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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites steps of “selecting a workpiece to be machined, wherein the workpiece has a set of one or more unruled surfaces”, “determining sub-areas of the set of one or more unruled surfaces having a set of curves wherein the set of curves have pseudo-ruledness properties, wherein pseudo-ruledness properties are a set of properties associated with the surface and determined based on evaluating the Gaussian curvature of the set of curves and a set of criteria”, “determining a direction for each curve of the set of curves of the determined sub-areas, wherein the direction minimizes an absolute value of a normal curvature for the set of curves and correspond to isolines on the determined sub-areas that exhibit near-zero curvature”, “identifying a subset of curves having near-zero curvature from the set of curves determined to have direction minimizing an absolute value of a normal curvature, the identifying based on whether the determined direction is negative, zero, or positive within a threshold”, “selecting a flank milling cutting tool from a set of available tools based on matching the curvature of the identified subset of curves with curvature of the flank milling cutting tool”, and “determining a tool path for the flank milling cutting tool based on the selected flank milling cutting tool having a tool curvature and the curvature of the identified subset of curves”. As is evident from the background, the claimed steps of determinations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the bolded limitations from the recited steps of “selecting…”, “determining…”, “determining…”, “identifying…”, “ selecting…”, and “determining…” can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps of determinations, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements “a workpiece to be machined” and “a flank milling cutting tool from a set of available tools” in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements “a workpiece to be machined” and “a flank milling cutting tool from a set of available tools” in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception to the generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites step of “the set of criteria is based on identifying the sub-areas to be at least one of: surface that is not exact-ruled and surface that is not far from being a ruled surface”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 3 recites step of “inspecting the set of one or more unruled surfaces for pseudo-ruledness properties”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 4 recites step of “validating the determined tool path for the flank milling cutting tool to ensure that the tool path is free of collisions and tolerance-exceeding interferences with the surface”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 5 recites step of “the direction is slightly varying point by point and determined via stepping in the calculated directions, wherein at each step the curvature is again examined to be at least one of: non-positive and positive not exceeding a prescribed positive physical threshold”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 6 recites step of “the threshold is based on a machining tolerance, wherein the tolerance is based on machining capabilities of the machine wherein the machine is not capable of flank milling past the threshold”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites step of “threshold is adjusted based on a flank milling stage, wherein the stage is at least one of: during roughing, semi-finishing, and finishing stages”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 8 recites step of “matching the curvature of the identified subset of curves with curvature of the flank milling cutting tool ensures that the selected tool efficiently machines the surface while minimizing deviations from the desired curvature profile”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 9 recites additional element “outputting the determined tool path for the flank milling cutting tool as one or more machine instructions”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function of outputting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 10 recites step of “determining a tool path for the flank milling cutting tool is further based on following the near-zero curvature isolines”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a device, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 11 recites steps of “select a workpiece to be machined, wherein the workpiece has a set of one or more unruled surfaces”, “determine sub-areas of the set of one or more unruled surfaces having a set of curves wherein the set of curves have pseudo-ruledness properties, wherein pseudo-ruledness properties are a set of properties associated with the surface and determined based on evaluating the Gaussian curvature of the set of curves and a set of criteria”, “determine a direction for each curve of the set of curves of the determined sub-areas, wherein the direction minimizes an absolute value of a normal curvature for the set of curves and correspond to isolines on the determined sub-areas that exhibit near-zero curvature”, “identify a subset of curves having near-zero curvature from the set of curves determined to have direction minimizing an absolute value of a normal curvature, the identifying based on whether the determined direction is negative, zero, or positive within a threshold”, “select a flank milling cutting tool from a set of available tools based on matching the curvature of the identified subset of curves with curvature of the flank milling cutting tool”, and “determine a tool path for the flank milling cutting tool based on the selected flank milling cutting tool having a tool curvature and the curvature of the identified subset of curves”. As is evident from the background, the claimed steps of determinations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the bolded limitations from the recited steps of “select…”, “determine…”, “determine…”, “identify…”, “ select…”, and “determine…” can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps of determinations, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements “a workpiece to be machined” and “a flank milling cutting tool from a set of available tools” in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Accordingly, the 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements “a workpiece to be machined” and “a flank milling cutting tool from a set of available tools” in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception to the generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 12 recites step of “the threshold is based on a machining tolerance, wherein the tolerance is based on machining capabilities of the machine wherein the machine is not capable of flank milling past the threshold”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 13 recites step of “matching the curvature of the identified subset of curves with curvature of the flank milling cutting tool ensures that the selected tool efficiently machines the surface while minimizing deviations from the desired curvature profile”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 14 recites step of “validate the determined tool path for the flank milling cutting tool to ensure that the tool path is free of collisions and tolerance-exceeding interferences with the surface”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 15 recites additional element “the flank milling cutting tool is a barrel cutting tool”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing a generic function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining a direction… wherein the direction… to have direction… the determined direction…” in lines 11-17. It is unclear whether those four directions referring to the same subject matter or not. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the curvature of the identified subset of curves” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear whether “the curvature of the identified subset of curves” referring to the “near-zero curvature” in line 15. Appropriated correction is required.
Claim 2 recites limitation “surface that is not exact-ruled and surface that is not far from being a ruled surface” in lines 27-28. It is unclear about what is “not far from being a ruled surface” and “not exact-ruled”. From specification, it indicates examples like spheres, ellipsoids, toroidal, etc., however, the claim limitation is vague and unclear about the definition. Appropriated correction is required.
Claim 5 recites limitation “the direction…. wherein at each step the curvature…”. It is unclear the claim limitation referring to which “direction”, and it is also unclear which “curvature” the claim limitation referring to. Appropriated correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “determine a direction… wherein the direction… to have direction… the determined direction…” in lines 8-15. It is unclear whether those four directions referring to the same subject matter or not. Claim 11 also recites the limitation “the curvature of the identified subset of curves” in line 17. It is also unclear whether “the curvature of the identified subset of curves” referring to the “near-zero curvature” in line 12. Appropriated correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Cooper et al., US 20170016332 A1, teaches a method and system for determining milling instructions for flank milling turbomachinery components that minimize milling machine motion. A CAM program may include algorithms for describing an orientation of a cutter in a three dimensional system, such as a spherical coordinate system, and for simultaneously minimizing cutter motion in multiple dimensions, such as both angular planes of a spherical coordinate system, to find an optimal machining path, wherein the methods of determining improved flank milling instructions described herein can also be used to flank mill some types of non-ruled surfaces
WANG et al., CN 114995281 A, teaches a method and system for optimal tool bit planning on a non-expandable straight curved surface based on equal bow high error method, suitable for side milling processing of non-expandable straight curved surface. firstly determines the parameter equation of the to-be-processed straight-grained curved surface, and obtains the curvature at the current cutter position of the upper and lower directrix of the straight-grained curved surface, secondly, calculating the initial processing step length corresponding to the upper and lower directrix according to the arch curvature allowable difference, and checking the bow height error, further iteratively adjusting the processing step length to maximize in the bow height allowance, at last, comparing the upper and lower standard lines at the cutter position of each processing step length, obtaining the cutter position under the optimal processing step length in the bow height allowance, the traversal cutter path track, namely finishing the non-expandable straight grain surface optimal tool bit planning based on the isobow high error method.
WANG et al., CN 110153477 A, teaches a method and system relates to non-ruled surface five-shaft side milling process cutter position correction to reduce the flank milling surface process non-straight line sweep geometric deviation in the actual cutter shaft face and the bias cutter shaft formed by the curved surface is not overlapped, which effectively improves the processing precision of the milling process.
The prior art of record do not teach or suggest, individually or in combination, determining sub-areas of the set of one or more unruled surfaces having a set of curves wherein the set of curves have pseudo-ruledness properties, wherein pseudo-ruledness properties are a set of properties associated with the surface and determined based on evaluating the Gaussian curvature of the set of curves and a set of criteria; determining a direction for each curve of the set of curves of the determined sub-areas, wherein the direction minimizes an absolute value of a normal curvature for the set of curves and correspond to isolines on the determined sub-areas that exhibit near-zero curvature; identifying a subset of curves having near-zero curvature from the set of curves determined to have direction minimizing an absolute value of a normal curvature, the identifying based on whether the determined direction is negative, zero, or positive within a threshold; selecting a flank milling cutting tool from a set of available tools based on matching the curvature of the identified subset of curves with curvature of the flank milling cutting tool; and determining a tool path for the flank milling cutting tool based on the selected flank milling cutting tool having a tool curvature and the curvature of the identified subset of curves.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights