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 .
In a Preliminary Amendment filed on January 26, 2024, claims 4-7 and 9 were amended. The Specification and Abstract were also amended.
Claims 1-9 are pending, of which claim 1 is an independent claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 26, 2024, May 12, 2025, and May 26, 2026, have been considered by the examiner.
Specification Objections
The title of the invention is not fully descriptive. A new title is required that includes the invention to which the claims are directed, specifically to ‘MACHINING ASSISTANCE APPARATUS FOR CALCULATING DATA RELATED TO MACHINING PROCESSING OF A MACHINE TOOL FOR CUTTING A WORKPIECE INTO A POLYGON SHAPE’.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1, line 4, replace “number-of-polygon-faces” with “number of polygon faces”.
Claim 1, line 6, insert “number-of-blades” with “number of blades”.
Claim 7, line 4, insert “the system further comprises:” after “, and”.
Claim 7, line 6, insert “of the one or more calculation processes” after “calculation result”.
Claim 7, line 7, insert “of the one or more calculation processes” after “calculation result”.
Claim 8, line 3, insert “of the one or more calculation processes” after “calculation result”.
Claim 9, line 3, replace “any calculation” with “any of the calculation result of the one or more calculation processes”.
Claim 9, line 3, insert “the” before “determination”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
35 USC § 112(f) Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as reciting means for performing a specified function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Referring to independent claim 1, this claim recites the claim limitations “a number-of-polygon-faces input receiver configured to receive information...”, “a number-of-blades input receiver configured to receive input of information...”, and “a speed range setter configured to set axis rotation speeds...”.
For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0046], [0058], and [0075] of the specification as published, the “number-of-polygon-faces input receiver” will be construed as a numerical controller, running an algorithm to receive information related to the number of polygon faces of the workpiece formed by the cutting.
For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0046], [0058], and [0075] of the specification as published, the “number-of-blades input receiver” will be construed as a numerical controller, running an algorithm to receive input of information related to the number of blades attached to the tool.
For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0055], [0056], and [0063] of the specification as published, the “speed range setter” will be construed as a display unit, running an algorithm to receive input of information related to the number of blades attached to the tool.
Referring to claim 2, this claim recites “a tool radius input receiver configured to receive input of information related to a radius of the tool”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0058], [0075], and [0112] of the specification as published, the “tool radius input receiver” will be construed as a numerical controller, running an algorithm to receive input of information related to a radius of the tool.
Referring to claim 3, this claim recites “when the input receiver receives input of a command for reducing the dimensional error”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0045]-[0048], [0058], and [0075] of the specification as published, the “input receiver” will be construed as a numerical controller, running an algorithm to receive input of a command for reducing the dimensional error.
Referring to claim 4, this claim recites “a face shape determinator configured to determine a shape of each face of the workpiece machined into a polygon shape based on the number of blades and the rotation speed ratio”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0065], [0072], and [0114] of the specification as published, the “face shape determinator” will be construed as a calculator, running an algorithm to determine a shape of each face of the workpiece machined into a polygon shape based on the number of blades and the rotation speed ratio.
Referring to claim 5, this claim recites “a replacement determinator configured to determine a shape of each face of the workpiece machined into a polygon shape based on the number of blades and the rotation speed ratio”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0065] and [0098]-[0101] of the specification as published, the “replacement determinator” will be construed as a calculator, running an algorithm to determine whether or not a blade of the tool for cutting a predetermined surface of the workpiece is replaced every rotation of the tool when the workpiece is subjected to polygon machining based on the number of polygon faces, the number of blades, and the rotation speed ratio.
Referring to claim 6, this claim recites “an angle input receiver configured to receive input related to a designated angle of the workpiece during polygon machining”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0058] and [0109] of the specification as published, the “angle input receiver” will be construed as a numerical controller, running an algorithm to receive input related to a designated angle of the workpiece during polygon machining.
Referring to claim 8, this claim recites “a rearranger configured to rearrange the tool candidates according to any machining condition based on the calculation result or the determination result by the calculator”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0055], [0056], [0063], and [0117] of the specification as published, the “rearranger” will be construed as a display unit, running an algorithm to rearrange the tool candidates according to any machining condition based on the calculation result or the determination result by the calculator.
