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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-14, and 16-20 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.
Claims 1, and 16 recites the limitation " a surface location of a first model based . . . the surface location of the tool to a second model". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not perfectly clear that whether 1) “surface location of the tool” is the same as the previously identified “surface location of a first model” 2) the first model is a model of the tool. 3) the tool itself has separate physical surface location distinct from the models surface location. Correction is therefore required. For the purposes of examination, " a surface location of a first model based . . . the surface location of the tool to a second model" is interpreted to mean the portion of the tools surface as represented in the model that corresponds to the real physical portion of the tool that contacts the workpiece. Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the analytical modeling is configured to receive topography data of the tool.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 9 recites “the analytical modeling module.” Suggested correction would be to amend claim 12 to say “the analytical modeling module”.
The dependent claims 2-8, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
A method for mesh refinement of finite element analysis simulations, the method comprising the steps of: identifying, by a controller, a surface location of a first model based on attribute data of a tool which directly contacts a workpiece during a machining process using an analytical modeling module;
mapping, by the controller, the surface location of the tool to a second model based on the first model, the second model comprising an external finite element mesh;
and performing, by the controller, a mesh refinement on the external finite element mesh of the second model at the surface location of the tool using a finite element method module to generate a refined finite element mesh.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards an abstract idea. The claim recites the following limitations: (Highlighted portions of the claim in bold above constitute an abstract idea; the remaining limitations are "additional elements") This limitation is directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process, or a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. These limitations could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The performing a mesh refinement limitation is directed towards the abstract concept of mathematical relationships. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)). In particular section (iv). organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2
The method according to claim 1, wherein the external finite element mesh delineates an external geometry of a solid model based on the tool.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3
The method according to claim 1, further comprising processing, by the controller, the second model using finite element analysis and the refined finite element mesh.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first model is further based on topography data of the tool.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5
The method according to claim 1, wherein the surface location of the tool which directly contacts the workpiece is identified using analytical modeling.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tool is a cutting insert and the surface location is a fraction of a corner radius of the cutting insert responsible for generating a finished surface of the workpiece.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7
The method according to claim 1, wherein the surface location is a portion of the tool surface responsible for generating a finished surface of the workpiece.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first model is provided by generating the first model with the analytical modeling module based on a topography data of the tool, wherein the topography data comprises data generated using microscopy.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 1. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9
A computer system for mesh refinement of finite element analysis simulations, the system comprising: an analytical modeling module for processing an analytical model based on attribute data of a tool, the analytical modeling module configured to identify a surface location of the tool which directly contacts a workpiece;
and a finite element method module for processing a finite element model based on attribute data of the tool, the finite element model comprising an external finite element mesh, the finite element method module configured to map the surface location of the tool to the external finite element mesh,
and further configured to perform a mesh refinement on the external finite element mesh at the surface location of the tool.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards an abstract idea. The claim recites the following limitations: (Highlighted portions of the claim in bold above constitute an abstract idea; the remaining limitations are "additional elements") These limitations are directed towards the abstract concept of mathematical relationships. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)). In particular section (iv). organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10
The computer system of claim 9, wherein mapping the surface location of the tool comprises placement of a mesh refinement window at the identified surface location of the tool.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 9. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11
The computer system of claim 10, wherein the mesh refinement window delineates the identified surface location of the tool.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 9. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12
The computer system of claim 9, wherein the analytical modeling is configured to receive topography data of the tool.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 9. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13
The computer system of claim 12, wherein the analytical modeling module is configured to generate the analytical model based on the topography data.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 9. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14
The computer system of claim 13, wherein the topography data comprises data generated using microscopy.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 9. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15
The computer system of claim 9, wherein the computer system further comprises a display device configured to display the finite element model.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 9. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16
A method comprising: measuring a topography of a tool;
generating a first model based on the topography of the tool;
identifying a surface location of the first model which directly contacts a workpiece;
mapping the surface location of the tool to a second model of the tool, the second model comprising an external finite element mesh;
and performing a mesh refinement on the external finite element mesh of the second model at the surface location of the tool.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards an abstract idea. The claim recites the following limitations: (Highlighted portions of the claim in bold above constitute an abstract idea; the remaining limitations are "additional elements") This limitation is directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process, or a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. These limitations could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The performing a mesh refinement limitation is directed towards the abstract concept of mathematical calculations. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)).
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17
The method according to claim 16, wherein the topography is measured using microscopy.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 16. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18
The method according to claim 16, wherein the tool is a cutting insert and the surface location is a fraction of a corner radius of the cutting insert responsible for generating a finished surface of the workpiece.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 16. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19
The method according to claim 16, wherein the mesh refinement is performed using a finite element mesh generator.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 16. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20
The method according to claim 16, further comprising processing the second model using finite element analysis.
Step 1 – The claim is directed towards a method, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The claim is directed towards the abstract idea of claim 16. This limitation is directed towards an insignificant extra-solution activity of whether the limitation is significant. (2106.05(g)(2)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, it does not bring this out of the realm of insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2A Prong 2 – The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al., Theoretical and experimental investigations of finish machining with a rounded edge tool (Fang) in view of Marusich et al., Validation of Finite Element Modeling of Drilling Processes with Solid Tooling in Metals (Marusich)
Claim 1.
Fang teaches A method for mesh refinement of finite element analysis simulations, the method comprising the steps of: identifying, by a controller, a surface location of a first model based on attribute data of a tool which directly contacts a workpiece during a machining process using an analytical modeling module; (Fang Abstract) “both theoretical and experimental investigations are performed in finish machining with a rounded edge tool. . . Multiple criteria, including the cutting force, the thrust force, the chip thickness, and the tool-chip natural contact length, are employed to compare experimental results with theoretical predictions from both the analytical and FE models.” {Examiners note: Tool chip natural contact length corresponds to an identified surface/contact region of a tool that contacts the workpiece/chip during machining.}
mapping, by the controller, the surface location of the tool to a second model based on the first model, the second model comprising an external finite element mesh; (Fang Pg. 333 Section 4) “A commercial FE software package [6], AdvantEdgeTM, was employed in this study for numerical analysis and comparison with analytical and experimental results.” (Section 5) “Overall, the FE model gives a better prediction of the cutting force Fc and the chip thickness hch than does the analytical model. The analytical model gives a better prediction of the thrust force Ft than does the FE model.” {Examiners note: Demonstrating mapping to different models (FE models/ analytical models.)}
Fang does not explicitly teach, but Marusich teaches performing, by the controller, a mesh refinement on the external finite element mesh of the second model at the surface location of the tool using a finite element method module to generate a refined finite element mesh. (Marusich Pg. 185 Paragraph 3) “Adaptive meshing techniques are used to overcome such technical barriers in Lagrangian codes. Mesh refinement is affected by element subdivision along the edges of tetrahedron, creating two smaller tetrahedra.” (Pg. 185 Paragraph 4) “In order to resolve the critical length scales necessary in the secondary shear zone and the inherent large deformations while maintaining computationally-accurate finite element configurations, adaptive remeshing techniques are critical. Near the cutting edge radius, the workpiece material is allowed to flow around the edge radius, providing the most realistic representation of the process.” (Pg. 185 Paragraph 5) “When mesh quality or size diagnostics are violated, adaptive meshing is triggered: local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.” {Examiners note: Adaptive remeshing maps to mesh refinement at a tool surface, this process would just be performed on the second model.}
are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang and Marusich before him or her, to modify the surface location models of Fang with the mesh refinement of Marusich as Marusich suggests in Pg. 182 Paragraph 1.
Claim 2.
Modified Fang with Mausich teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the external finite element mesh delineates an external geometry of a solid model based on the tool. (Marusich Abstract) “ A three-dimensional finite element-based model of drilling is presented which includes fully adaptive unstructured meshing, tight thermo-mechanical coupling, deformable tool-chip-workpiece contact, interfacial heat transfer across the tool-chip boundary, and constitutive models appropriate for high strain-rate, large strain and high temperature deformation.” (Pg. 182 4th paragraph) “ Simulations were performed with physics-based modeling software, AdvantEdge FEM, which integrates machining custom for material and numerics element finite advanced modeling applications.” {Examiners note: The FEM model is based on tool geometry, and the tool geometry can come from a parametric definition, this corresponds to geometric model based on a tool.}
Claim 3.
Modified Fang with Mausich teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising processing, by the controller, the second model using finite element analysis and the refined finite element mesh. (Marusich Pg. 182 Paragraph 1) “ A validated finite element-based machining model is presented and employed to calculate chip geometry, cutting forces, and effects in work-hardened workpiece surface layers.” (Pg. 185 Paragraph 7) “When mesh quality or size diagnostics are violated, adaptive meshing is triggered: local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.” {Examiners note: Time state variables are mapped from old mesh to the new mesh before the time stepping analysis.}
Claim 5.
Modified Fang teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the surface location of the tool which directly contacts the workpiece is identified using analytical modeling. (Fang Abstract) “a recently developed, new analytical model of chip formation and a commercially available finite element (FE) model. . . Multiple criteria, including the cutting force, the thrust force, the chip thickness, and the tool-chip natural contact length, are employed to compare experimental results with theoretical predictions from both the analytical and FE models. . . Particularly, the maximum temperature occurs on the round tool edge in finish machining with small feed rates.” {Examiners note: Under BRI tool chip natural contact length corresponds to identifying portions of the rounded tool edge that contact the workpiece.}
Claim 9.
Fang teaches A computer system for mesh refinement of finite element analysis simulations, the system comprising: an analytical modeling module for processing an analytical model based on attribute data of a tool, the analytical modeling module configured to identify a surface location of the tool which directly contacts a workpiece; (Fang Abstract) “both theoretical and experimental investigations are performed in finish machining with a rounded edge tool. . . a recently developed, new analytical model of chip formation and a commercially available finite element (FE) model Multiple criteria, including the cutting force, the thrust force, the chip thickness, and the tool-chip natural contact length, are employed to compare experimental results with theoretical predictions from both the analytical and FE models.” {Examiners note: Tool chip natural contact length corresponds to an identified surface/contact region of a tool that contacts the workpiece/chip during machining.}
based on attribute data of the tool, the finite element model comprising an external finite element mesh, the finite element method module configured to map the surface location of the tool to the external finite element mesh, (Fang Pg. 333 Section 4) “A commercial FE software package [6], AdvantEdgeTM, was employed in this study for numerical analysis and comparison with analytical and experimental results.” (Section 5) “Overall, the FE model gives a better prediction of the cutting force Fc and the chip thickness hch than does the analytical model. The analytical model gives a better prediction of the thrust force Ft than does the FE model.” {Examiners note: Demonstrating mapping based on FE models/ analytical models. }
Fang does not explicitly teach, but Marusich teaches and further configured to perform a mesh refinement on the external finite element mesh at the surface location of the tool. (Marusich Pg. 185 paragraph 3-4) “Adaptive meshing techniques are used to overcome such technical barriers in Lagrangian codes. Mesh refinement is affected by element subdivision along the edges of tetrahedron, creating two smaller tetrahedra. . . When mesh quality or size diagnostics are violated, adaptive meshing is triggered: local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.”
are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang and Marusich before him or her, to modify the surface location models of Fang with the mesh refinement of Marusich as Marusich suggests in Pg. 182 Paragraph 1.
Claim 10.
Modified Fang with Marusich teaches The computer system of claim 9, wherein mapping the surface location of the tool comprises placement of a mesh refinement window at the identified surface location of the tool. (Marusich Pg. 185 paragraph 3-4) “Near the cutting edge radius, the workpiece material is allowed to flow around the edge radius, providing the most realistic representation of the process. . . When mesh quality or size diagnostics are violated, adaptive meshing is triggered: local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.”
Claim 11.
Modified Fang with Marusich teaches The computer system of claim 10, wherein the mesh refinement window delineates the identified surface location of the tool. (Marusich Pg. 185 paragraph 3-4) “Near the cutting edge radius, the workpiece material is allowed to flow around the edge radius, providing the most realistic representation of the process. . . local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.”
Claim 15.
Fang teaches The computer system of claim 9, wherein the computer system further comprises a display device configured to display the finite element model. (Fang Pg. 333 Section 5) “The experimentally validated FE model was further used to graphically depict the distributions of strain, strain rate, stress, and temperature in the entire chip deformation region”
Claims 4, 8, 12-14, 16, 17,19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al., Theoretical and experimental investigations of finish machining with a rounded edge tool (Fang) in view of Marusich et al., Validation of Finite Element Modeling of Drilling Processes with Solid Tooling in Metals (Marusich) in further view of Gao et al., Nanometer edge profile measurement of diamond cutting tools by atomic force microscope with optical alignment sensor (Gao).
Claim 4.
Modified Fang with Marusich et al does not teach, but Gao teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first model is further based on topography data of the tool. (Gao Pg. 396 Paragraph 1) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-l00nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.” {Examiners note: Measures edge profile and local 3D profile using AFM, this corresponds to topography data of the tool.}
are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang, Marusich, and Gao before him or her, to modify the surface location models of Fang with the mesh refinement of Marusich, with the topography of the tool of Gao to increase fabrication accuracy as stated in Gao. (Pg. 396 Paragraph 1)
Claim 8.
Modified Fang with Marusich et al and Gao teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first model is provided by generating the first model with the analytical modeling module based on a topography data of the tool, wherein the topography data comprises data generated using microscopy. (Gao Abstract) “an atomic force microscope (AFM) based instrument for nanometer edge profile measurements of diamond cutting tools.” (Pg. 396) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-100 nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.”
Claim 12.
Modified Fang with Marusich et al and Gao teaches The computer system of claim 9, wherein the analytical modeling is configured to receive topography data of the tool. (Gao Abstract) “an atomic force microscope (AFM) based instrument for nanometer edge profile measurements of diamond cutting tools.” (Pg. 396) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-100 nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.” {Examiners note: Edge profile constitutes topography data.}
Claim 13.
Modified Fang with Marusich et al and Gao teaches The computer system of claim 12, wherein the analytical modeling module is configured to generate the analytical model based on the topography data. (Gao Abstract) “an atomic force microscope (AFM) based instrument for nanometer edge profile measurements of diamond cutting tools.” (Pg. 396) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-100 nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.” {Examiners note: Edge profile constitutes topography data, this is then used to generate a model (under BRI this could cover a analytical model).}
Claim 14.
Modified Fang with Marusich et al and Gao teaches The computer system of claim 13, wherein the topography data comprises data generated using microscopy. (Gao Abstract) “an atomic force microscope (AFM) based instrument for nanometer edge profile measurements of diamond cutting tools.” (Pg. 396) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-100 nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.”
Claim 16.
Fang teaches identifying a surface location of the first model which directly contacts a workpiece; (Fang Abstract) “both theoretical and experimental investigations are performed in finish machining with a rounded edge tool. . . Multiple criteria, including the cutting force, the thrust force, the chip thickness, and the tool-chip natural contact length, are employed to compare experimental results with theoretical predictions from both the analytical and FE models.” {Examiners note: Tool chip natural contact length corresponds to an identified surface/contact region of a tool that contacts the workpiece/chip during machining.}
mapping the surface location of the tool to a second model of the tool, the second model comprising an external finite element mesh; (Fang Pg. 333 Section 4) “A commercial FE software package [6], AdvantEdgeTM, was employed in this study for numerical analysis and comparison with analytical and experimental results.” (Section 5) “Overall, the FE model gives a better prediction of the cutting force Fc and the chip thickness hch than does the analytical model. The analytical model gives a better prediction of the thrust force Ft than does the FE model.” {Examiners note: Demonstrating mapping to different models (FE models/ analytical models.)}
Fang does not explicitly teach, but Marusich teaches and performing a mesh refinement on the external finite element mesh of the second model at the surface location of the tool. (Marusich Pg. 185 Paragraph 3) “Adaptive meshing techniques are used to overcome such technical barriers in Lagrangian codes. Mesh refinement is affected by element subdivision along the edges of tetrahedron, creating two smaller tetrahedra.” (Pg. 185 Paragraph 4) “In order to resolve the critical length scales necessary in the secondary shear zone and the inherent large deformations while maintaining computationally-accurate finite element configurations, adaptive remeshing techniques are critical. Near the cutting edge radius, the workpiece material is allowed to flow around the edge radius, providing the most realistic representation of the process.” (Pg. 185 Paragraph 5) “When mesh quality or size diagnostics are violated, adaptive meshing is triggered: local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.” {Examiners note: Adaptive remeshing maps to mesh refinement at a tool surface, this process would just be performed on the second model.}
are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang and Marusich before him or her, to modify the surface location models of Fang with the mesh refinement of Marusich as Marusich suggests in Pg. 182 Paragraph 1.
Modified Fang with Marusich does not explicitly teach, but Gao teaches A method comprising: measuring a topography of a tool; (Gao Abstract) “an atomic force microscope (AFM) based instrument for nanometer edge profile measurements of diamond cutting tools.” (Pg. 396) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-100 nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.”
generating a first model based on the topography of the tool; (Gao Abstract) “an atomic force microscope (AFM) based instrument for nanometer edge profile measurements of diamond cutting tools.” (Pg. 396) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-100 nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.”
are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang, Marusich, and Gao before him or her, to modify the surface location models of Fang with the mesh refinement of Marusich, with the topography of the tool of Gao to increase fabrication accuracy as stated in Gao. (Pg. 396 Paragraph 1)
Claim 17.
Modified Fang with Marusich et al and Gao teaches The method according to claim 16, wherein the topography is measured using microscopy. (Gao Abstract) “an atomic force microscope (AFM) based instrument for nanometer edge profile measurements of diamond cutting tools.” (Pg. 396) “Diamond cutting involves the use of a single-crystal diamond tool with a very sharp edge having a radius on the order of 10-100 nm for fabricating precision parts . . . the fabrication accuracy is influenced not only by the tool edge sharpness, but also by the local 3D profile on the tool edge.”
Claim 19.
Modified Fang with Marusich teaches The method according to claim 16, wherein the mesh refinement is performed using a finite element mesh generator. (Marusich Pg. 185 Paragraph 3) “Adaptive meshing techniques are used to overcome such technical barriers in Lagrangian codes. Mesh refinement is affected by element subdivision along the edges of tetrahedron, creating two smaller tetrahedra.” (Pg. 185 Paragraph 5) “When mesh quality or size diagnostics are violated, adaptive meshing is triggered: local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.”
Claim 20.
Modified Fang with Marusich teaches The method according to claim 16, further comprising processing the second model using finite element analysis. (Marusich Abstract) “ A three-dimensional finite element-based model of drilling is presented which includes fully adaptive unstructured meshing, tight thermo-mechanical coupling, deformable tool-chip-workpiece contact, interfacial heat transfer across the tool-chip boundary, and constitutive models appropriate for high strain-rate, large strain and high temperature deformation.” (Pg. 182 Paragraph 1) “ A validated finite element-based machining model is presented and employed to calculate chip geometry, cutting forces, and effects in work-hardened workpiece surface layers.” “When mesh quality or size diagnostics are violated, adaptive meshing is triggered: local element refinement, coarsening, and gradation are performed, state variables at the nodal and integration points are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh, and time stepping analysis proceeds.”
Claims 6, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al., Theoretical and experimental investigations of finish machining with a rounded edge tool (Fang) in view of Marusich et al., Validation of Finite Element Modeling of Drilling Processes with Solid Tooling in Metals (Marusich) in view of Gao et al., Nanometer edge profile measurement of diamond cutting tools by atomic force microscope with optical alignment sensor (Gao) in further view of Blomberg US4632608 (Blomberg).
Claim 6.
Modified Fang with Marusich and Gao do not explicitly teach, but Blomberg teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the tool is a cutting insert and the surface location is a fraction of a corner radius of the cutting insert responsible for generating a finished surface of the workpiece. (Blomberg Col 2 Lines 29-41) “a major part of the nose portion and therefore the generated surface achieves a good surface fineness due to the smoothly rounded nose portion. . . just a part of the nose portion separates chips from the work piece and therefore the main cutting edge closest to the work piece may be nearly parallel with the generated surface without obtaining wear on the connected edge surface.” {Examiners note: Nose portion corresponds to claimed corned radius. Part of nose portion corresponds to fraction of corner radius.}
are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang, Marusich, Gao, and Blomberg before him or her, to modify the surface location models of Fang with the mesh refinement of Marusich, with the topography of the tool of Gao with the fraction of a cutting insert in contact with a work piece of Blomberg to increase chip control. (Blomberg Col 1 Section 27-28)
Claim 7.
Modified Fang with Marusich and Gao do not explicitly teach, but Blomberg teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the surface location is a portion of the tool surface responsible for generating a finished surface of the workpiece. (Blomberg col 2 Lines 26-32) “The cutting insert 11 cuts deeply into the work piece during the longitudinal turning I in a direction parallel to the rotational axis of the work piece with both the main cutting edge and a major part of the nose portion and therefore the generated surface achieves a good surface fineness due to the smoothly rounded nose portion.”
Claim 18.
Modified Fang with Marusich and Gao do not explicitly teach, but Blomberg teaches The method according to claim 16, wherein the tool is a cutting insert and the surface location is a fraction of a corner radius of the cutting insert responsible for generating a finished surface of the workpiece. (Blomberg Col 2 Lines 29-41) “a major part of the nose portion and therefore the generated surface achieves a good surface fineness due to the smoothly rounded nose portion. . . just a part of the nose portion separates chips from the work piece and therefore the main cutting edge closest to the work piece may be nearly parallel with the generated surface without obtaining wear on the connected edge surface.” {Examiners note: Nose portion corresponds to claimed corned radius. Part of nose portion corresponds to fraction of corner radius.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DAVID HAGLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am- 6pm.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 5712723676. 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.
/JOHN DAVID HAGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights