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 .
1. Claim 1-9 and 16 are presented for examination and claims 10-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn for consideration.
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 10-15 and 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Claim 16 are rejoined with Group I since applicant amended claim 16 to depend from claim 1.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 and claim 16 are identical limitation, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the subtractive component comprises a serrated endmill cutter”, and both claims 4 and 16 depend on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claims 1-9 and 16 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.
It is not clear from the of claim 1 how the subtractive component and the spindle are linked together. The result of the step "receiving an engagement geometry of a subtractive component for use in a computer numerical control (CNC) machining process;" is not used in the rest of the claim. Therefore. it is not clear how this feature should be assessed. Clarification request.
Claim 2-3 recites the limitation “the calculated feed rate”" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per claim 2-9 and 16, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claim 1. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 recites a feed rate scheduling method, comprising: receiving an engagement geometry (insignificant extra-solution activity) of a subtractive component for use in a computer numerical control (CNC) machining process ; receiving a tool path for forming a component (insignificant extra-solution activity) from a workpiece via the CNC machining process; calculating a plurality of bending (Mathematical calculations Mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) moments of a spindle at various intervals along the tool path; and determining a feed rate schedule (performed in the human mind observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, are considered to recite an abstract idea) for the tool path of the subtractive component based on the plurality of bending moments.
The limitations “calculating a plurality of bending moments …” and “determining a feed rate schedule …” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components (CNC machining). The claim recites user calculate (Mathematical calculations Mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and determine based on collected data from the component (Performed in the human mind observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, are considered to recite an abstract idea). Thus, claim 1 is recite a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
only recites one additional element – using computer numerical machine (CNC) to calculate and planning to feed rate schedule. In addition, claim 1, recites the addition element limitation of “receiving an engagement geometry …” “receiving a tool path for forming a component …”however, this recited as a general means of receiving inputting information, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; See MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of using CNC machine process to perform both calculating and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the receiving data. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2-3 and 5-7, recite “calculating” is groupings of abstract ideas Mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I),
Claim 3, recite “comparing” performed in the human mind observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, are considered to recite an abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 3 recites the limitation " the calculating the feed rate schedule " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
6. 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.
6.1 Claim(s) 1-5, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolin et al. (US 20150127139 A1) in view of Wang (US 20170227945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bolin discloses a feed rate scheduling ([0007], [0012]-[0014], feed rate optimization of CNC programs can be performed during CNC programming processing in the CAM system) method, comprising:
receiving an engagement geometry of a subtractive component (cutting tool) for use in a computer numerical control (CNC) machining process ([0045], [0049], a CNC controller executes a software program that causes the cutting tool to follow a pre-processed tool path that has been configured to maintain the tool engagement angle .theta. constant); and
receiving a tool path for forming a component from a workpiece via the CNC machining process (Abstract, [0022], receiving sensor data representing machining process conditions during said cutting along the defined initial tool path).
However, Bolin fails to discloses calculating a plurality of bending moments of a spindle at various intervals along the tool path; and determining a feed rate schedule for the tool path of the subtractive component based on the plurality of bending moments.
Wang discloses calculating a plurality of bending moments of a spindle at various intervals along the tool path ([0020], [0028], [0045], Fig. 3, calculate values of one or more operating condition of the bending moment on the tool, bending moment on the spindle or at the spindle interface, cutting torque at the tool holder/spindle interface); and
determining a feed rate schedule for the tool path of the subtractive component based on the plurality of bending moments ([0048]-[0050], The feed rate change may be determined based on the ratio of the actual value to predicted value of the particular operating condition, so as to bring the actual value within the dynamic limit. The feed rate change may be implemented by machine tool controller 300 and the machining process may continue. calculations based on such sensors as in the case of bending moment, such as forces).
Wang and Bolin are analogous art. They relate to real time machining process control. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify machine tool operating conditions, taught by Wang incorporated with a milling machines controlled by numerical control systems, taught by Bolin, for modifying the cutting tool path in order to control the radial cutting depth in real-time during a machining process to maintain machining process constraints and increases in cutting force can be captured by sensors on the machine as tool wear progresses, triggering an appropriate action.
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the calculating the feed rate schedule comprises simulating a metal cutting process of the subtractive component in a virtual machining simulation environment using the engagement geometry and the tool path ([0017], Pre-process simulation 100 simulates the execution of an NC program in a virtual environment in which a machine tool operates the tools designated in the NC program to follow a tool path, including feed rates, tool angles, etc. Pre-process simulation 100 may model the cutting path and relevant conditions, such as the feed rates, spindle speeds and depth of cut, based on tool attributes such as tool kind, size and geometry and on material composition, and calculate the geometrical material to be removed).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the calculating the feed rate schedule (change the feed rate 214) comprises comparing each bending moment in the plurality of bending moments of the spindle to a bending moment threshold (Fig. 2, [0017], Real time monitoring system 200 may be executed real time in conjunction with the actual in-process machining of a workpiece on the machine tool, compare the predicted values with the actual values from the actual machining, and respond based on that comparison).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Bolin discloses the subtractive component (cutting tool) comprises a serrated endmill cutter ([0004], [0040], End mills are cutting tools for machining work pieces and are typically engaged to a rotary turning machine such as a milling machine. End mills are typically provided as elongate, cylindrically shaped elements and may include anywhere from 2 to 20 or more teeth or flutes that are formed on an outer perimeter of the end mill).
Regarding claim 5, wang discloses calculating the plurality of bending moments ([0028], [0030]-[0031], [0045], calculations based on such sensors as in the case of bending moment) includes calculating local forces at various local engagement locations of the engagement geometry along the tool path ([0017], [0020], [0028]-[0029], the cutting forces calculated for the current motion step. The bending moment and torsional torque applied to the tool holder/spindle interface are calculated).
Regarding claim 9, Bolin discloses forming the component by performing the CNC machining process (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0029], CNC milling machine that is carrying a cutting tool, which is being operated to form a pocket in a workpiece).
6.2 Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolin et al. (US 20150127139 A1) in view of Wang (US 20170227945 A1) further in view of et al. Cho (US 20050113963 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 8, the combination of Wang and Bolin discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 5, but fails to discloses the limitations of claim 6 and 8. However, Cho discloses as follow:
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses local forces ([0048], Cutting Force Model) are calculated based on a tip speed of the subtractive component (, a local normal rake angle, and an uncut chip thickness ([Fig. 4-6, Fig. 10A, [0048]-[0057, calculating a cutting force coefficient, and FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a method for calculating a cutting force coefficient. The alpha. .sub.r is a rake angle and t.sub.c(.phi.)) is uncut chip thickness, which are calculated considering tool deflection and run out; [0065]-[0067], An uncut chip thickness model is needed to calculate cutting force in Formula 5. [0143], axial depth of cut and cutting speed. Using this relation, a feed rate corresponding to a reference cutting force).
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses performing the CNC machining process with the subtractive component and the feed rate schedule (Abstract, an off-line feed rate scheduling method of a CNC machining process includes selecting a constraint variable and inputting a reference value related to the constraint variable; estimating a cutting configuration).
Cho, Wang and Bolin are analogous art. They relate to feed rate scheduling method of a CNC machining process. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify feed rate scheduling method of a CNC machining process, taught by Cho, incorporated with the teaching of Wang and Bolin, as state above, in order to for reduction of machining time and enhancement of machining accuracy in CNC machining. improves machining precision and productivity during CNC machining by developing an off-line feed rate scheduling model that optimizes feed rate in CNC machining based on a cutting force model and a surface error model.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection under 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation Pertinent prior art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robinson et al. (US 5828574 A) discloses computer simulation of the machining process, an adaptive feed rate for a machine tool wherein the workpiece is initially cut from stock using a stock-cutting program.
Erdim et al. (US 20150088301 A1) discloses a method determines a feed rate of a tool machining a workpiece according to a path. The method partitions the path into a set of segments, such that within each segment a function of engagement of the tool and the workpiece is substantially constant. Next, the method determines a feed rate for each segment in the set.
WEIKERT (US 20200189113 A1) discloses mechanical correction of geometric motion errors of a positioning machine having at least two machine frame components and at least one axis movement assembly for the relative movement of the machine frame components, the at least one axis movement assembly comprising a plurality of axis guide components.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119