Referring to claim 9, this claim recites “a selector configured to further select the tool candidates using any calculation or determination result derived by the calculator, and to cause the display unit to exclusively display the selected tool candidates”. For purposes of examination, as described in paragraphs [0055], [0056], [0063], and [0117] of the specification as published, the “selector” will be construed as a display unit, running an algorithm to select the tool candidates using any calculation or determination result derived by the calculator, and to cause the display unit to exclusively display the selected tool candidates.
Because the referred claim limitations of claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... calculate a rotation speed ratio of the tool to the number of polygon faces based on the number of polygon faces and the number of blades, and … calculate axis rotation speeds of the tool and the workpiece or candidates thereof based on the rotation speed ratio within a range of the set axis rotation speeds of the tool and the workpiece...”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0048]-[0056], for instance, the limitations of the calculating, as claimed, are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “an input receiver including a number-of-polygon-faces input receiver configured to receive information related to the number of polygon faces of the workpiece formed by the cutting and a number-of-blades input receiver configured to receive input of information related to the number of blades attached to the tool, the input receiver being configured to receive input of information related to the machining processing; a speed range setter configured to set axis rotation speeds of the tool and the workpiece in advance; a calculator including a rotation speed ratio calculator … and a rotation speed calculator …; and a display output unit configured to output a calculation result by the calculator to a display unit connected to the machining assistance apparatus, and to cause the display unit to display the calculation result”.
The receiving limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitations amount to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The additional features including “an input receiver”, “a number-of-polygon-faces input receiver”, “number-of-blades input receiver”, a speed range setter”, “a calculator”, “a rotation speed ratio calculator”, “a rotation speed calculator”, “a display output unit”, and “a display unit” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The output of a calculation result and displaying such calculation result in response to the judicial exception identified are not applying or using the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h) Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The receiving limitations are functions that are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2016/0045959 A1 to Matsumaru (“Matsumaru”) describes in paragraph [0022] “In the polygon machining, the tool spindle and the main shaft are driven rotationally so that the rotation speed of the workpiece W and the rotation speed of the polygon cutter 54 form a predetermined ratio. For example, in the case where a quadrangle is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is possible to machine the quadrangle by rotating the polygon cutter in which two cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the quadrangle, are arranged twice while rotating the workpiece once.” US Patent Publication No. 2016/0039009 A1 to Matsumaru describes in paragraph [0022] “It is possible to form an ellipse, a polygon, etc., on the outer peripheral surface of a workpiece W by carrying out polygon machining on the workpiece W gripped by the main shaft, by revolving the turret 14 to select the polygon cutter 54 and by synchronously rotating the main shaft that is driven rotationally by the main shaft motor and the polygon cutter 54 to maintain the phase relationship between the main shaft and the polygon cutter 54. In the polygon machining, the tool spindle and the main shaft are driven rotationally so that the rotation speed of the workpiece W and the rotation speed of the polygon cutter 54 form a predetermined ratio. For example, in the case where a quadrangle is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is possible to machine the quadrangle by rotating the polygon cutter in which two cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the quadrangle, are arranged twice while rotating the workpiece once. Further, for example, in the case where a hexagon is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is sufficient to rotate the polygon cutter in which three cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the hexagon, are arranged so as to form, for example, a triangle three times while rotating the workpiece once.” US Patent Publication No. 2020/0081415 A1 to Ozeki describes in paragraph [0034] “For the reference number of vertices Vns or the reference number of polygons Pns, the number of vertices or the number of polygons of the three-dimensional model is, by experiment beforehand, determined, in the reference display device, as few as possible within the range where there is no problem in viewing the three-dimensional model by the operator, and the determined number of vertices or the determined number of polygons may be set as the reference number of vertices Vns or the reference number of polygons Pns. In general, the reference number of vertices Vns or the reference number of polygons Pns may be the number of vertices or the number of polygons based on which a three-dimensional shape that allows the operator to grasp a rough shape of the workpiece after machining can be drawn.”
The additional features including “an input receiver”, “a number-of-polygon-faces input receiver”, “number-of-blades input receiver”, a speed range setter”, “a calculator”, “a rotation speed ratio calculator”, “a rotation speed calculator”, “a display output unit”, and “a display unit”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The outputting of the calculation result and displaying the calculation result do not amount to significantly more than displaying a result of the judicial exception because the recitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are claimed in a merely generic manner. See MPEP 2106.05(d) OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017).
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites “the input receiver further includes a tool radius input receiver configured to receive input of information related to a radius of the tool, and the calculator further includes a dimensional error calculator configured to calculate a dimensional error occurring in the workpiece when the workpiece is cut into a polygon shape based on the number of polygon faces, the radius of the tool, and the rotation speed ratio”.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 2 generally refer to further receiving input of a radius of the tool. Such claim does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the claim recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply receiving information. The claim also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Publication No. 2020/0086436 A1 to Kochsiek (Paragraph [0050] and Paragraph [0060]); US Patent Publication No. 2017/0235289 A1 to Kayanuma (Abstract and Paragraphs [0049], [0055], and [0066]); and US Patent Publication No. 2016/0291570 A1 to Iriguchi et al. (Paragraph [0025]).
The additional features including “a tool radius input receiver” and “a dimensional error calculator” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used as recited in claim 2, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Further, implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
For similar reasons as those provided in independent claim 1, the function of “calculate a dimensional error” is directed to a judicial exception as a mathematical concept. See Paragraphs [0082]-[0093] of the published specification of the instant application. Thus, claim 2 also recites an additional abstract idea.
As a result, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites “when the input receiver receives input of a command for reducing the dimensional error, or when the machining assistance apparatus determines that the dimensional error is to be reduced, the dimensional error calculator recalculates the dimensional error by varying a setting condition related to a distance between a center of the tool and a center of the workpiece”. This claim is also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in claim 2. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim also does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim recites “determine a shape of each face of the workpiece machined into a polygon shape based on the number of blades and the rotation speed ratio.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0066] and [0072], for instance, the determining limitation is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
The additional features including “the calculator” and “a face shape determinator” as recited in the claim that is configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be a tool that is used as recited in claim 4, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Further, implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”) Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites “determine whether or not a blade of the tool for cutting a predetermined surface of the workpiece is replaced every rotation of the tool when the workpiece is subjected to polygon machining based on the number of polygon faces, the number of blades, and the rotation speed ratio.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0097]-[0100], for instance, the determining limitation is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
The additional features including “calculator” and “a replacement determinator” as recited in the claim that is configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be a tool that is used as recited in claim 5, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Further, implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”) Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites “the input receiver further includes an angle input receiver configured to receive input related to a designated angle of the workpiece during polygon machining, and the calculator further includes a phase calculator configured to calculate a phase of the tool actualizing a designated angle of the workpiece based on the number of polygon faces, the number of blades, and the rotation speed ratio”.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 6 generally refer to further receiving input of a designated angle of the workpiece. Such claim does not integrate the invention into a practical application because the claim recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply receiving information. The claim also does not amount to significantly more because the recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US Patent Publication No. 2024/0157567 A1 to Kawai et al. (Paragraph [0059]); US Patent Publication No. 2016/0229013 A1 to Komine et al. (Abstract and Paragraphs [0011]-[0014]); and US Patent Publication No. 2022/0040821 A1 to Greif et al. (Paragraph [0005]).
The additional features including “an angle input receiver” and “a phase calculator” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used as recited in claim 2, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Further, implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
For similar reasons as those provided in independent claim 1, the function of “calculate a phase of the tool actualizing a designated angle of the workpiece based on the number of polygon faces, the number of blades, and the rotation speed ratio” is directed to a judicial exception as a mathematical concept. See Paragraphs [0050] and [0109] of the published specification of the instant application. Thus, claim 6 also recites an additional abstract idea.
As a result, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites “when there is a plurality of types of tool candidates available for desired polygon machining, the calculator executes one or more calculation processes or determination processes related to the polygon machining for each of the tool candidates” and, thus, is also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. Claim 7 also recites “the display output unit outputs a calculation result or a determination result by the calculator to the display unit and causes the display unit to display the calculation result or the determination result for each of the tool candidates” further defining the display limitation of independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 1-7 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable pending the nonstatutory subject matter rejection under 35 USC 101 rejection given above. Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
While the prior art shows a machining assistance apparatus for calculating various data related to machining processing of a machine tool for cutting a workpiece into a polygon shape by rotating the workpiece and a tool at a certain ratio, the machining assistance apparatus comprising: an input receiver including a number-of-polygon-faces input receiver configured to receive information related to the number of polygon faces of the workpiece formed by the cutting and a number-of-blades input receiver configured to receive input of information related to the number of blades attached to the tool, the input receiver being configured to receive input of information related to the machining processing; a speed range setter configured to set axis rotation speeds of the tool and the workpiece in advance; and a display output unit configured to output a calculation result by the calculator to a display unit connected to the machining assistance apparatus, and to cause the display unit to display the calculation result (see US Patent Publication No. 2016/0045959 A1 to Matsumaru; US Patent Publication No. 2016/0039009 A1 to Matsumaru; US Patent Publication No. 2020/0081415 A1 to Ozeki; EP 0355332 A1 to Witte; US Patent Publication No. 2022/0266364 A1 to Hoss; US Patent Publication No. 2020/0086436 A1 to Kochsiek; US Patent Publication No. 2017/0235289 A1 to Kayanuma; US Patent Publication No. 2016/0291570 A1 to Iriguchi et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2024/0157567 A1 to Kawai et al.; US Patent Publication No. 2016/0229013 A1 to Komine et al.; and US Patent Publication No. 2022/0040821 A1 to Greif et al.) the prior art, individually or combined, does not teach or suggest “a calculator including a rotation speed ratio calculator configured to calculate a rotation speed ratio of the tool to the number of polygon faces based on the number of polygon faces and the number of blades, and a rotation speed calculator configured to calculate axis rotation speeds of the tool and the workpiece or candidates thereof based on the rotation speed ratio within a range of the set axis rotation speeds of the tool and the workpiece,” as recited in independent claim 1. It is this concept that defines the present application over the prior art of record.
In view of their dependencies to an allowable claim, claims 2-9 are found to be allowable over prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2016/0045959 A1 to Matsumaru (“Matsumaru”) describes in paragraph [0022] “In the polygon machining, the tool spindle and the main shaft are driven rotationally so that the rotation speed of the workpiece W and the rotation speed of the polygon cutter 54 form a predetermined ratio. For example, in the case where a quadrangle is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is possible to machine the quadrangle by rotating the polygon cutter in which two cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the quadrangle, are arranged twice while rotating the workpiece once. Further, for example, in the case where a hexagon is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is sufficient to rotate the polygon cutter in which three cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the hexagon, are arranged so as to form, for example, a triangle three times while rotating the workpiece once.” Paragraph [0028] of Matsumaru provides “FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an operation flow of the polygon machining method according to the embodiment of the present invention. Hereinafter, the synchronization ratio between the main shaft and the tool spindle, i.e., the ratio of rotation speed in the state where synchronization is maintained is explained by using a term “ratio”, such as a “first ratio” and a “second ratio”. Paragraph [0028] provides that “First, at step S101, first polygon machining is carried out by the polygon cutter 54 by synchronously rotating the main shaft and the tool spindle so that the rotation speed of the main shaft gripping the workpiece W and the rotation speed of the tool spindle to which the polygon cutter 54 is mounted have a first ratio. The first ratio is set to a value that is necessary for carrying out polygon machining to obtain a necessary machined shape (e.g., a polygon).” And Paragraph [0029] of Matsumaru provides that “After the first polygon machining, cutting machining is carried out on the workpiece on which the first polygon machining has been carried out by synchronously rotating the main shaft and the tool spindle so that the rotation speed of the main shaft and the rotation speed of the tool spindle have a second ratio different from the first ratio at the time of the first polygon machining. At the time of the cutting machining at step S102, the polygon cutter mounted to the tool spindle is retracted in advance. The “second ratio” used in the cutting machining is explained as follows.”
US Patent Publication No. 2016/0039009 A1 to Matsumaru describes in paragraph [0022] “It is possible to form an ellipse, a polygon, etc., on the outer peripheral surface of a workpiece W by carrying out polygon machining on the workpiece W gripped by the main shaft, by revolving the turret 14 to select the polygon cutter 54 and by synchronously rotating the main shaft that is driven rotationally by the main shaft motor and the polygon cutter 54 to maintain the phase relationship between the main shaft and the polygon cutter 54. In the polygon machining, the tool spindle and the main shaft are driven rotationally so that the rotation speed of the workpiece W and the rotation speed of the polygon cutter 54 form a predetermined ratio. For example, in the case where a quadrangle is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is possible to machine the quadrangle by rotating the polygon cutter in which two cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the quadrangle, are arranged twice while rotating the workpiece once. Further, for example, in the case where a hexagon is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the workpiece, it is sufficient to rotate the polygon cutter in which three cutters, the number of cutters being half the number of angles of the hexagon, are arranged so as to form, for example, a triangle three times while rotating the workpiece once.” Paragraph [0028] provides that “First, at step S101, first polygon machining is carried out by the polygon cutter 54 by synchronously rotating the main shaft and the tool spindle so that the rotation speed of the main shaft gripping the workpiece W and the rotation speed of the tool spindle to which the polygon cutter 54 is mounted have a first ratio. The first ratio is set to a value that is necessary for carrying out polygon machining to obtain a necessary machined shape (e.g., a polygon).”
US Patent Publication No. 2020/0081415 A1 to Ozeki describes in paragraph [0034] “For the reference number of vertices Vns or the reference number of polygons Pns, the number of vertices or the number of polygons of the three-dimensional model is, by experiment beforehand, determined, in the reference display device, as few as possible within the range where there is no problem in viewing the three-dimensional model by the operator, and the determined number of vertices or the determined number of polygons may be set as the reference number of vertices Vns or the reference number of polygons Pns. In general, the reference number of vertices Vns or the reference number of polygons Pns may be the number of vertices or the number of polygons based on which a three-dimensional shape that allows the operator to grasp a rough shape of the workpiece after machining can be drawn.”
EP 0355332 A1 to Witte (“Witte”) describes that depending on the number of cutting edges used on the workpiece, a different number of edges is created at a specific transmission ratio. With a gear ratio of 1: 2, a double edge is created with one cutting edge, a square with two cutting edges, a hexagonal with three cutting edges, etc. Witte describes on page 5, sixth paragraph, that the system produces a wide variety of polygonal surfaces depending on the number of cutting edges and the transmission ratio. If a straight transmission ratio of 1: 2 is selected, a double edge is created for one cutting edge, a square for two cutting edges, a hexagonal for three cutting edges, an octagonal for four cutting edges, etc. Slits can also be produced using appropriate special tools, whereby again a gear ratio of 1: 2 with one tool, one slot, with two tools two slots, etc. Again using special tools and appropriate settings, simple flats, rectangles, rhombuses and rhombus-shaped slots can also be produced.
US Patent Publication No. 2022/0266364 A1 to Hoss describes in paragraph [0008] “Polygon turning enables the production of flat surfaces on an otherwise round lateral surface of the workpiece. This machining process is typically performed on a lathe, wherein not only the workpiece but also the tool is driven. The workpiece in the main spindle and the rotating tool in the turret of the machine run in a synchronous transmission ratio to each other. The number of surfaces produced on the workpiece depends on this transmission ratio between workpiece and tool as well as the number of cutting edges on the tool. In the prior art, for example, the tool rotates at twice the speed of the workpiece, and the number of cutting edges multiplied by a factor of 2 gives the number of polygonal faces produced. Thus, in this case, a hexagonal profile can be produced by means of polygon turning with a tool that comprises three cutting blades regularly distributed around the circumference.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR 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 PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights