DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 1/23/2026.
Claims 1-12 are elected with traverse.
Claims 13-21 are canceled.
Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Regarding the traversal of the restriction requirement
Applicant Argues
Several features of the groups are overlapping and there would not be an undue burden in examining the original claims together.
Examiner Responds
The restriction requirement is withdrawn as being moot because the claims drawn to inventions II and III have been canceled.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “A method of tool and parameter selection is presented” which is a phrase that can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERRMAN (US20150127131A1) in view of JEPPSSON (US20040093191A1) (hereinafter – “HERRMAN-JEPPSSON”).
Regarding claim 1
HERRMAN teaches:
extracting geometric features of a part to be machined in a workpiece by the machine from a design of the part ([0026]: “Block S120 of the method S100 recites, in response to insertion of a virtual feature into the virtual model, estimating a minimum stock geometry for the real part based on the virtual feature”; [0027]: “BlockS120 can then extract dimensions from the stock geometry to estimate a minimum material stock size from which a unit of the real part can be machined”; [0028]: “Block S120 can extrapolate a minimum rectilinear volume (e.g., for milling) or cylindrical volume (e.g., for turning) that fully contains the virtual model--and all virtual features contained therein--based on dimensions and/or tolerances defined in the part file”);
filtering the plurality of tools by applying a series of rules based on the geometric features of the part to identify a selected tool for a machining operation to form the part ([0044]: “in response to insertion of a bore geometry into the part file, Block S130 extracts a bore size from the bore geometry and compares the bore size to common twist drill sizes noted in the manufacturing file”; [0048]: “Block S130 can then cross reference the maximum diameter and the minimum cutting length of the cutting tool against dimensions of cutting tools available at the manufacturing facility, as specific in the manufacturing file, to filter a list of cutting tools down those suitable for producing the pocket in the real part […] Block S130 can apply filters to the list of cutting tools suitable for producing the pocket based on a dimensional tolerance defined in the virtual model […] Block S130 can thus identify a particular cutting tool--from the set of cutting tools available for machining at the manufacturing facility--suitable for machining the pocket in the real part”); and
setting cutting parameters for the machining operation [0020]: “Block S130 can thus preemptively: elect a machining center and a particular cutting tool – from the set of available machining centers and available cutting tools for the manufacturing facility – to machine a unit of the real part according to the first three-dimensional virtual geometry; predict a tool path, spindle speed, and feed rate for the particular cutting tool to machine the first-three dimensional virtual geometry”; [0054]: “in Block S124, Block S130 and S132 can further cooperate to: calculate a first machining time for machining the real part according to the virtual feature with the first cutting tool”, in order to calculate the machining time of the part using the cutting tool, parameters such as tool path, spindle speed, and feed rate would need to be set in order to determine a machining time according to a material removal rate).
HERRMAN is not relied on for generating tap test data for a machine by performing tap testing on the machine with a plurality of tools. HERRMAN is also not relied o for setting cutting parameters for the machining operating using the tap test data for the machine with the selected tool. However, HERRMAN teaches a risk assessment for the selected cutting tool which indicates a risk of breaking or damaging the cutting tool while machining the pocket ([0049]).
JEPPSSON in analogous art teaches:
generating tap test data for a machine by performing tap testing on the machine with a plurality of tools ([0007]: “According to one type of modal analysis technique, sometimes referred to as impact or
tap test, a small hammer with a force sensor is used to tap the cutter such that the cutter's response to the tap can be measured”; [0009], [0040]: “system 10 and method of embodiments of the present invention allow an operator at one location to acquire measurements from the structure 16, such as by performing a tap test”); and
setting cutting parameters for the machining operation using the tap test data for the machine with selected tool ([0038]: “input force and response measurements can be used in any of a number of other applications, such as in predicting chatter in structures such as the end mill 22 of the milling machine 24. In such an application, further processed data from the dynamic data processing module 46 can be converted into a mathematically fitted function by the central processing element 14, such as by a curve fitting module”; [0039]: “mathematically fitted function is defined by a number of modal parameters based upon the data […] Once the modal parameters have been defined by the mathematically fitted function, chatter in the structure 16 can be predicted by the central processing element 14, such as within a prediction module […] For example, the prediction module can comprise the Machining Prediction Software (MPS) software package”; [0005]: “The Boeing Company have implemented software systems used by numerical control (NC) programmers of milling machine operations to select optimal cutting parameters, such as axial and radial depth of cut, feed rate and spindle speed”, i.e., JEPPSSON teaches generating and using tap test data to predict and avoid chatter which involves setting parameters (setting parameters such as a feed rate or spindle speed to minimize chatter/vibrations) for the machining operation).
HERRMAN and JEPPSSON are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of tool selection for a numerical control device. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JEPPSSON to the teachings of HERRMAN such that JEPPSSON’s tap test data could be used with HERRMAN’s risk assessment method for the cutting tool selection.
Regarding claim 2
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
HERRMAN also teaches wherein extracting geometric features of the part comprises identifying a smallest corner radius of a feature of the part ([0048]: “Block S130 can […] set a maximum diameter of a cutting tool to produce the pocket based on the lesser of the minimum width of the pocket and the minimum internal fillet radius of the pocket”).
Regarding claim 3
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HERRMAN also teaches wherein filtering the plurality of tools comprises applying a rule of the series of rules that reduces the plurality of tools to a subset based on the smallest corner radius and diameters of the plurality of tools ([0048]: “Block S130 can then cross reference the maximum diameter and the minimum cutting length of the cutting tool against dimensions of cutting tools available at the manufacturing facility, as specific in the manufacturing file, to filter a list of cutting tools down those suitable for producing the pocket in the real part”).
Regarding claim 4
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined.
HERRMAN also teaches wherein extracting geometric features of the part comprises identifying a minimum pocket width of the part ([0048]: “Block S130 can […] set a maximum diameter of a cutting tool to produce the pocket based on the lesser of the minimum width of the pocket and the minimum internal fillet radius of the pocket”).
Regarding claim 5
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
HERRMAN also teaches wherein filtering the plurality of tools comprises applying a rule of the series of rules that reduces the plurality of tools to a subset based on the minimum pocket width and diameters of the plurality of tools ([0048]: “Block S130 can then cross reference the maximum diameter and the minimum cutting length of the cutting tool against dimensions of cutting tools available at the manufacturing facility, as specific in the manufacturing file, to filter a list of cutting tools down those suitable for producing the pocket in the real part”).
Regarding claim 6
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
HERRMAN also teaches wherein extracting geometric features of the part comprises identifying a smallest corner fillet radius of a feature of the part ([0048]: “Block S130 can […] set a maximum diameter of a cutting tool to produce the pocket based on the lesser of the minimum width of the pocket and the minimum internal fillet radius of the pocket”).
Regarding claim 8
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JEPPSSON teaches saving the tap test data in a technical database [0009]: “system and method of embodiments of the present invention allow an operator at one location to acquire measurements from the structure, such as by performing a tap test. The measurements can then be transmitted across a network, such as a wide area network (WAN) like the Internet, where the modal analysis can be performed based upon the measurements”; [0013]: “Upon receipt of the data, the central processing element can perform a modal analysis of the structures based upon the force input measurement and the accelerator response measurement. For example, the central processing element can receive the data and thereafter determine a frequency response function (FRF) for the structure based upon the data”; [0031]: “addition to the measurements, the packaged data can also include an identifier associated with the structure 16 from which the data was measured and/or the data acquisition assembly 18 that acquired the data”, i.e., JEPPSSON teaches performing a tap test and transmitting the measurements over a network to a server (central processing element) wherein the modal analysis is performed on the tap test data associated, via an identifier, with tool tested).
JEPPSSON is not relied on for saving tool parameters and tool attributes in the technical database.
However, HERRMAN teaches this limitation ([0010]: “method S100 includes: at the computer-aided drafting engine, receiving a manufacturing file specifying geometries of a set of cutting tools currently in operation at a manufacturing facility in Block S110”; [0020]: “manufacturing file can similarly specify general tooling availability and/or tooling currently stocked by the manufacturing facility. For example, the manufacturing file can include a list of endmill and lathe tool sizes and configurations (e.g., number of flutes, roughing or finishing specification, center-cutting specification, coating, material, associated working material, positive or negative rake, end profile, maximum tool aspect ratio, etc.)”; [0023]: “Block S110 can thus collect current manufacturing, projected capacity, tooling, material stock, machining center availability, and other data from the manufacturing facility for application in subsequent Blocks of the method S100 to deliver current (i.e., up-to-date) manufacturability-related prompts to the user through the CAD program. Alternatively, Block S110 can actively collect these data and aggregate these data into a local manufacturing file stored locally on the user's workstation, such as by scraping a server affiliated with the manufacturing facility for manufacturing-related data”, i.e., HERRMAN teaches receiving and loading a manufacturing file that functions as a technical database that stores and associates tool parameters and attributes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JEPPSSON to the teachings of HERRMAN such that JEPPSSON’s association of tool specific tap data could be used with HERRMAN’s manufacturing file for the purposes of using the tap test data in the cutting tool selection risk assessment.
Regarding claim 9
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
HERRMAN also teaches wherein at least one rule of the series of rules is based on the tap test data ([0049]: “Block S132 can then retrieve a risk assessment for the selected cutting tool(s)--such as from the manufacturing file or directly from a supplier or manufacturer of the cutting tool--indicating a risk of breaking or damaging the cutting tool while machining the pocket in the selected material for the real part. (Alternatively, Block S132 can calculate the risk of machining the pocket with the selected cutting tool, such as based on a tooling risk model contained within the manufacturing file”).
Regarding claim 10
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
HERRMAN also teaches generating a tool path for performing the machining operations using the selected tool and the cutting parameters ([0020]: “Block S130 can thus preemptively: elect a machining center and a particular cutting tool--from the set of available machining centers and available cutting tools for the manufacturing facility--to machine a unit of the real part according to the first three-dimensional virtual geometry; predict a toolpath, spindle speed, and feed rate for the particular cutting tool to machine the first three-dimensional virtual geometry”).
Regarding claim 11
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined.
JEPPSSON also teaches generating additional tap test data for the machine by performing tap testing on the machine with a new tool ([0040]: “embodiments of the present invention provide an improved system 10 and method for performing modal analysis on at least one structure 16. The system 10 and method of embodiments of the present invention allow an operator at one location to acquire measurements from the structure 16, such as by performing a tap test. The measurements can then be transmitted across a network 12, such as a wide area network (WAN) like the Internet, where the modal analysis can be performed based upon the measurements. As such, the systems 10 and methods of embodiments of the present invention can perform modal analysis on structures 16 spaced great distances from one another without training operators at each facility, or training one or more operators and requiring those operators to travel from facility to facility, as required by conventional techniques”, i.e., JEPPSSON teaches a generating tap test data and transmitting to a server for analysis and use at different machining facilities, which includes generating additional tap test data).
Regarding claim 12
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JEPPSSON teaches to model chatter in a machining operation ([0039]: “Once the modal parameters have been defined by the mathematically fitted function, chatter in the structure 16 can be predicted by the central processing element 14, such as within a prediction module”).
HERRMAN teaches setting cutting parameters for the machining operating comprising setting cutting parameters to machine the part in a shortest period of time according to a risk assessment ([0026]: “Generally, Blocks S120, S122, and S124 function to predict a minimum three-dimensional size of a volume of material (a "stock geometry") necessary to produce a unit of the real part according to one or more virtual features defined within the virtual model and to make suggestions to the user to adjust one or more virtual features in the virtual model to reduce a cost of material stock for the real part, to reduce a manufacturing time (and therefore a total manufacturing cost) for the real part”; [0039]: “method S100 may not only guide the user in designing a real part that can be manufactured with less expensive material stock but also guide the user in designing the real part that can be machined (or otherwise produced) in less time and therefore with lower manufacturing cost”; [0049]: “Block S132 can calculate the risk of machining the pocket with the selected cutting tool, such as based on a tooling risk model contained within the manufacturing file”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JEPPSSON to the teachings of HERRMAN such that JEPPSSON’s chatter model could be used with HERRMAN’s method of setting tooling parameters to minimize a manufacturing time according to a risk assessment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HERRMAN-JEPPSSON in view of HEMMANUR (US20150025672A1).
Regarding claim 7
HERRMAN-JEPPSSON teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
HERRMAN teaches wherein filtering the plurality of tools comprises applying a rule of the series of rules that reduces the plurality of tools to a subset based on the smallest corner fillet radius and [0048]: “Block S130 can then cross reference the maximum diameter and the minimum cutting length of the cutting tool against dimensions of cutting tools available at the manufacturing facility, as specific in the manufacturing file, to filter a list of cutting tools down those suitable for producing the pocket in the real part”; [0052]: “Block S130 calculates a derivative of the virtual compound surface to determine a maximum radius of a cutting tool (e.g., a ball endmill) with which the real part can be machined according to the virtual compound surface, such as within a default or user-entered tolerance (e.g., .+-.0.005''), and selects a cutting tool of dimension (e.g., spherical radius) less than or equal to the maximum determined cutting tool radius”).
The HERRMAN-JEPPSSON combination is not relied on for filtering the tools based on the corner radiuses of the plurality of tools.
However, HEMMANUR in analogous art teaches this limitation ([0034]: “characteristics associated with each cutting tool may include […] dimensional information (e.g., without limitation, tolerance, diameter, maximum depth of cut, reach, corner radius).
HEMMANUR is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of tool selection for a numerical control device. HERRMAN teaches manufacturing a part using a cutting tool and a numerical control device. HEMMANUR teaches that cutting tools have corner radiuses. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of HEMMANUR to the teachings of HERRMAN-JEPPSSON such that HEMMANUR’s end mill comprising a corner radius could be used with HERRMAN-JEPPSSON’s numerical control device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eto (US20210041856A1) teaches rules for selecting a tool based on a smallest radius.
Hirai (US5815400A) teaches rules for selecting a tool based on a minimum pocket width.
Trecapelli (US20190061083A1) teaches minimizing chatter.
Wagner (US20230049401A1) teaches extracting slot dimensions for tool selection.
Willis (US20200151286A1) teaches geometric feature extraction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115