such, Hill provides absolutely no disclosure of a storage unit
`
`for
`
`categorizing characteristics into a late wood group and an early wood group
`
`corresponding respectively to late wood portions and early wood portions of a
`
`workpiece.
`
`Smith discloses an apparatus for variably controlling work feed rate for cutting
`
`wood. The apparatus of Smith automatically alters the work-feed rate and/or saw blade
`
`rim speed as sawing conditions changes. The work feed rate is adjusted when a lateral
`
`displacement of the blade is detected. That is, when a lateral displacement of the blade
`
`is detected, the feed rate is altered in order to bring the blade back to its normal position
`
`(col. 11, lines 30-64; col. 6, lines 15-30).
`
`Smith, however, does not contemplate storing training characteristics in
`
`categories corresponding to late wood portions and early wood portions. Smith is only
`
`concerned with adjusting the blade to abnormal quality portions, such as the hypothetical
`
`knot (col. 11, lines 50-59).
`
`Niz'da discloses a method for recognition of abnormal conditions using neural
`
`networks, and is cited for training neural networks. However, Nz'z'da does not disclose
`
`woodworking at all and does not make up for the shortcomings of Hill and Smith.
`
`That is, none of the cited references contemplate storing training characteristics
`
`in categories corresponding to late wood portions and early wood portions.
`
`

`

`Application No.: l l/987,44l
`Examiner: Chang, Sunray
`Art Unit: 2121
`
`From these teachings,
`
`it
`
`is submitted that
`
`the skilled artisan would not
`
`understand to store training characteristics in categories corresponding to late wood
`
`portions and early wood portions.
`
`As such, the proposed combination of Hill, Niida and Smith does not disclose a
`
`training sample storage unit for storing amounts of characteristics extracted from target
`
`signals obtained while processing a workpiece made of a normal quality material,
`
`wherein the amounts of characteristics stored in the training sample storage unit are
`
`categorized into a late wood group and an early wood group corresponding respectively
`
`to the late wood portions and the early wood portions, as recited in amended claims 1
`
`and 5.
`
`It is again noted that the sawing condition of Smith that the work feed rate is
`
`based is not a condition of the actual wood workpiece, but rather a lateral displacement
`
`of the blade (col. 11, lines 30—64; col. 6, lines 15—30).
`
`Indeed, Smith merely uses a
`
`proximity sensor 12 to measure displacement of the blade and controls the cutting rate
`
`based upon the blade displacement (col. 6, lines 15—30).
`
`Indeed, in examining column 11, lines 40-63 of Smith, it appears that Smith is
`
`only concerned with adjusting the blade to abnormal quality portions, such as the
`
`hypothetical knot. Smith discloses to adjust the feed rate only after the blade encounters
`
`a hypothetical knot, and provides no disclosure that the feed rate is adjusted when
`
`cutting normal wood portions such as the late wood portions and early wood portions of
`
`the pending claims.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the proposed combination of Hill, Niida and Smith does not
`
`disclose a working process monitoring device comprises a speed control unit which
`
`controls a cutting speed so that an amount of contact per unit time that saw teeth of the
`
`saw blade are in contact with the workpiece while cutting late wood portions is greater
`
`than that while cutting early wood portions, wherein the early wood portions and the late
`
`wood portions have different cut resistances in wood grains, and the cut resistance of the
`
`

`

`Application No.: l l/987,44l
`Examiner: Chang, Sunray
`Art Unit: 2121
`
`late wood portions is larger than that of the early wood portions, as recited in amended
`
`claims 1 and 5.
`
`Claims 2 and 6 are also considered to be patentable as containing all of the
`
`elements of claims 1 and 5 as well as for their respective individually recited features.
`
`In view of these observations, it is respectfully submitted that the proposed
`
`combination of Hill, Niz'da and Smith fails to render the pending claims of this
`
`rejection prima fizcie obvious. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is kindly
`
`requested.
`
`3.
`
`Rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 1031a) as being unpatentable
`
`over U.S.
`
`atent a
`
`lication ublication 2004/0179915 Hil
`
`in View of U.S.
`
`atent 5 402 521 Nz'z'da and US.
`
`atent 6 378 408 Smith
`
`and further in
`
`
`view ofU.S. ,atenta, ,lication ,ublication 2002/0158599 Fu'z'ta
`
`Reconsideration of this rejection is respectfully requested in light of the
`
`observations noted above and the amendment to independent claim 1, from which
`
`claims 4 and 7 depend.
`
`It is submitted that Fujz'ta does not make up for the shortcomings of Hill, Nz'z'cla
`
`and Smith and thus claims 4 and 7 are patentable at least in View of their dependency
`
`from claim 1. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`

`

`Application No.: l l/987,44l
`Examiner: Chang, Sunray
`Art Unit: 2121
`
`4.
`
`Conclusion
`
`As a result of the amendment to the claims, and further in view of the
`
`foregoing remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the application is in condition for
`
`allowance. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that every pending claim in the
`
`present application be allowed and the application be passed to issue.
`
`If any issues remain that may be resolved by a telephone or facsimile
`
`communication with the applicants’ attorney, the examiner is invited to contact the
`
`undersigned at the numbers shown below.
`
`BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
`625 Slaters Lane, Fourth Floor
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314—1176
`
`Phone: (703) 683-0500
`Facsimile: (703) 683—1080
`
`Date: December 1, 2010
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`» f
`
`‘-
`
`x...» jg 5;}?!
`- ”if, ”3&ka
`
`KEVIN D. WILLIAMS
`
`Attorney for Applicants
`Registration No. 63,716
`
`-10-
`
`