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 4/8/2026.
Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
Claims 13-21 were previously canceled.
Claims 22-29 are new.
Claims 1-12 and 22-29 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have fixed the deficiencies set forth in the previous Office action regarding the objection to the abstract and the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, the arguments have been fully considered but are deemed moot, in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 29 appear to have a typographical error, amending the claims to recite “… and flute length, for every tool held by the machine.” will overcome this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 ### is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRECAPELLI (US20190061083A1) in view of ETO (US20210041856A1) in view of TAKAHASHI (US20060161290A1) (hereinafter – “TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI”).
Regarding claim 1
TRECAPELLI teaches a computer implemented method of tool and parameter selection ([0013]: “method for minimizing or providing no chatter […] may also include determining at least one of an optimum operating value”), the method comprising:
generating tap test data comprising, respectively, non-chatter generating speeds ([0022]: “Tooling machine 112 generally may be the same kind, e.g., have the same configuration, size, functionality, as tooling machine 12, and may be used as a model for capturing data relating to vibrational frequencies that may be used to ultimately determine optimal parameters at which to operate tooling machine 12. Tooling machine 112 may similarly have a spindle 122 to which a tool holder 118 may be attached. However, a tool blank or artifact 116 is used instead of an actual tool. The tool blank 116 may serve as a representation of any number of different tools 12 (e.g., different material, diameter, length). A tap test may be performed on the tool blank 116 rather than the different tools” “tap test may be performed on the tool blank rather than the different tools” teaches gathering tap test data for a machine and a machine tool blank OR the machine tools, [0022]: “procedure may be done for any number of tooling machines 112, thereby creating a database 33 of vibrational frequencies for different tooling machines. Server 30 may then use this data to determine whether certain operating parameters of a particular tooling machine, such as tooling machine 12, with a particular tool, such as tool 16, would result in optimal performance, i.e., no chatter” [0017]: “parameters may include, but are not limited to, rotational speed of the spindle 22 (i.e., spindle speed) depth of each cut on the workpiece 20, width of each cut, and feed rate of the assembly 14/tool 16 relative to the workpiece 20”) for every tool held by a machine by performing tap testing on every tool held by the machine ([0003]: “For each instance of a manufacturing process, such as milling, there is an optimal speed at which chatter quiets down, thereby allowing heavier and more aggressive cuts and increasing the lifespan of the tool. However, this optimal spindle speed varies for every different combination of machine, tool holder, cutting tool and tool overhang tool stickout length. To identify the optimal speed in current tool systems, the user purchases the tool and tool holder, assembles them into the machine, and balances the tool. The user then has to perform many iterations of test cuts and adjustment of the machine parameters before the optimal speed is ultimately determined. This iterative process is repeated for each tool and tool holder that is purchased and used in a particular machine”, 0003 teaches that each unique combination of machine and machine tool produces different optimal operating parameters and it must be done for each combination, [0022]: “a sensor 120 may be placed on the tool blank 116 to measure vibrational frequencies of the tool blank 116 when tapped by a hammer, thereby simulating the vibrational frequencies that occur during operation of the tooling machine 112. The vibrational frequencies may then be recorded and/or stored in the data store 32. This procedure may be done for any number of tooling machines 112, thereby creating a database 33 of vibrational frequencies for different tooling machines”, when viewed in combination of 0003 (“iterative process is repeated for each tool and tool holder that is purchased and used in a particular machine”), 0022 implies generating a tap test database for every tool held by a machine, and as outlined above, 0022 teaches wherein the database comprises non-chatter generating parameters for every tool held by the machine, 0017 teaches wherein the parameters comprise speeds); and
subsequently, using the tap test data of the selected tool, setting cutting parameters comprising a speed and a feed for the machining operation ([0021]: “The vibrational frequencies also may vary based on operating parameters, including, but not limited to, spindle speed, depth of each cut, width of each cut, and feed rate of the tool. Thus, for each combination of a tooling machine and a tool, the vibrational frequency may differ. For each combination, the parameters maybe set at optimal values to result in a vibrational frequency at which chatter is minimized or eliminated. The smart tool system 10 enables such optimal values or range of values to be determined such that operation of the tooling machine 12 and assembly 14 do not result in chatter”).
TRECAPELLI is not relied on for:
extracting geometric features of a part to be machined in a workpiece by the machine from a design of the part; and
filtering every tool held by the machine by applying a series of rules based on the geometric features of the part and identifying a selected tool for a machining operation to form the part in a least time possible without chatter.
However, ETO in analogous art teaches a computer implemented method of tool selection based on extracted geometric features (Abstract, [0012]: “an analysis unit that […] creates parameter information in which at least a value relating to a minimum radius of curvature in the machining surface and a value relating to a maximum radius of curvature selection […] selection unit that selects a tool to use for machining the machining region, based on the parameter information”), comprising:
extracting geometric features of a part to be machined in a workpiece by the machine from a design of the part ([0012]: “an analysis unit that determines a feed direction and a pick feed direction of a tool, based on the shape of a machining region including a multi-curved surface or information relating to a machining surface in the machining region, and creates parameter information in which at least a value relating to a minimum radius of curvature in the machining surface and a value relating to a maximum radius of curvature”, [0052]-[0052]); and
filtering every tool held by the machine by applying a series of rules based on the geometric features of the part and identifying a selected tool for a machining to form the part [0012]: “selection unit that selects a tool to use for machining the machining region, based on the parameter information” [0013]: “based on the parameter information, a tool used for machining the machining region is selected by the selection unit. As described above, since the tool is selected based on the curvature information (radius of curvature information) of the machining surface, a tool having an appropriate blade shape according to the radius of curvature in the machining surface can be selected” [0015]: “possible to select a tool in consideration of a value relating to the curvature of the corner portion of the machining region, a value relating to the curvature of the fillet portion, and a value relating to the height of the fillet portion.” [0016]: “selection unit selects, for example, a tool that satisfies a first condition and a second condition as a tool for the machining region” [0072]-[0074], [0076]: “selection unit 212 acquires the parameter table PT of the shape model created by the analysis unit 211, and uses the acquired parameter table PT and the tool list to select a tool for machining the machining region U for each machining region U from the tool list”).
TRECAPELLI and ETO are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of machine tool operation and optimization. TRECAPELLI teaches a computer implemented method of generating tap test data and performing machining operations according to the tap test data such that chatter is eliminated. ETO teaches a computer implemented method of tool selection, wherein the tool is selected according to a series of rules based on the geometric features of the part to be machined. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ETO with TRECAPELLI such that ETO’s tool selection unit, that selects a tool corresponding to the geometry of the part to be machined, could be used with TRECAPELLI’s tap test database to select a tool to minimize chatter while machining that geometry.
Because part geometry is known to influence cutting forces and machine dynamics, it would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ETO’s geometric feature based tool selection into TRECAPELLI’s chatter mitigation framework so that tools are selected in view of specific part geometries (i.e., different fillet radii produce different modal responses/chatter patterns) and then operated using TRECAPELLI’s non-chatter parameter database to machine the part with a tool selected according to the specific geometry and operated at parameters where the chatter is eliminated.
Thus, the TRECAPELLI-ETO combination teach a method of tool and parameter selection, the method comprising:
generating tap test data comprising, respectively, non-chatter generating speeds for every tool held by a machine by performing tap testing on every tool held by the machine;
extracting geometric features of a part to be machined in a workpiece by the machine from a design of the part; and
filtering every tool held by the machine by applying a series of rules based on the geometric features of the part and identifying a selected tool for a machining operation to form the part
subsequently, using the tap test data of the selected tool, setting cutting parameters comprising a speed and a feed for the machining operation.
The TRECAPELLI-ETO combination is not relied on for forming the part in a least time possible.
However, TAKAHASHI in an analogous art teaches to select a combination of tools for a machining operation to form a part in a least time possible ([0006]: “a computer is used to make trial-and-error attempts automatically to assist in a tool determination, a database of information about all possessed tools, holders, machines, etc. is constructed and the trial-and-error attempts are made for all tools, thereby determining a combination of tools that offers the shortest machining time”).
TAKAHASHI is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of machine tool operation and optimization. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine TAKAHASHI with the TRECAPELLI-ETO combination such that TAKAHASHI’s subroutine of determining tools based on the shortest machining time could have been implemented with TRECAPELLI-ETO’s rules-based tool selection unit.
ETO teaches that shortening a machining time is an improvement in machining efficiency ([0093]: “in order to further improve the machining efficiency, in other words, to shorten the machining time”), thereby providing the motivation to combine. TAKAHASHI teaches “a database of information about all possessed tools, holders, machines, etc” and to select tools according to a shortest machining time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an additional rule could be implemented with TRECAPELLI-ETO’s rules-based tool selection unit such that when two tools are identified as suitable tools for a machining operation to form the part without chatter, the tool that would form the part in the least time without chatter would be selected.
Regarding claim 2
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
ETO also teaches wherein extracting geometric features of the part comprises identifying a smallest corner radius of a feature of the part ([0077]: “selection unit 212 […] extracts information on a radius of curvature Fl_r of the fillet portion, a radius of curvature Cn_r of the corner portion, the minimum radius of curvature MinCt_r of the machining surface Ms, and the height Fl_h of the fillet portion” [0088],[0089]).
Regarding claim 3
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
ETO 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 ([0078]: “selection unit 212 extracts a tool that satisfies the following first and second conditions, from the tool list, based on the extracted values of the respective elements” [0080]: “The second condition is to satisfy all of the following conditions (A) to (C)” [0081]: diameter of the bottom cutting edge (specifically, the lens radius Ls_R) is not more than twice the radius of curvature Cn_r of the corner portion”).
Regarding claim 6
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
ETO also teaches wherein extracting geometric features of the part comprises identifying a smallest corner fillet radius of a feature of the part ([0057]: “fillet portion FL of the pocket M1 and the fillet portion FL of the pocket M2 have different radii of curvature” [0064]: “analysis unit
211 acquires, from the shape model, a value relating to the curvature of the corner portion Cn, a value relating to the curvature of the fillet portion FL”[0077]: “the parameter table PT shown in FIG. 7, the selection unit 212 acquires parameter information Pi corresponding to “machining region ID=1”, and further extracts information on a radius of curvature Fl_r of the fillet portion, a radius of curvature Cn_r of the corner portion, the minimum radius of curvature MinCt_r of the machining surface Ms, and the height Fl_h of the fillet portion”).
Regarding claim 7
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
ETO also teaches filtering the plurality of tools comprise 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 corner radiuses of the plurality of tools ([0079]: “First condition: The difference between the radius of curvature of the side cutting edge of the tool (specifically, the nose radius Ns_R) and the radius of curvature Fl_r of the fillet portion is within a predetermined value”).
Regarding claim 8
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TRECAPELLI also teaches saving the tap test data in a technical database with tool parameters and tool attributes for the plurality of tools, associated respective tap test data with each of the plurality of tools ([0021], [0022]: “A tap test may be performed […] procedure may be done for any number of tooling machines 112, thereby creating a database 33 of vibrational frequencies for different tooling machines. Server 30 may then use this data to determine whether certain operating parameters of a particular tooling machine, such as tooling machine 12, with a particular tool, such as tool 16, would result in optimal performance, i.e., no chatter or minimal chatter”).
Regarding claim 9
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TRECAPELLI also teaches wherein at least one rule of the series of rules is based on the tap test data ([0022]: “database 33 of vibrational frequencies for different tooling machines. Server 30 may then use this data to determine whether certain operating parameters of a particular tooling machine, such as tooling machine 12, with a particular tool, such as tool 16, would result in optimal performance, i.e., no chatter”).
Regarding claim 10
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
ETO also teaches generating a tool path for performing the machining operation using the selected tool and the cutting parameters ([0118]: “The NC program creation unit 22 sets machining conditions for each machining region U, by using the parameter information for each machining region U and the tool information selected by the tool selection unit 21. Examples of the machining conditions include the number of rotations of the tool, the feed speed, the cutting depth in the axial direction, and the like. Subsequently, the NC program creation unit creates a tool path, which is a machining path of the tool, based on the machining conditions and the parameter information of the machining region U.”
Regarding claim 11
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
TRECAPELLI also teaches generating additional tap test data for the machine by performing tap testing on the machine with a new tool ([0003] teaches each machine tool and tool combination produces unique optimal operation characteristics, and in view of paragraphs 0021-0022 thus implies that if a new tool is purchased/added to the tool selection database, a tap test would need to be performed in order to gather the data to determine the optimal, chatter-free operating parameters).
Regarding claim 22
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches a process of tool and cutting parameter selection, the method comprising:
generating tap test data comprising, respectively, non-chatter generating speeds for every tool held by a machine by performing tap testing on every tool held by the machine;
extracting geometric features of a part to be machined in a workpiece by the machine from a design of the part; and
filtering every tool held by the machine by applying a series of rules based on the geometric features of the part and identifying a selected tool for a machining operation to form the part in a least time possible without chatter; and
subsequently, using the tap test data of the selected tool, setting cutting parameters comprising a speed and a feed for the machining operation.
as outlined above under the rejection to claim 1.
ETO also teaches to generate a tool path for performing the machining operation using the selected tool and the cutting parameters ([0117]: “when the tool used for machining the shape model is determined, a parameter table PT in which each machining region U is associated with the tool information is output to the NC program creation unit 22” [0118]: “NC program creation unit 22 sets machining conditions for each machining region U, by using the parameter information for each machining region U and the tool information selected by the tool selection unit 21. Examples of the machining conditions include the number of rotations of the tool, the feed speed, the cutting depth in the axial direction, and the like. Subsequently, the NC program creation unit creates a tool path, which is a machining path of the tool, based on the machining conditions and the parameter information of the machining region U.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ETO, FIG. 2
Regarding claim 23
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 22 as outlined above.
ETO also teaches applying the series of rules based on a smallest corner radius and a smallest fillet radius ([0078]: “selection unit 212 extracts a tool that satisfies the following first and second conditions, from the tool list, based on the extracted values of the respective elements” [0079]: “First condition: The difference between the radius of curvature of the side cutting edge of the tool (specifically, the nose radius Ns_R) and the radius of curvature Fl_r of the fillet portion is within a predetermined value” [0081]: “(A) The diameter of the bottom cutting edge (specifically, the lens radius Ls_R) is not more thantwice the radius of curvature Cn_r of the corner portion”).
Regarding claim 26
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 22 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 26 are substantially the same as claim 9 and are rejected as per claim 9.
Regarding claim 27
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 22 as outlined above.
TRECAPELLI also teaches attaching a vibration sensor to each tool while performing the tap testing ([0022]: “a sensor 120 may be placed on the tool blank 116 to measure vibrational frequencies of the tool blank 116 when tapped by a hammer, thereby simulating the vibrational frequencies that occur during operation of the tooling machine 112”).
Claims 4-5 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI in view of HERRMAN (US20150127131A1) (hereinafter – “TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI-HERRMAN”).
Regarding claim 4
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ETO, FIG. 4, pockets M1 and M2
ETO teaches that parts to be machined comprises pockets ([0064]: “value relating to the height of the fillet portion is a distance from the machining surface Mt to the upper surface of the fillet portion, and corresponds to the depth of the pockets M1 and M2 shown in FIG. 4”).
However, TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI are not relied on for identifying a minimum width of the pocket of the part.
However, HERRMAN in an analogous art teaches identifying a minimum width of the extracted pocket ([0048]: “Block S130 can: […] extract a maximum depth, a minimum width”).
HERRMAN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of machine tools. 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 HERRMAN to the teachings of the TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI combination such that HERRMAN’s subroutine of identifying a minimum pocket width of the part could be implemented in TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI’s analysis unit, configured to extract geometric features of the part to be machined, for the purposes of selecting a tool with suitable dimensions to form the pocket, as taught by HERRMAN ([0048]: “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”).
Regarding claim 5
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI-HERRMAN teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above.
HERRMAN also wherein the 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 apply filters to the list of cutting tools suitable for producing the pocket based on a dimensional tolerance defined in the virtual model for the pocket and/or based on a volume of material to be removed from the real part to create the […] 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, such as a particular cutting tool of largest diameter and smaller cutting length that meets the material, geometry, cutting type (e.g., finishing, roughing), and other requirements thus identified for producing the pocket in the real part according to the dimensions and tolerances”).
Regarding claim 24
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 22 as outlined above.
ETO also teaches that parts to be machined comprises pockets, as outlined above under the rejection to claim 4.
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI are not relied on for applying the series of rules based on a smallest pocket width and a largest pocket width of the part.
However, HERRMAN in an analogous art teaches extracting geometric features of a part to be machined to filter a list of cutting tools based on the extracted features ([0048]: “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, such as a particular cutting tool of largest diameter and smaller cutting length that meets the material, geometry, cutting type (e.g., finishing, roughing), and other requirements thus identified for producing the pocket in the real part according to the dimensions and tolerances specified by the use”), wherein the features comprise a smallest pocket width ([0048]: “Block S130 can: predict a suitable or preferred orientation of the real part within a machining center to machine the pocket into the real part; extract a maximum depth, a minimum width, and a minimum internal fillet radius of a vertical corner of the pocket; 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”).
HERRMAN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of machine tools. 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 HERRMAN to the teachings of the TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI combination such that HERRMAN’s subroutine of identifying a minimum pocket width of the part could be implemented in TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI’s analysis unit, configured to extract geometric features of the part to be machined, for the purposes of selecting a tool with suitable dimensions to form the pocket, as taught by HERRMAN ([0048]: “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”).
The TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI-HERMANN combination do not explicitly teach applying the series of rules based on a largest pocket width of the part.
However, the TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI-HERMANN combination teaches a method of generating a toolpath to machine a part after determining and selecting a tool to machine the part, based in part on the geometric features extracted from the part to be built. As outlined above, the geometric features extracted from the part include various corner and fillet radii, as taught by ETO, as well as information pertaining to the pocket such as maximum depth and minimum width, as taught by HERMANN. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to extract a maximum pocket width in addition to extracting a minimum pocket width, such that a tool could be selected according to the maximum pocket width for the purposes of machining the pocket in a least time possible while avoiding chatter.
Regarding claim 25
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 22 as outlined above.
ETO also teaches that parts to be machined comprises pockets, as outlined above under the rejection to claim 4.
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI are not relied on for applying the series of rules based on a maximum depth of machining for the part.
However, HERRMAN in an analogous art teaches extracting geometric features of a part to be machined to filter a list of cutting tools based on the extracted features ([0048]: “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, such as a particular cutting tool of largest diameter and smaller cutting length that meets the material, geometry, cutting type (e.g., finishing, roughing), and other requirements thus identified for producing the pocket in the real part according to the dimensions and tolerances specified by the use”), wherein the features comprise a maximum depth of machining for the part ([0048]: “Block S130 can: extract a maximum depth […] and set a minimum cutting length of the cutting tool based on the maximum depth of the pocket”).
HERRMAN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of machine tools. 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 HERRMAN to the teachings of the TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI combination such that HERRMAN’s subroutine of identifying a minimum pocket width of the part could be implemented in TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI’s analysis unit, configured to extract geometric features of the part to be machined, for the purposes of selecting a tool with suitable dimensions to form the pocket, as taught by HERRMAN ([0048]: “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”).
Claims 12 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI in view of KOUNTANYA (US20150086283A1).
Regarding claim 12
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
ETO teaches filtering using tool parameters comprising tool diameter for every tool held by the machine ([0074]: “types of information, a lens radiusLs_R, a tool diameter Cu_D, and the like may be registered”).
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI are not relied on for registering additional parameters comprising shaft length and flute length.
However, KOUNTANYA in an analogous art teaches that shaft length and flute length are parameters of interest of a machine tool ([0027]: “for the known ball-end milling tool 10, the ball diameter D of the ball-end section 20 is 0.50 inches, the taper angle B of the tapered shaft section 22 is 3.0 degrees, the length of the tapered shaft section is 6.50 inches and the flute length FL of the flutes 24 is 6.00 inches”).
KOUNTANYA is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of machine tools. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of KOUNTANYA to the teachings of the TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI combination such that KOUNTANYA’s tool shaft length and flute length would have been registered and included in TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI’s tool selection database.
PNG
media_image3.png
290
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ETO, FIG. 9
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ETO’s tool list table (Fig. 9 above) could have been easily modified to include the two additional columns of shaft and flute length, according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 22 as outlined above.
The remaining limitations of claim 29 are substantially the same as claim 12 and are rejected as per claim 12.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI in view of JEPPSSON (US20040093191A1).
Regarding claim 28
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI teaches the elements of claim 22 as outlined above.
TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI are not relied on for using an impact force sensor associated with a tap testing hammer.
However, JEPPSSON in an analogous are teaches using an impact force sensor associated with a tap testing hammer ([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”).
JEPPSSON is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of modal analysis of machine tools. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that JEPPSSON’s method of collecting vibration data via a force sensor could have been used in addition to TRECAPELLI-ETO-TAKAHASHI’s method of collecting vibration data via a vibration sensor such that the accuracy of the modal response of the machine tool and tool combination would be improved, for the purposes of having more data on which to make intelligent, data-driven decision to make the machining process more efficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoefler (US20090187270A1) teaches methods to prevent chatter while maximizing the depth of cut and cutting speed ([0024]).
Aggarwal (US20140297021A1) teaches toolpath generation and optimization for high speed milling, comprising cutting parameter selection for chatter free milling of pockets ([0067-0069]).
Guo (US20200206851A1) teaches optimizing machining parameters such that chatter is minimized and subsequently generating a toolpath ([0022]).
Zaghbani, I., et al., (“Estimation of machine-tool dynamic parameters during machining operation though operational modal analysis”, published 6/27/2009, retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890695509001199, retrieved on 5/29/2026) teaches modal response data obtained from the tap test depends on the specific tool geometry, such that different tools yield different modal characteristics for the same machine tool assembly.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights