DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s response dated 12/24/2025, Applicant amended Claims 1 and 4; and argued against all rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 10/21/2025.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Examiner Note Regarding Claim interpretation
An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art (See MPEP 2103(I)(C).)
Claims 1 and 4 recite intended use, because claim 1 recites “extract one or more machinable shapes from CAD data for a machining product to be achieved”.
The claim is extracting machinable shapes from CAD data, however, specifying that the shapes area, for a machining product to be achieved is the intended use of extracting the data, the claim is not clearly claiming the achieving of a machining product.
Claim 4 recites similar claim language, accordingly claim 4 also recite intended use.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 now recites “using the acquired tool information to query the association table, extract a shape identifier indicating a shape that can be machined by the tool corresponding to the acquired tool information; based on the extracted shape identifier, extract one or more machinable shapes from CAD data for a machining product to be achieved”. Accordingly, this claim language is indefinite because it is unclear if the ”shape identifier” is being use to extra a shape that can be machined or to extract one or more machinable shapes from CAD data for a machining product to be achieved.
For purposes of examination, the examiner interpreted the claims as using the shape identifier to extract the information associated with the shapes as disclosed in Morichi.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morichi et al. (US 2006/0038829) (hereinafter, Morichi) in view of Zaima (US 2019/0303517) (hereinafter, Zaima).
Regarding Claim 1, Morichi teaches a numerical control device configured to automatically generate a machining program (See Morichi’s Abstract), the numerical control device comprising:
a non-transitory memory configured to store a program and an association table that associates, in advance, tool information pertaining to a plurality of tools, shape identifiers indicating shapes that the plurality of tools can respectively machine, and [at least one G code that can be used to machine the shape indicated by the shape identifier] (Morichi in par 0016, teaches that a combination of a plurality of tools may be stored in a selectable-tool set as the pre-defined work instructions, for each kind of the bodies. Morichi in par 0048 – 0049, further teaches that the selectable-tool set 19 is a set of tool data of a single or a plurality of tools selected from a tool definition group 21. The tool definition group 21 includes identification of the tool including tool dimensions, and the amount of work made by the tool, in the form of parameters. Morichi in par 0053 and Fig. 7, further teaches a tool-list window 70 which is displayed, for example, in a box drawn in broken lines and indicated by a reference code V in FIG. 6. The tool-list window 70 displays a list of tools stored in the process definition group 21, with the "tool name" and the "tool diameter", and the operator can scroll the list using a scroll bar and make choices therefrom. Once a tool is selected, work contents achievable with the tool is displayed in the bottom portion of the window 70),
wherein the shapes indicated by the shape identifiers are CAD data (Morichi in par 0042 – 0043 and Fig. 2, further teaches that object data include individual drawing data 17 and a process definition group 18. Both of the original-product-body group 14 and the processing information group 15 are collections of CAD data and thus include a plurality of bodies. Morichi in par 0059 - 0060, further teaches that upon selection of a processed body in FIGS. 5 and 6, work contents related to the selected body are selected from the process-contents division 15b. and the display control unit 12 displays the contents on the monitor 3. Upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a); and
a processor configured to execute the program stored on the memory (Morichi in par 0041, further teaches that the system includes a bus 2 which has an address bus and a data bus, and is connected with a monitor 3, a CPU, a memory 5 and input devices for the operator. Commands from the input devices 6 are executed by the CPU 4 and results of operations are displayed on the monitor 3) to cause the numerical control device to:
acquire tool information pertaining to a tool selected for machining (Morichi in par 0048, teaches that the selectable-tool set 19 is a set of tool data of a single or a plurality of tools selected from a tool definition group 21. The tool definition group 21 includes identification of the tool including tool dimensions, and the amount of work made by the tool, in the form of parameters);
using the acquired tool information to query the association table, extract a shape identifier indicating a shape that can be machined by the tool corresponding to the acquired tool information (Morichi par 0042, teaches that the processing information group 15 has, for each body to be removed, a processed-body division 15a which stores CAD data of the processed body, and a process-contents division 15b which stores data about the contents of processing operations. Morichi in par 0060 and Fig. 7, further teaches that upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a);
based on the extracted shape identifier, extract one or more machinable shapes from CAD data for a machining product to be achieved (Morichi in par 0022, teaches that by selecting any of the processed body, the operator can readily know the contents of processing operations, i.e. work instructions, which have been made to the body. Work contents such as tools to be used and the amount of cut can be varied conveniently. These have enabled to make instructions for more appropriate machining. Morichi in par 0046, further teaches that the process-contents division 15b is a collection of data stored as attribute data of a body for example, and includes a plurality of work contents. The content of each work is related to a corresponding one of the bodies stored in the processed-body division 15a. Normally, the processed-body division 15a and the process-contents division 15b are stored as part of the processing information group 15 which is a single CAD file, and are readily accessible from the related body to view the work contents. Morichi in par 0057, further teaches selecting a machining start button); and
display the extracted machinable shapes (Morichi in par 0059 – 0060 and Fig(s) 5 – 8, further teaches that upon selection of a processed body in FIGS. 5 and 6, work contents related to the selected body are selected from the process-contents division 15b, and the display control unit 12 displays the contents on the monitor 3. For example, in FIGS. 5 and 6, if the lateral hole 52, the vertical hole 53 and so on are selected via the input device 6, the system will give a display such as in FIG. 8. Further, conversely, upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a).
Morichi in par 0055, further teaches that FIG. 10 shows a work sequence list window 74, which relates to contents of work instructions for the profiled part 55. "Preliminary machining", "pocket machining", "detail removal machining" and "outline machining" in this figure correspond to process operations shown in FIGS. 11(a) through (d).
However, Morichi does not specifically disclose that the information stored is related to G code and at least one G code that can be used to machine the shape indicated by the shape identifier and wherein the displayed machinable shapes are selectable to display usable G codes.
A simulation device includes a simulation unit that generates a machining path on the basis of a machining program that specifies information on the shape of a workpiece and information on the shape of a tool to simulate a machined shape of the workpiece including a plurality of machined surface areas that are machined by the tool (See Zaima’s Abstract).
Zaima in par 0062 – 0070 and Fig. 5, further teaches that operation of the simulation device. In Step ST201, a worker selects a specific portion of an erroneously cut surface (machined surface) on the basis of a model image of the workpiece displayed on the display unit 30 of the simulation device 1. In Step ST202, the simulation device 1 acquires patch numbers that correspond to the selected portion. In Step ST203, the simulation device 1 acquires a block number that identifies a block (part of a machining program) that is stored in association with the patch numbers from the associated information storage unit 22. Then, in Step ST204, the simulation device 1 acquires program content of the block identified using the block identification information from the machining program storage unit 21. In Step ST205, the simulation device 1 (display control unit 13) displays a model image of the workpiece W and the program content (including the G-code) of the block identified using the block identification information on the display unit 30. Then, in Step ST206, the worker examines whether the G-code needs to be edited. If the G-code is to be edited (YES), the simulation device 1 receives edited content from the input unit 40 and edits the machining program (content of the applicable block) using the machining program editing unit 16 and outputs the edited content to the display control unit 13. If the G-code is not to be edited (NO), the processing ends. Next, in Step ST207, the simulation device 1 (display control unit 13) displays the model image of the workpiece W and the edited program content (including the G-code) on the display unit 30.
Accordingly, Zaima teaches a numerical control device that stores G code associated with a shape and allow the user to visualize the usable G code in response to the selection of the shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Zaima with the teachings as in Morichi to use G-code format for the stored instructions in Morichi as disclosed in Zaima. The motivation for doing so would have been to display to the user the usable G code associated with a shape in order to determine if it is necessary to edit the G code associated with the shape, thus providing a machining operation that will operate correctly (See Zaima’s par 0004).
Regarding Claim 4, Morichi teaches a numerical control device configured to automatically generate a machining program (See Morichi’s Abstract), the numerical control device comprising:
a non-transitory memory configured to store a program and an association table that associates, in advance, tool information pertaining to a plurality of tools, shape identifiers indicating shapes that the plurality of tools can respectively machine, and [at least one G code that can be used to machine the shape indicated by the shape identifier] (Morichi in par 0016, teaches that a combination of a plurality of tools may be stored in a selectable-tool set as the pre-defined work instructions, for each kind of the bodies. Morichi in par 0048 – 0049, further teaches that the selectable-tool set 19 is a set of tool data of a single or a plurality of tools selected from a tool definition group 21. The tool definition group 21 includes identification of the tool including tool dimensions, and the amount of work made by the tool, in the form of parameters),
wherein the shapes indicated by the shape identifiers are CAD data (Morichi in par 0042 – 0043 and Fig. 2, further teaches that object data include individual drawing data 17 and a process definition group 18. Both of the original-product-body group 14 and the processing information group 15 are collections of CAD data and thus include a plurality of bodies. Morichi in par 0059 - 0060, further teaches that upon selection of a processed body in FIGS. 5 and 6, work contents related to the selected body are selected from the process-contents division 15b. and the display control unit 12 displays the contents on the monitor 3. Upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a); and
a processor configured to execute the program stores on the memory (Morichi in par 0041, further teaches that the system includes a bus 2 which has an address bus and a data bus, and is connected with a monitor 3, a CPU, a memory 5 and input devices for the operator. Commands from the input devices 6 are executed by the CPU 4 and results of operations are displayed on the monitor 3) to cause the numerical control device to:
acquire tool information pertaining to a tool selected for machining (Morichi in par 0048, teaches that the selectable-tool set 19 is a set of tool data of a single or a plurality of tools selected from a tool definition group 21. The tool definition group 21 includes identification of the tool including tool dimensions, and the amount of work made by the tool, in the form of parameters);
using the acquired tool information to query the association table, extract a [G code] that can be used by the tool corresponding to the acquired tool information (Morichi par 0042, teaches that the processing information group 15 has, for each body to be removed, a processed-body division 15a which stores CAD data of the processed body, and a process-contents division 15b which stores data about the contents of processing operations. Morichi in par 0046, further teaches that the process-contents division 15b is a collection of data stored as attribute data of a body for example, and includes a plurality of work contents. The content of each work is related to a corresponding one of the bodies stored in the processed-body division 15a. Normally, the processed-body division 15a and the process-contents division 15b are stored as part of the processing information group 15 which is a single CAD file, and are readily accessible from the related body to view the work contents. Morichi in par 0060 and Fig. 7, further teaches that upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a); and
display the extracted [G codes] that can be used (Morichi in par 0059 – 0060 and Fig(s) 5 – 8, further teaches that upon selection of a processed body in FIGS. 5 and 6, work contents related to the selected body are selected from the process-contents division 15b, and the display control unit 12 displays the contents on the monitor 3. For example, in FIGS. 5 and 6, if the lateral hole 52, the vertical hole 53 and so on are selected via the input device 6, the system will give a display such as in FIG. 8. Further, conversely, upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a).
Morichi in par 0055, further teaches that FIG. 10 shows a work sequence list window 74, which relates to contents of work instructions for the profiled part 55. "Preliminary machining", "pocket machining", "detail removal machining" and "outline machining" in this figure correspond to process operations shown in FIGS. 11(a) through (d).
However, Morichi does not specifically disclose that the information stored is related to G code and at least one G code that can be used to machine the shape indicated by the shape identifier and wherein the displayed G codes are selectable to display machinable shapes from CAD data for a machining product to be achieved.
A simulation device includes a simulation unit that generates a machining path on the basis of a machining program that specifies information on the shape of a workpiece and information on the shape of a tool to simulate a machined shape of the workpiece including a plurality of machined surface areas that are machined by the tool (See Zaima’s Abstract).
Zaima in par 0062 – 0070 and Fig. 5, further teaches that operation of the simulation device. In Step ST201, a worker selects a specific portion of an erroneously cut surface (machined surface) on the basis of a model image of the workpiece displayed on the display unit 30 of the simulation device 1. In Step ST202, the simulation device 1 acquires patch numbers that correspond to the selected portion. In Step ST203, the simulation device 1 acquires a block number that identifies a block (part of a machining program) that is stored in association with the patch numbers from the associated information storage unit 22. Then, in Step ST204, the simulation device 1 acquires program content of the block identified using the block identification information from the machining program storage unit 21. In Step ST205, the simulation device 1 (display control unit 13) displays a model image of the workpiece W and the program content (including the G-code) of the block identified using the block identification information on the display unit 30. Then, in Step ST206, the worker examines whether the G-code needs to be edited. If the G-code is to be edited (YES), the simulation device 1 receives edited content from the input unit 40 and edits the machining program (content of the applicable block) using the machining program editing unit 16 and outputs the edited content to the display control unit 13. If the G-code is not to be edited (NO), the processing ends. Next, in Step ST207, the simulation device 1 (display control unit 13) displays the model image of the workpiece W and the edited program content (including the G-code) on the display unit 30.
Accordingly, Zaima teaches a numerical control device that stores G code associated with a shape and allow the user to visualize the usable G code in response to the selection of the shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Zaima with the teachings as in Morichi to use G-code format for the stored instructions in Morichi as disclosed in Zaima. The motivation for doing so would have been to display to the user the usable G code associated with a shape in order to determine if it is necessary to edit the G code associated with the shape, thus providing a machining operation that will operate correctly (See Zaima’s par 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 3 and 5 – 6 are allowed.
Reason for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and in light of the Specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention as recited in Claims 2 – 3 and 5 – 6 patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record Morichi et al. (US 2006/0038829) (hereinafter, Morichi) and Kono et al. (US 2022/0258296) (hereinafter, Kono) fail to teach or suggest the invention as recited in independent Claims 2 and 5 (See remarks dated 09/08/2025 page 7).
Morichi in par 0048 – 0049, teaches that the selectable-tool set 19 is a set of tool data of a single or a plurality of tools selected from a tool definition group 21. The tool definition group 21 includes identification of the tool including tool dimensions, and the amount of work made by the tool, in the form of parameters. Morichi in par 0059 – 0060 and Fig(s) 5 – 8, further teaches that upon selection of a processed body in FIGS. 5 and 6, work contents related to the selected body are selected from the process-contents division 15b, and the display control unit 12 displays the contents on the monitor 3. For example, in FIGS. 5 and 6, if the lateral hole 52, the vertical hole 53 and so on are selected via the input device 6, the system will give a display such as in FIG. 8. Further, conversely, upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a.
Kono teaches a technology for generating an numerical control (NC) program which can secure appropriate machining accuracy (See Kono’s Abstract). Kono in par 0031, further teaches that a control apparatus 26 controls the turning process by reading the NC program stored in an internal recording apparatus and controlling the operation of the workpiece and the tool based on the machining parameters (machining speed and feed rate) and the machining path described in the NC program. The NC program may be data in which the lathe operation is described in a format such as G-code, or it may be data in a format which the lathe operation cannot be directly controlled. Kono in par 0059, further teaches that the machining target shape data is the data that indicates the target shape when machining by the NC program.
However, none of the prior art of record discloses the claims as recited in independent Claims 2 and 5.
Due to at least their dependency upon Claims 2 or 5, the prior art of record also fails to disclose Claims 3 and 6 as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant argues: that according to amended Claim 1, the numerical control device is capable of extracting machinable shapes using both the CAD data for a machining product to be achieved and the shape (CAD data) indicated by the shape identifier. Applicant respectfully submits that the cited prior art references do not teach, suggest, or render obvious at least the above-noted combination of features recited in amended claim 1. Morichi nor Zaima discloses or suggests extracting machinable shapes using both the CAD data for a machining product to be achieved and the shape (CAD data) indicated by the shape identifier.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the numerical control device is capable of extracting machinable shapes using both the CAD data for a machining product to be achieved and the shape (CAD data) indicated by the shape identifier) 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).
Claim 1 recites “using the acquired tool information to query the association table, extract a shape identifier indicating a shape that can be machined by the tool corresponding to the acquired tool information; and based on the extracted shape identifier, extract one or more machinable shapes from CAD data for a machining product to be achieved.”
Morichi teaches a system that is capable of automatically recognizing parts to be processed, from CAD data which only contains a product shape, and generating the shape of body to be processed and the work contents (See Morichi’s Abstract).
Morichi in par 0042 – 0043 and Fig. 2, further teaches that object data include individual drawing data 17 and a process definition group 18. Both of the original-product-body group 14 and the processing information group 15 are collections of CAD data and thus include a plurality of bodies. Morichi in par 0059 - 0060, further teaches that upon selection of a processed body in FIGS. 5 and 6, work contents related to the selected body are selected from the process-contents division 15b. and the display control unit 12 displays the contents on the monitor 3. Upon specifying a tool in the tool-list window 70 shown in FIG. 7, the display control unit 12 will display a corresponding body to be made with the specified tool, through relational links with the tool definition group 21, the selectable-tool set 19, the process definition group 18, the process-contents division 15b and the processed-body division 15a.
Accordingly, Morichi teaches a system that can extract machinable shapes using the stored CAD data, furthermore, the user can interact with the shape to obtain the corresponding data, additionally as shown in figure 7, the user can interact with the list and in response to a selection associated with the list, the display will provide the corresponding body to be made with the specified tool in a machining process.
Therefore, the examiner maintain that Morichi in view of Zaima teaches or suggests “using the acquired tool information to query the association table, extract a shape identifier indicating a shape that can be machined by the tool corresponding to the acquired tool information”; and “based on the extracted shape identifier, extract one or more machinable shapes from CAD data for a machining product to be achieved” as claimed.
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to claims are substantially encompassed in the arguments above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner maintains prior art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118