DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 8 May 2023 are objected to as color drawings without a granted petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2).
Figures 2-5 include color.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2) and MPEP §608.02.
If applicant does not wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and amend the brief description of the drawings section of the specification as noted above, applicant may file replacement black and white line drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d). See MPEP §608.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Enablement
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See MPEP §2164.08(a).
In particular, claim 15 “apparatus for manufacturing” invokes §112(f). The claim language “with a computer program” does not provide corresponding structure or materials because software per se is not a structure or a material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the milling process. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the milling process.
Dependent claims 2-15 are rejected at least for depending upon a rejected claim.
Claim 10 recites “the … and/or toolpaths.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for toolpaths.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Software per se
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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter in the form of software per se. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claim 14 is directed to “A computer program product comprising program code”. Claim 14, taken as a whole, fails to include a particular machine (hardware component) or otherwise limit the claims to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Each component can reasonably be interpreted as software. Software, by itself, is nonstatutory subject matter. See MPEP §2106.03(I). Software is not one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Accordingly, when all of the components are interpreted as software, claim 14 is directed to software per se.
Claim 15 fails to recite any structural limitations beyond the invocation of §112(f). Accordingly, claim 15 fails to recite other structural limitations and is thus also considered software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) (“a claim that includes a means-plus-function limitation that corresponds to software per se (and is thus indefinite for lacking structural support in the specification) is not necessarily directed as a whole to software per se unless the claim lacks other structural limitations.”).
Examiner recommends amending claim 14 as follows:
14. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Abstract Idea
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 1-9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
…
simulating (S102) a machining force on the workpiece (105) based on the data set; and
adjusting (S103) the at least one process parameter (103) for machining until a preset maximum value for the machining force is reached or a preset minimum value is maintained.
Claim language is interpreted in light of the Specification. Here, the term “simulating” must be interpreted as a calculating and/or mathematical model because the only example provided in the Specification is given by equations of force given at Specification page 8 line 6 and corresponding usage examples, e.g. Specification page 8 lines 18-22. Accordingly, the only reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification is that simulating is a recitation of performing calculations of the corresponding force equation. Therefore, while not explicitly recited within the claim, the claim language “simulating a machining force … based on the data set” is interpreted as implicitly claiming the equation of Specification page 8 line 6.
Similarly, adjusting the process parameter corresponds to manipulating the mathematical force equation to determine the adjusted parameter with corresponding mathematical calculations. See example calculations of Specification page 8 lines 20-22.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed towards the mathematical equation of:
F
=
u
∙
a
p
∙
v
f
∙
a
e
v
c
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
1. A machining method for manufacturing a dental object, comprising
providing (S101) a data set (101) for the milling process, in which at least one process parameter (103) for the machining of a workpiece (105) is specified;
The preamble language “for manufacturing a dental object” is interpreted as intended use recitation which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.02. Furthermore, generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a field of use fails to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Providing a dataset in a non-specific fashion is a recitation of data gathering recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
Regarding limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above, MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
2. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the adjusted at least one process parameter is stored in at least one data set (101).
Storing a mathematical result corresponds with insignificant extra solution activity in the form of insignificant output or storing of the result of the abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the machining force is simulated based on a digital twin of a machining apparatus (200) and/or a workpiece (105).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a digital twin under MPEP §2111 is a digital representation or model of a thing but is not itself the physical thing. The Specification uses the same terminology as the claim, e.g. “using a digital twin” (Spec. page 9 line 18) but does not provide any alternative implementations other than the machining force equation of Specification page 8 line 6. Accordingly, the mathematical modeling according to the mathematical equation as a “digital twin” remains a mathematical concept. Alternatively, if the digital twin is interpreted as requiring the use of a computer, the Examiner observes that a general linking to a technological environment fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the machining force is simulated based on toolpaths for machining the workpiece (105).
Performing corresponding calculations of the simulating somehow based on toolpath data of the workpiece remains a recitation of performing respective mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The machining method according to claim 4, wherein the data for the toolpaths are specified in the data set.
Performing corresponding calculations of the simulating somehow based on toolpath data of the workpiece remains a recitation of performing respective mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The machining method according to claim 4, wherein the toolpaths are adjusted until a predetermined maximum value for the machining force is reached and/or a predetermined minimum value is maintained.
Performing corresponding calculations of the simulating somehow based on toolpath data of the workpiece remains a recitation of performing respective mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the machining force on the workpiece (105) is calculated based on an acceleration, a feed rate and/or a machining volume per time.
Calculating the machining force according to respective data values is an explicit recitation of performing the mathematical calculation Examiner has identified as implicitly recited under claim 1.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the simulation is performed based on a linear relationship between the at least one process parameter and the machining force.
Calculations based on a linear mathematical relationship, including those of the mathematical equation of:
F
=
u
∙
a
p
∙
v
f
∙
a
e
v
c
are recitations of mathematical subject matter in the form of the corresponding equation or mathematical relationship.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein simulating the machining force is performed during a machining of the workpiece (105).
Performing the mathematical calculations of the simulating contemporaneous with other activity occurring does not change the mathematical nature of the calculations performed. The claim language of claim 9 actively recites the temporal limitation of being “during” but is disassociated from the machining steps themselves which are not actively recited by the claim. Compare with claim 10 which is considered subject matter eligible.
Performing mathematical calculations at a particular time is still a recitation of a mathematical concept.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
14. A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, the machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions executable by a processor, which computer instructions cause the processor to perform the method as claimed in claim 1.
The software and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
15. A machining apparatus (200) for manufacturing a dental object with a computer program according to claim 14.
The ‘apparatus’ is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 10-13 Subject Matter Eligibility §101
Examiner finds claims 10, 12, and 13 are eligible subject matter under §101 for integrating the method into the practical application of producing the workpiece or actually controlling a physical operation. Compare with claims found eligible in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981).
Dependent claims 11-13 are eligible based on its dependency on claim 10.
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, 4-7, 9-12, 14, and 15
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12,616,560 B2 Steger, et al. [herein “Steger”] in view of US 10,401,823 B2 Wang, et al. [herein “Wang”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A machining method for manufacturing a dental object.” Steger column 6 lines 16-17 disclose “a dental machining system for manufacturing a dental restoration.”
Claim 1 further recites “comprising providing (S101) a data set (101) for the milling process, in which at least one process parameter (103) for the machining of a workpiece (105) is specified.” Steger column 7 lines 4-17 disclose:
sensing dynamical quantities relating to the dental tool (3); …. The dynamical quantity corresponds to at least one of the position, the speed, the acceleration, the vibration of the respective dental tool (3), the force, the torque acting on the respective dental tool (3), the supply current to a dental tool motor of the respective dental tool (3) or the sound generated by the respective dental tool (3).
Sensing dynamical quantities correspond with providing a data set for the milling process. The force and/or torque correspond with a process parameter.
Steger column 2 lines 53-57 disclose:
The process parameters comprise at least one of a rotational speed of the dental tool, feed rates of the dental tool into the material, path distance of the dental tool, limit values for machining forces and torques acting on the dental tool, feed rate of the dental blank and the like
Claim 1 further recites “simulating (S102) a machining force on the workpiece (105) based on the data set.” Steger does not explicitly disclose simulating; however, in analogous art of machining process control, Wang column 6 lines 17-23 teaches:
FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment which could comprise step 108 of pre-process simulation 100. Following step 106 as described above, at step 120 the cutting forces and temperature may be calculated for the current motion step. At step 122, for each motion step, the power and torque limit of the machine tool is calculated based on the spindle rotation speed for the current motion step.
A pre-process simulation to calculate a cutting force corresponds with simulating a machining force.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger and Wang. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use calculation of cutting forces into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of keeping real-time monitored values within dynamic limits. See Wang column 8 lines 4 et seq.
Claim 1 further recites “and adjusting (S103) the at least one process parameter (103) for machining until a preset maximum value for the machining force is reached or a preset minimum value is maintained.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a preset maximum value for the machining force.”
Steger column 2 lines 53-57 disclose:
The process parameters comprise at least one of a rotational speed of the dental tool, feed rates of the dental tool into the material, path distance of the dental tool, limit values for machining forces and torques acting on the dental tool, feed rate of the dental blank and the like
Steger column 6 lines 52-53 disclose “limit values for machining forces and torques acting on the dental tool.” A limit value corresponds with a preset maximum value for the machining force.
Steger column 7 lines 24-26 disclose “to adaptively control the dental blank holder and the driving units (4) based on the generated process parameters during the machining.” Adaptively controlling corresponds with adjusting the process machining.
Claim 4 further recites “4. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the machining force is simulated based on toolpaths for machining the workpiece (105).” Steger column 2 lines 53-57 disclose:
The process parameters comprise at least one of a rotational speed of the dental tool, feed rates of the dental tool into the material, path distance of the dental tool, limit values for machining forces and torques acting on the dental tool, feed rate of the dental blank and the like.
Path distance is at least in part based on toolpaths.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The machining method according to claim 4, wherein the data for the toolpaths are specified in the data set.” Steger column 2 lines 53-57 disclose:
The process parameters comprise at least one of a rotational speed of the dental tool, feed rates of the dental tool into the material, path distance of the dental tool, limit values for machining forces and torques acting on the dental tool, feed rate of the dental blank and the like.
Path distance data is at least in part based on toolpaths.
Claim 6 further recites “6. The machining method according to claim 4, wherein the toolpaths are adjusted until a predetermined maximum value for the machining force is reached and/or a predetermined minimum value is maintained.” Steger column 2 lines 53-57 disclose:
The process parameters comprise at least one of a rotational speed of the dental tool, feed rates of the dental tool into the material, path distance of the dental tool, limit values for machining forces and torques acting on the dental tool, feed rate of the dental blank and the like.
Path distance is at least in part based on toolpaths.
Steger column 6 lines 52-53 disclose “limit values for machining forces and torques acting on the dental tool.”
But Steger does not explicitly disclose maximum and minimum values; however, in analogous art of machining process control, Wang column 8 lines 17-26 teach:
It may be determined at 208 that the actual values not are not within the dynamic limit of the predicted values, such as being higher than the upper value of the dynamic limit or being lower than the lower value of the dynamic limit. Actual values which are lower than the lower value of the dynamic limit may be indicative of a problem, such as a broken or missing tool, and real time monitoring system 200 may proceed to step 216 and output an alarm and/or a warning message, and may stop the machine waiting for user input.
An upper value of the dynamic limit corresponds with a maximum value. A lower value of the dynamic limit corresponds with a minimum value. Wang column 5 line 15 teaches “predetermined tolerances of the limit.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger and Wang. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use calculation of cutting forces into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of keeping real-time monitored values within dynamic limits. See Wang column 8 lines 4 et seq.
Claim 7 further recites “7. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the machining force on the workpiece (105) is calculated based on an acceleration, a feed rate and/or a machining volume per time.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “an acceleration.”
Steger column 7 lines 4-17 disclose:
sensing dynamical quantities relating to the dental tool (3); …. The dynamical quantity corresponds to at least one of the position, the speed, the acceleration, the vibration of the respective dental tool (3), the force, the torque acting on the respective dental tool (3), the supply current to a dental tool motor of the respective dental tool (3) or the sound generated by the respective dental tool (3).
Steger column 7 lines42-58 disclose:
The knowledge may include for each past machining at least one of the process parameters including the feed rate of the dental blank (2), the path distance of the dental tool (3), the feed rates of the dental tool (3) into the material, the rotational speed of the dental tool (3), the trajectory calculation algorithm used, the parameters of the dental tool (3) load algorithm, parameters of any special treatments such as immersion, path smoothing, the type of the dental tool (3), the wear conditions of the dental tool (3) before start and/completion of the machining, the type of the dental blank (2) e.g., the material thereof, the machining time, the entire temporal trajectory of the dental tool (3) including for each point thereof the speed, the acceleration in each direction, the removed material according to a dental tool (3) load determination algorithm, the currents to the tool motors, the force and the torque acting on the dental tool (2) obtained through a sensor technology,
Claim 9 further recites “9. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein simulating the machining force is performed during a machining of the workpiece (105).” Steger column 7 lines 24-26 disclose “to adaptively control the dental blank holder and the driving units (4) based on the generated process parameters during the machining.”
Claim 10 further recites “10. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the workpiece (105) is produced based on the modified process parameters and/or toolpaths.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “the modified process parameters.”
Steger column 6 lines 16-17 disclose “a dental machining system for manufacturing a dental restoration.” Manufacturing a dental restoration corresponds with producing a workpiece. Steger column 7 lines 24-26 disclose “to adaptively control the dental blank holder and the driving units (4) based on the generated process parameters during the machining.” Adaptively controlling based on the generated process parameters corresponds with generating the workpiece based on the modified process parameters.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The machining method according to claim 10, wherein a spindle current is measured and/or a machining energy is determined during machining of the workpiece (105).” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a spindle current is measured.”
Steger column 7 lines 24-26 disclose “to adaptively control the dental blank holder and the driving units (4) based on the generated process parameters during the machining.”
But Steger does not explicitly disclose a spindle current; however, in analogous art of machining process control, Wang column 4 lines 42-50 teach:
Such operating conditions include tool operating conditions and/or machine tool operating conditions, which may include but are not limited to any of cutting forces, spindle power, radial load at the spindle (e.g., at the spindle bearings), tool deflection, bending moment on the tool, bending moment on the spindle or at the spindle interface, cutting torque at the tool holder/spindle interface, temperature of the tool, load on one or more of the machine tool axes servos.
A spindle power corresponds with a spindle current.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger and Wang. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use calculation of cutting forces into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of keeping real-time monitored values within dynamic limits. See Wang column 8 lines 4 et seq.
Claim 12 further recites “12. The machining method according to claim 11, wherein machining is stopped when the spindle current and/or the machining energy exceeds a predetermined value.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “the spindle current.”
Steger does not explicitly disclose a spindle current; however, in analogous art of machining process control, Wang column 4 lines 42-50 teach:
Such operating conditions include tool operating conditions and/or machine tool operating conditions, which may include but are not limited to any of cutting forces, spindle power, radial load at the spindle (e.g., at the spindle bearings), tool deflection, bending moment on the tool, bending moment on the spindle or at the spindle interface, cutting torque at the tool holder/spindle interface, temperature of the tool, load on one or more of the machine tool axes servos.
A spindle power corresponds with a spindle current.
Wang column 8 lines 17-26 teach:
It may be determined at 208 that the actual values not are not within the dynamic limit of the predicted values, such as being higher than the upper value of the dynamic limit or being lower than the lower value of the dynamic limit. Actual values which are lower than the lower value of the dynamic limit may be indicative of a problem, such as a broken or missing tool, and real time monitoring system 200 may proceed to step 216 and output an alarm and/or a warning message, and may stop the machine waiting for user input.
Stopping the machine when values are not within the dynamic limit correspond with the machining being stopped when the spindle current (or other process parameter) exceeds a predetermined value.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger and Wang. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use calculation of cutting forces into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of keeping real-time monitored values within dynamic limits. See Wang column 8 lines 4 et seq.
Claim 14 further recites “14. A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, the machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions executable by a processor, which computer instructions cause the processor to perform the method as claimed in claim 1.” Steger column 4 lines 1-3 disclose “dental machining system may also have a CAD/CAM module which preferably includes a computer station such as a PC that executes a CAD/CAM software.” A personal computer (PC) and software correspond with a computer program product with program code. The computer includes processor and memory.
Claim 15 further recites “15. A machining apparatus (200) for manufacturing a dental object with a computer program according to claim 14.” Steger column 4 lines 1-3 disclose “dental machining system may also have a CAD/CAM module which preferably includes a computer station such as a PC that executes a CAD/CAM software.” A personal computer (PC) and software correspond with a computer program product with program code. The computer includes processor and memory.
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0041986 A1 Homeier (cited in IDS dated 8 May 2023) [herein “Homeier”].
Claim 2 further recites “2. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the adjusted at least one process parameter is stored in at least one data set (101).” Steger column 7 lines 24-26 disclose “to adaptively control the dental blank holder and the driving units (4) based on the generated process parameters during the machining.” Adaptively controlling corresponds with adjusting the process machining.
Wang column 6 lines 52-54 teach “the cutting forces and temperature for the flute may be calculated and stored at step 140.”
Neither Steger nor Wang does not explicitly disclose storing the process parameters; however, in analogous art of machining process parameters, Homeier paragraph 21 teaches “to access this database and store their respective device-related data, in particular machining-specific parameters.” Homeier paragraph 22 teaches:
the stored, available, and exchanged machining-specific parameters comprise at least one of the following parameters: type of workpiece, material to be processed, tool type, tool material, method parameters such as, for example, feed rate, rotational speed, cutting speed, cutting force, temperature, material amount, excipients and the like, surface quality, quality, tool life.
The stored parameters of the database correspond with process parameters stored in at least one data set.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger, Wang, and Homeier. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a database of machining parameters into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of using “parameters with which an optimum machining result can be achieved.” See Homeier¶24.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 12,032,366 B2 Kuhn, et al. [herein “Kuhn”].
Claim 3 further recites “3. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the machining force is simulated based on a digital twin of a machining apparatus (200) and/or a workpiece (105).” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a machining apparatus (200).”
Wang column 3 lines 24-25 teach “Pre-process simulation 100 may model the cutting path and relevant conditions.”
But neither Steger nor Wang does not explicitly disclose a digital twin; however, in analogous art of machining process control, Kuhn column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 4 teach:
preferably a digital twin (digital image of the real machine tool), so that a change in the simulated machining process within the simulation section can output a prognosis about the outcome of the machining process on the machine tool (machining process analysis) which is as exact as possible
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger, Wang, and Kuhn. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a digital twin into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of being “as exact as possible.” See Kuhn column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 4 and Kuhn column 8 lines 41-52.
Dependent Claims 8 and 13
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steger and Wang as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US patent 9,892,215 B2 Erdim et al. [herein “Erdim”].
Claim 8 further recites “8. The machining method according to claim 1, wherein the simulation is performed based on a linear relationship between the at least one process parameter and the machining force.” Steger does not explicitly disclose a linear relationship; however, in analogous art of determining machining process parameters, Erdim column 6 lines 5-8 teach “Some offline feedrate scheduling strategy arranges the constant feedrate values in order to increase the resultant force to the desired reference value using a linear relation between the feedrate and the reference limiting cutting force.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger, Wang, and Erdim. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a linear relationship of force to feedrate into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of optimize feedrate values. See Erdim column 6 lines 8-13 and column 6 lines 19-25.
Claim 13 further recites “13. The machining method according to claim 11, wherein a feed is slowed down or accelerated when the spindle current and/or the machining energy and/or the machining force exceeds or falls below a predetermined value.” From the above lists of alternatives Examiner is selecting “accelerated,” “the machining force” and “falls below a predetermined value.”
Steger does not explicitly disclose accelerating a feed; however, in analogous art of determining machining process parameters, Erdim column 6 lines 5-8 teach “Some offline feedrate scheduling strategy arranges the constant feedrate values in order to increase the resultant force to the desired reference value using a linear relation between the feedrate and the reference limiting cutting force.” Erdim column 6 lines 22-25 teach “optimality of the feedrate can be increased when the feedrate is determined based on the engagement of the tool and the workpiece.” Increasing the resultant force with feedrate values correspond with accelerating a feed when a machining force falls below the desired reference value.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Steger, Wang, and Erdim. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a linear relationship of force to feedrate into the system of dental machining for generating process parameters for the advantageous purpose of optimize feedrate values. See Erdim column 6 lines 8-13 and column 6 lines 19-25.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0113517 Reinhardt, et al.
teaches
Evaluated for Double Patenting only.
US 10990078 B2 Kreidler; Volker
Part analytics of a workpiece machined by at least one CNC machine
US 7050883 B2 Cho; Dong-Woo et al.
Off-line feed rate scheduling for reduction of machining time and enhancement of machining accuracy in CNC machining
Toutant, R., et al. “Feedrate Compensation for Constant Cutting Force Turning” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 13, pp. 44-47 (1993)
Setting feedrates for force control of CNC machining.
Zuperl, U., et al. “Modeling and adaptive force control of milling by using artificial techniques” J. Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 23, pp. 1805-1815 (2012)
A CNC milling simulator using machine learning techniques.
Cortsen, J. & Petersen, H.G. “Advanced Off-line Simulation Framework with Deformation Compensation for High Speed Machining with Robot Manipulators” IEEE/ASME Int’l Conf. on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, pp. 934-939 (2012)
Offline modeling and simulation of robotic milling of workpieces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 13 July 2026
Prosecution Insights