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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 06/29/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 10/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method of automated milling machine calibration…,” and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category. Meanwhile, claim 8 also recites “A computer-implemented method of automated milling machine calibration…,” and thus is also a statutory category. Claim 11 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable computer program instructions to provide automated milling machine calibration…,” which is a product, and thus a statutory category. Claim 16 recites “A system for automated milling machine calibration…,” and is a system, thus a statutory category.
At Step 2A, prong one, claims 1, 11, and 16 recite a series of limitations that involve performing calibration on a milling machine to determine one or more offsets and updating milling production instructions with one or more offsets. Claim 8 recites a series of limitations that involve determining an X-offset based on a first surface region and a second surface region and determining a Z-offset based on a curved surface region. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are directed to the abstract ideas of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind, and thus directed to the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Specifically, the abstract idea includes the limitations of:
“performing … calibration on the milling machine to determine one or more offsets; and … updating milling production instructions with the one or more offsets” in claim 1. Analogous claims are found in respective independent claims 11 and 16, and analyzed the same as claim 1.
And “determining an X-offset based on the first surface region and the second surface region; and determining a Z-offset based on the curved surface region” in claim 8.
As noted earlier, the limitations in question can essentially be interpreted to include a mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind. Specifically, claims 1, 11, and 16 can be interpreted as a judgement of determining a calibration offset, such as based on an mental estimation or on known or gathered information, and updating in the mind, for example by thinking of instructions, milling production instructions with one or more of the mentally determined offsets. Claim 8 can be interpreted as a mental judgement of determining an X-offset based on an observed first surface region and a second surface region and determining a Z-offset based on an observed curved surface region. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
At step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 recites “receiving a calibration alert from a milling machine” and allusions to automatic and automated performance of limitations. Claims 11 and 16 recite similar limitations. Claim 8 recites “receiving a 3D virtual calibration block scan comprising a first surface region, a second surface region, and a curved surface region.”
At Step 2B, while the claims include additional elements as noted above in Step 2A prong 2, they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of automated and automatic, essentially amount to no more than mere suggestions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that the represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer automation (see MPEP2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the limitations of receiving data, including alarms or scan data, amount to necessary data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims 2,4-7, 9-10, 13-15, and 18-20, similarly recite an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2, 4, 13, and 18 recite insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution activity necessary for data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.05(d)v). Claims 5 recites mere data gathering. Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 recite mental limitations of determining offsets based on received or determined data.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2015/0320524 to Stratton (hereinafter Stratton), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2018/0292803 to Kurek et al., (hereinafter Kurek)
Regarding claim 1, Stratton teaches a computer-implemented method of automated milling machine calibration (Calibration of a machine, such a milling machine, with a computer implemented system, see p47, P83, 23, 55, Stratton), comprising: receiving a calibration alert from a milling machine (Calibration is triggered for being performed periodically, and is interpreted as a received alert consistent with the instant specification, such as paragraph 28 of the instant application’s pre-grant publication, see P80, Stratton); performing automated calibration on the milling machine to determine one or more offsets (Calibration is performed for a machine to determine offsets to counteract determined deviation shifts, where calibration includes computer implemented control and milling of calibration blocks, thus automated calibration, see p61, 47, p5, 59-61, 66-70, 52, 83, 23, Stratton); and automatically updating milling production instructions with the one or more offsets (Calibration provides feedback to that machine uses to account for determined shifts through control adjustments (i.e. updated/adjusted instructions), thus automatic updating, see p5, p61, 23, 47, Fig. 11, 59-61, 66-70, 83, 62, Stratton).
Stratton does not explicitly mention automated and automatically.
