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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kreidler, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0308057 A1 (‘057).
As per claim 1, ‘057 discloses a computer-implemented method for generating a virtual geometry of a component which is produced and/or is to be produced with a processing machine and has a nominal geometry (e.g., See ‘057; [0001], [0037] – [0038] and [0090] – [0092], which discloses reconstructing the shape of a machined workpiece using recorded machining data and comparing the reconstructed workpiece to an ideal CAD model. Under BRI, the reconstructed workpiece shape corresponds to the claimed virtual geometry, and the ideal CAD model corresponds to the nominal geometry), comprising the steps:
acquiring machine information which characterizes at least one machine parameter of the processing machine which influences a geometry of the component (e.g., See ‘057; [0094] – [0097], which discloses recording machine and process data during machining. Under BRI, the recorded data is the machine information);
determining at least one component factor based on the machine information and the nominal geometry (e.g., See ‘057; [0128] – [0130], which discloses determining an actual tool path and machining result using recorded machine data and CAD based workpiece information. Under BRI, the actual machining result is the component factor because it is used to define the produced component geometry); and
generating a first virtual geometry as a digital geometric image of the component produced and/or to be produced based on the component factor (e.g., See ‘057; [0128] – [0130], which discloses virtually reconstructing the machined workpiece geometry using the determined machining result. Under BRI, the reconstructed workpiece shape is the first virtual geometry).
As per claim 2, ‘057 further discloses that the machine information characterizes axis positions of at least one or more machine axis, and/or of a machine spindle of the processing machine (e.g., See ‘057; [0094], which discloses recording actual positions of the drive axes during machining).
As per claim 5, ‘057 further discloses determining a position factor based on the axis positions, wherein the component factor is determined based on the position factor (e.g., See ‘059; [0094] and [0128] – [0130], which discloses using actual axis positions to calculate the actual tool path, and uses the calculated actual tool path to determine the machining result used to form the produced workpiece geometry. Under BRI, the calculated actual tool path is the position factor).
As per claim 6, ‘057 further discloses determining a tool factor based on a tool geometry, wherein the component factor is determined based on the tool factor (e.g., See ‘057; [0096] and [0128] – [0130], which discloses recording processing tool configuration data, including tooling geometry (the recorded tooling geometry is the tool factor), wherein tool related machining data is used to reconstruct the machined workpiece geometry).
As per claim 7, ‘057 further discloses that a tool geometry is determined on the basis of an initial condition and/or on the basis of a tool wear, and the tool wear is determined based on a contact area between an applied tool and the component and/or based on a process force (e.g., See ‘057; [0085] and [0091], which discloses recording tool geometry and tool characteristics, and using the tool geometry to reconstruct the shape of the machined workpiece. Under BRI, the recorded tool geometry and characteristics correspond to the tool geometry based on an initial condition).
As per claim 8, ‘057 further discloses (1) acquiring metainformation, wherein the metainformation represents tool parameters of an applied tool, machine kinematics of the processing machine and/or program names (e.g., See ‘057; [0096] and [0099], which discloses recording processing tool configuration data and NC program code), and (2) wherein the metainformation is used to determine a displacement factor and/or to determine a contact area between the applied tool and the component (e.g., See ‘057; [0098] – [0100] and [0128] – [0130], which discloses mapping NC program data and tool information to recorded tool path data used to reconstruct the workpiece geometry).
As per claim 9, ‘057 further discloses (1) acquiring sensor information, wherein the sensor information characterizes force values, vibration values, and/or tool displacement values and (2) wherein the sensor information is used to determine a process force (e.g., See ‘057; [0084] and [0094], which discloses recording milling force data from a force sensor and mapping the recorded milling force data to corresponding locations on the tool path or workpiece surface).
As per claims 13-15, these claims are rejected for at least the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1, because each claim recites the method of claim 1 in a different statutory form. Further it is noted that ‘057 discloses the system being computer implemented (e.g., See ‘057; [0080] – [0083]).
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 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kreidler, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0308057 A1 (‘057), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Jerard, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0161959 A1 (‘959).
As per claim 3, ‘057 does not specifically disclose the machine information characterizes power values of at least one or more machine axis, and/or of a machine spindle of the processing machine.
‘959 discloses this missing feature by disclosing, in [0006], [0019] and [0051], monitoring spindle power during CNC machining.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘959 into ‘057 for the purpose of using existing spindle power data to monitor cutting load without needing additional sensors, thereby reducing overall system cost and complexity.
As per claim 4, ‘057’s combined system (‘057 in view of ‘959) further discloses determining a process force using the power values and/or a contact area between an applied tool and the component, and determining a displacement factor determined by using a tool displacement and/or a component displacement based on the process force, wherein the component factor is determined based on the displacement factor (e.g., See ‘959; [0051] – [0055], which disclose using spindle power and contact area to determine force related machining values).
As per claim 10, ‘057 does not specifically disclose that a contact area between an applied tool and the component is determined based on a tool geometry of the applied tool and the nominal geometry of the component and/or the first virtual geometry.
‘959 discloses this missing feature by disclosing, in [0050] – [0054], extracting contact area from a geometric model of the part during machining.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘959 into ‘057 for the purpose of using tool contact geometry when reconstructing the shape of the machined workpiece, thereby improving the accuracy of the reconstructed workpiece shape.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kreidler, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0308057 A1 (‘057), as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Frey, U.S. Patent No. 5,691,909 A (‘909).
As per claim 11, ‘059 does not specifically disclose the combination of claimed features.
‘909 discloses the missing features by disclosing:
determining a modified component factor based on the machine information and the first virtual geometry (e.g., See ‘909; C4 L54 – C5 L38 and C6 L3-17, which disclose using machine motion, tool shape, and error data to determine error values for a virtual part);
generating a second virtual geometry based on the modified component factor (e.g., See ‘909; C6 L3-17 and C6 L27-40, which disclose superimposing error shapes to generate a virtual trial part); and
determining a modified displacement factor, a modified position factor and/or a modified tool factor based on the first virtual geometry and/or based on a deviation between the first virtual geometry and the nominal geometry (e.g., See ‘909; C6 L3-17 and C6 L61 – C7 L15, which discloses comparing error shapes with measured part error data to adjust error source values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘909 into ‘057 for the purpose of using error shape feedback to refine the virtual part model, thereby improving predicted part accuracy.
As per claim 12, ‘059’s combined system (‘059 in view of ‘909) further discloses:
determining a geometry deviation by matching the first virtual geometry and/or the second virtual geometry with the nominal geometry (e.g., See ‘909; C6 L3-17, which discloses determining distances between virtual part locations and corresponding ideal part locations); and
generating a deviation vector in predefined component sections of the nominal geometry in each case (e.g., See ‘909; C6 L3-17 and C6 L27-40, which discloses using ordered error values at corresponding ideal part locations to form error shapes for the virtual part).
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 9836039 B2, which discloses simulating CNC machining using machine data to predict as-cut parts and discloses adjusting toolpaths and parameters;
(2) US 6862560 B1, which discloses voxel-based machining simulation that tracks tool swept volume to model stock removal and the resulting as-machined surface;
(3) US 8265909 B2, which discloses computing tool swept volumes to accurately simulate material removal and the final machined surface; and
(4) US 20080161959 A1, which discloses monitoring CNC data to reconstruct as-machined geometry and compare it to CAD data for error correction purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 May 28, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights