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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claim 1 regarding the limitation "the determined machining parameters" have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejection of 7/2/2025 has been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because the arguments are directed towards the unexamined amendments of the amended claims of 9/18/2025. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 6935003 B2 Rahma.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Nakata has “no disclosure or suggestion of using a pre-machined part model derived from prior milling or CAM simulation data as the basis for cavity modeling and that Nakata uses pixel-based Z height representations for machining path generation and simulation, not a realistic pre-machined 3D field model representing prior milling removal effects.” The examiner argues that applicant's arguments are against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Nakata “does not consider a simulation of the milling operation with the actual milling tool to reflect the real geometry of the part machines by milling”, the applicant is arguing that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a simulation of the milling operation with the actual milling tool to reflect the real geometry of the part machines by milling ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The examiner respectfully interprets the claims of the instant application to be broad enough to be read on by Nakata.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitations of “milling a raw part to generate a part-before EDM model defining the geometry of the part” is disclosed in the specification to be a pre-machined part per pars. 10 and 14, later claim 1 recites “wherein the material removal by a pre- machining process is simulated and a three-dimensional model of the pre- machined workpiece is extracted from a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) system to be used as the part-before EDM model” where the pre-machined part is a model. Essentially, it appears that the steps are out of order and that pre-machining process and toolpath should be simulated first then the milling a raw part to generate a part before EDM model occurs.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070239311A1 Gasparraj in view of US 6935003 B2 Rahman in view of US 5761068 A Nakata.
Regarding claim 1, Gasparraj teaches, except where struck through,
A method for machining a part by an EDM machine tool comprising:
generating a cavity model to be applied for machining the part by electrode discharge machine (EDM) (par. 1; claim 1) using a tool electrode (par. 1; claim 1), wherein generating the cavity model includes:
(claim 1; fig. 3 step 305; par. 35 teaches “ The designer then identifies a cavity 405 to erode utilizing a process of electro-erosion known as electrical discharge machining (EDM) by die sinking (Step 305)”)
b. generating an electrode model defining the geometry of the tool electrode applied for eroding the part (par. 36 teaches step 315 “Continuing, an electrode 500 is designed beginning with an electrode starting block and the direct negative boolean of the cavity 405, which results in the electrode starting block with a direct negative boolean of the cavity extending therefrom (Step 310). Next determine the size and shape of the orbit in roughing and finishing EDM processes, where the shape of the orbit approximately resembles the cavity itself (Step 315). The presently preferred embodiment discloses a polygonal orbit, however it is understood that the polygonal orbit can have many sides and many vertices”);
and c. generating machining parameters using the cavity model defining the geometrical shape, which represents the volume of the material to be eroded by the tool electrode, based on the generated part-before EDM model and the generated electrode model (par. 9 teaches the use of CAM system; par. 37 teaches “Now to under-size the electrode, given a square orbit 600 as proposed by the designer based upon the square-like nature of the cavity to be milled, the three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a first vertex 605 in a manner that orbits the cavity 405 itself, instead of the electrode, in the desired path (Step 320). At the first vertex 605, the three-dimensional design 400 performs a boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 from an instance 607, where an the instance denotes an associated copy of the same part at a different location (Step 325). The three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a next vertex 610 of the square orbit 600 (Step 330), after which another boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 occurs (Step 335). Successive boolean-subtraction operations occur on the electrode 500 at each subsequent vertex 615, 620 until the first vertex 605 is reached (Step 340).”) generated machining parameters (par. 15).
Gasparraj does not teach a. milling a raw part to generate a part-before EDM model defining the geometry of the part…nor…wherein the material removal by a pre- machining process is simulated and a three-dimensional model of the pre- machined workpiece is extracted from a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) system to be used as the part-before EDM model.
Rahman teaches a known technique that is applicable to the base device of Gasparraj to machine a part prior to a wire EDM subtractive manufacturing process (Rahman claim 1 and column 2 lines 1 to 41).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of milling a raw part to generate a part-before EDM model defining the geometry of the part to a known method that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to machine the electrically conductive workpiece in step 300 of Gasparraj ,which is a also known as a blank in the machining art, to a desired shape prior to performing an EDM machining operation (Rahman claim 1 and column 2 lines 1 to 41).
The results would have been predictable for the purpose to provide a workpiece with a rough shape and enough machining allowance to allow for a subsequent machining process such as EDM to remove the machining allowance to a final shape.
Nakata teaches, wherein the material removal by a pre- machining process is simulated and a three-dimensional model of the pre- machined workpiece is extracted from a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) system to be used as the part-before EDM model (claims 8 through 13).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known and obvious to simulate a machining path and calculating a volume of removal are elements that are known in the art as being no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions to provide the advantage that the time of repeated generation of a machining path is reduced (Nakata column 15 lines 19 to 21).
Regarding claim 2, Gasparraj teaches,
wherein the part-before EDM model is a computer aided design (CAD) model (par. 5 teaches “To virtually mill a part, a CAD application, for example NX(tm) by UGS Corp., is utilized to define the electrode path of orbit”).
Regarding claim 3, Gasparraj teaches,
wherein the part-before EDM model and the electrode model are input into a Computer-aided design (CAD) tool, in particular, the cavity model is calculated by conducting Boolean calculation between the part-before EDM model and the electrode model (claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 18; step 310).
Regarding claim 4, Gasparraj teaches,
wherein the part-before EDM model defines the geometry of a raw part (par. 36 step 315).
Regarding claim 5, Gasparraj teaches,
wherein the part-before EDM model defines the geometry of an intermediate part, which is obtained by machining the raw part (par. 37 teaches “Now to under-size the electrode, given a square orbit 600 as proposed by the designer based upon the square-like nature of the cavity to be milled, the three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a first vertex 605 in a manner that orbits the cavity 405 itself, instead of the electrode, in the desired path (Step 320). At the first vertex 605, the three-dimensional design 400 performs a boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 from an instance 607, where an the instance denotes an associated copy of the same part at a different location (Step 325). The three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a next vertex 610 of the square orbit 600 (Step 330), after which another boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 occurs (Step 335). Successive boolean-subtraction operations occur on the electrode 500 at each subsequent vertex 615, 620 until the first vertex 605 is reached (Step 340)”).
Regarding claim 6, Gasparraj teaches,
wherein the raw part is machined by one of the following machining processes to generate the intermediate part: milling, electro- discharge machining, laser machining, cutting, and grinding(par. 37 teaches “Now to under-size the electrode, given a square orbit 600 as proposed by the designer based upon the square-like nature of the cavity to be milled, the three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a first vertex 605 in a manner that orbits the cavity 405 itself, instead of the electrode, in the desired path (Step 320). At the first vertex 605, the three-dimensional design 400 performs a boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 from an instance 607, where an the instance denotes an associated copy of the same part at a different location (Step 325). The three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a next vertex 610 of the square orbit 600 (Step 330), after which another boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 occurs (Step 335). Successive boolean-subtraction operations occur on the electrode 500 at each subsequent vertex 615, 620 until the first vertex 605 is reached (Step 340)”).
Regarding claim 7, Gasparraj teaches,
wherein the method further comprises:
a. generating a first part-before EDM model defining the geometry of the raw part to be eroded by the EDM machine to obtain an intermediate part (claim 1; fig. 3 step 305; par. 35 teaches “ The designer then identifies a cavity 405 to erode utilizing a process of electro-erosion known as electrical discharge machining (EDM) by die sinking (Step 305)”);
b. generating a first electrode model defining the geometry of a first electrode applied for the eroding the raw part (par. 36 teaches step 315 “Continuing, an electrode 500 is designed beginning with an electrode starting block and the direct negative boolean of the cavity 405, which results in the electrode starting block with a direct negative boolean of the cavity extending therefrom (Step 310). Next determine the size and shape of the orbit in roughing and finishing EDM processes, where the shape of the orbit approximately resembles the cavity itself (Step 315). The presently preferred embodiment discloses a polygonal orbit, however it is understood that the polygonal orbit can have many sides and many vertices”);
c. computing a first cavity model defining the volume of the material to be removed from the raw part to obtain the intermediate part (par. 35 teaches “The designer then identifies a cavity 405 to erode utilizing a process of electro-erosion known as electrical discharge machining (EDM) by die sinking (Step 305)”);
d. generating a second part-before EDM model defining the geometry of the intermediate part (par. 36 teaches step 315 “Continuing, an electrode 500 is designed beginning with an electrode starting block and the direct negative boolean of the cavity 405, which results in the electrode starting block with a direct negative boolean of the cavity extending therefrom (Step 310). Next determine the size and shape of the orbit in roughing and finishing EDM processes, where the shape of the orbit approximately resembles the cavity itself (Step 315). The presently preferred embodiment discloses a polygonal orbit, however it is understood that the polygonal orbit can have many sides and many vertices”);
e. generating a second electrode model defining the geometry of a second electrode applied for the eroding the intermediate part (par. 36 teaches “Next determine the size and shape of the orbit in roughing and finishing EDM processes, where the shape of the orbit approximately resembles the cavity itself (Step 315). The presently preferred embodiment discloses a polygonal orbit, however it is understood that the polygonal orbit can have many sides and many vertices. For example, the presently preferred embodiment can be utilized with circular orbits by tessellating the circle into a polygon, or any orbital path that can be deconstructed into discrete points” and par. 37 teaches “Now to under-size the electrode, given a square orbit 600 as proposed by the designer based upon the square-like nature of the cavity to be milled, the three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a first vertex 605 in a manner that orbits the cavity 405 itself, instead of the electrode, in the desired path (Step 320). At the first vertex 605, the three-dimensional design 400 performs a boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 from an instance 607, where an the instance denotes an associated copy of the same part at a different location (Step 325). The three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a next vertex 610 of the square orbit 600 (Step 330), after which another boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 occurs (Step 335). Successive boolean-subtraction operations occur on the electrode 500 at each subsequent vertex 615, 620 until the first vertex 605 is reached (Step 340)” where the art of Gasparraj performs multiple subsequent computations for subsequent vertexes);
f. computing a second cavity model defining the geometry of the material to be removed from the intermediate part by eroding using the second electrode by conducting Boolean operation between the second part-before EDM model and the second electrode model (par. 36 teaches “Next determine the size and shape of the orbit in roughing and finishing EDM processes, where the shape of the orbit approximately resembles the cavity itself (Step 315). The presently preferred embodiment discloses a polygonal orbit, however it is understood that the polygonal orbit can have many sides and many vertices. For example, the presently preferred embodiment can be utilized with circular orbits by tessellating the circle into a polygon, or any orbital path that can be deconstructed into discrete points” and par. 37 teaches “Now to under-size the electrode, given a square orbit 600 as proposed by the designer based upon the square-like nature of the cavity to be milled, the three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a first vertex 605 in a manner that orbits the cavity 405 itself, instead of the electrode, in the desired path (Step 320). At the first vertex 605, the three-dimensional design 400 performs a boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 from an instance 607, where an the instance denotes an associated copy of the same part at a different location (Step 325). The three-dimensional design 400 is moved to a next vertex 610 of the square orbit 600 (Step 330), after which another boolean-subtraction operation on the electrode 500 occurs (Step 335). Successive boolean-subtraction operations occur on the electrode 500 at each subsequent vertex 615, 620 until the first vertex 605 is reached (Step 340)” where the art of Gasparraj performs multiple subsequent computations for subsequent vertexes);
Regarding claim 8, Gasparraj teaches,
wherein the part-before EDM model is extracted from a Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) tool (par. 35 teaches “a designer begins by creating a three-dimensional design 400 of a virtual workpiece utilizing a computer aided drafting software application, like NX(tm) by UGS Corp. (Step 300)” where the examiner considers these to be CAM tools).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070239311A1 Gasparraj in view of US 6935003 B2 Rahman in view of US 5761068 A Nakata in view of US 20080015729 A1 Lin.
Regarding claim 9, Gasparraj in combination with Sendai does not teach wherein the part-before EDM model is extracted from a mesh file.
Lin teaches in the abstract “A method of determining machining condition for a sinker electric discharge machining apparatus”, wherein the part-before EDM model is extracted from a mesh file ( claim 1 teaches “A machining condition determining system for a sinker electric discharge machining apparatus in which a tool electrode is advanced along an axis of advancement to machine the workpiece comprising: a cavity model producing means for producing a cavity model as a solid model of part of the tool electrode; a tessellating means for tessellating the cavity model into a mesh of polygons each of the polygons having an ordered set of vertices and having an orientation defined by the ordering of the vertices”; claim 2, 6, and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Gasparraj reference, such that wherein the part-before EDM model is extracted from a mesh file, as suggested and taught by Lin, for the purpose of providing the advantage of providing a repeating tessellated shape to perform wire edm to which increases part accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761