However, Kurek from the same or similar field of machine tools and calibration, more explicitly teaches automated and automatically (Calibration capability can be automated and automatically performed between jobs through automatic computer control actuation of the system (i.e. instructions), see P26, p20-21, 67, Kurek).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by Stratton and incorporating automated and automatic control, as taught by Kurek.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently perform calibration analysis and implementation that can alleviate manual intervention by an operator (see P26, p20-21, 67, Kurek).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stratton and Kurek teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Stratton further teaches wherein performing automated calibration comprises milling a 3D virtual calibration design into a physical block to provide a 3D physical milled calibration block (Calibration includes fabricating a calibration blank, where milling is performed by generated commands using a 3D model, see p47, p23, 26, 52-53, Stratton).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Stratton and Kurek teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Stratton further teaches wherein milling the 3D virtual calibration design into the physical block comprises milling a first portion of a first surface region and a first portion of a second surface region from a first side of the physical block, rotating the physical block 180 degrees, and milling a second portion of the first surface region and a second portion of the second surface region from a second side of the physical block (A calibration part is fabricated with reference surfaces, including at opposite sides of the part (i.e. 180), see Fig. 8, Fig. 8, p47, Fig. 11, p55-56, p5, 53, Stratton).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Stratton and Kurek teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Stratton further teaches wherein milling the 3D virtual calibration design into the physical block comprises milling a curved region into the physical block (A calibration part includes curved region, see Fig. 8, Fig. 8, p73, p47, Fig. 11, p55-56, p5, 53, Stratton) .
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2
.Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, with p82-83 of Stratton teaching processor and storage memory.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton, in view of Kurek, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2021/0192831 to Smullin et al., (hereinafter Smullin)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Stratton and Kurek teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
While Stratton teaches wherein performing automated calibration comprises receiving a measurement of a 3D physical milled calibration block (Measurements of a fabricated a calibration blank, see abs., p47, p23, 26, 52-53, Stratton), Stratton does not explicitly teach receiving a scan of a block.
However, Smullin from the same or similar field of manufactured objects, including by milling, teaches receiving a scan of a block (A fabricated test object is scanned, which can be a 3D scan, which can be received by a computing system, see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by the combination that includes Stratton and incorporating a scan of a block, as taught by Smullin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a means that can permit measuring a test object in order to determine desired feature of interest (see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Stratton, Kurek, and Smullin teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Stratton further teaches wherein performing automated calibration comprises determining an X-offset amount and direction based on a first surface region and a second surface region in a calibration block (Deviation of shift (i.e. offset) is determined, including for an x axis, based on a first and second surface measured on a calibration block, where a deviation shift has the implication of a direction and amount of the shift to be adjusted, see p5, p56, 59, 61, Stratton).
Smullin further teaches a virtual scan (A fabricated test object is scanned, which can be a 3D scan, which can be received by a computing system, see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by the combination that includes Stratton and incorporating a scan of a block, as taught by Smullin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a means that can permit measuring a test object in order to determine desired feature of interest (see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton, in view of Kurek, in further view of Smullin, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2023/0152772 to Shamoto (hereinafter Shamoto)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Stratton, Kurek, and Smullin teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Stratton further teaches wherein performing automated calibration comprises determining a Z-offset based on a region in a calibration block (Deviation of shift (i.e. offset) is determined, including for an z-axis, based on a measured region on a calibration block, where the calibration block can include a curved region, see p5, p56, 59, 61, p73, Figs. 8-9, 1-3, Stratton).
Smullin further teaches a virtual scan (A fabricated test object is scanned, which can be a 3D scan, which can be received by a computing system, see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by the combination that includes Stratton and incorporating a scan of a block, as taught by Smullin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a means that can permit measuring a test object in order to determine desired feature of interest (see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
Stratton does not explicitly teach determining a Z-offset based on a curved region.
However, Shamoto from the same or similar field of manufactured objects, including by milling, teaches determining a Z-offset based on a curved region (An error for offset for a Z-axis determined based on a curved portion of an object, see Fig. 5, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by the combination that includes Stratton and incorporating an offset using a curved region, as taught by Shamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to follow a movement contour varying in a desired axis direction that can provide error indicia between a desired contour and measured object for determining offsets that can reduce positional errors in object manufacturing (see Fig. 5, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton, in view of Smullin, and in further view of Shamoto.
Regarding claim 8, Stratton teaches a computer-implemented method of calibrating a milling machine (Calibration of a machine, such a milling machine, with a computer implemented system, see p47, P83, 23, 55, Stratton), comprising: a calibration block comprising a first surface region, a second surface region, and a curved surface region (A calibration part with reference surfaces, including surfaces, that can include a first surface, second surface, and curved region, see Fig. 8, Fig. 8, p47, Fig. 11, p55-56, p5, 53, Stratton); determining an X-offset based on the first surface region and the second surface region (Deviation of shift (i.e. offset) is determined, including for an x axis, based on a first and second surface measured on a calibration block, where a deviation shift has the implication of a direction and amount of the shift to be adjusted, see p5, p56, 59, 61, Stratton); and determining a Z-offset based on the surface region (Deviation of shift (i.e. offset) is determined, including for an z-axis, based on a measured region on a calibration block, where the calibration block can include a curved region, see p5, p56, 59, 61, p73, Figs. 8-9, 1-3, Stratton).
While Stratton teaches wherein performing automated calibration comprises receiving a measurement of a 3D physical milled calibration block (Measurements of a fabricated a calibration blank, see abs., p47, p23, 26, 52-53, Stratton), Stratton does not explicitly teach receiving a scan of a block.
However, Smullin from the same or similar field of manufactured objects, including by milling, teaches receiving a scan of a block (A fabricated test object is scanned, which can be a 3D scan, which can be received by a computing system, see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by Stratton and incorporating a scan of a block, as taught by Smullin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a means that can permit measuring a test object in order to determine desired feature of interest (see p28, p20-21, p24, Smullin).
Stratton does not explicitly teach determining a Z-offset based on a curved region.
However, Shamoto from the same or similar field of manufactured objects, including by milling, teaches determining a Z-offset based on a curved region (An error for offset for a Z-axis determined based on a curved portion of an object, see Fig. 5, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by the combination that includes Stratton and incorporating an offset using a curved region, as taught by Shamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to follow a movement contour varying in a desired axis direction that can provide error indicia between a desired contour and measured object for determining offsets that can reduce positional errors in object manufacturing (see Fig. 5, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Stratton, Smullin, and Shamoto teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Stratton further teaches an unlevelled surface (There’s at least an unlevel surface, such as a curved portion, see Fig. 9, 8, Stratton)
Shamoto further teaches determining an X-offset comprises determining an X- offset amount based on an unlevelled surface (An error for offset for a X-axis determined based on measurements of a workpiece that includes a curved surface portion of an object, see Fig. 9 (e.g. starting at point B), p73, p83, p86, p60-70, p99-100, Fig. 10, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by the combination that includes Stratton and incorporating an offset using an unlevel region, as taught by Shamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to follow a movement contour in a desired axis direction that can provide error indicia between a desired contour and measured object for determining offsets that can reduce positional errors in object manufacturing (see Fig. 9, p73, p83, p86, p60-70, p99-100, Fig. 10, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Stratton, Smullin, and Shamoto teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Stratton further teaches on a leveled surface and an unlevelled surface (There’s at least a flatter level surface that transition with an unlevel surface curved portion, see Fig. 9, 8, Stratton)
Shamoto further teaches determining an X- offset direction based on a leveled surface and an unlevelled surface (An error for offset for a X-axis determined based on measurements of a workpiece that includes a flatter level region and a curved surface portion of an object, see Fig. 9 (e.g. starting at point A flatter region and then through point B), p73, p83, p86, p60-70, p99-100, Fig. 10, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the milling and calibration as described by the combination that includes Stratton and incorporating an offset using a level and unlevel region, as taught by Shamoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to follow a movement contour in a desired axis direction that can provide error indicia between a desired contour and measured object for determining offsets that can reduce positional errors in object manufacturing (see Fig. 9, p73, p83, p86, p60-70, p99-100, Fig. 10, p64, p60, p58-59, p33, 99-100, Shamoto).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Owens, US. Patent Publication No. 2014/0228996 teaches virtual calibration of a CNC machine that includes modifying g-code instructions.
Toimela et al, US. Patent Publication No. 2020/0070296 teaches a milling calibration machine using a calibration fixture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117