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 .
The amendment filed on August 5, 2026 has been considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 1, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “56” does not refer to a section of complete tool 6 per Applicants’ remarks (see Applicants’ remarks, page 6, filed on August 5, 2026).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea of “ascertain a cutting region in the digital image by using at least the first cutting point or the first and second cutting points to form a collision-relevant digital twin” (mental process), “determine, during a determination of the cutting region by using at least the first cutting point or the first and second cutting points, a point lying closest or points lying closest to at least the first cutting point or the first and second cutting points in the digital image of the tool or complete tool” (mental process), “ascertain the cutting region or marking the cutting region in the digital image by using the closest lying point or closest lying points” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (control unit) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Measuring at least one first cutting point or a cutting start point, and a second cutting point or a cutting end point, for the tool or the complete tool is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The measuring unit and a calculation and control unit [is merely] adapted to provide data for the collision-relevant digital twin to a machine tool for processing a workpiece, the machine tool carrying out a collision check using the provided data before the workpiece is processed, in order to optimize the processing of the workpiece based on the collision check and perform the optimized processing of the workpiece.
Providing data for the collision-relevant digital twin is only intended as a capability to be used/applied for processing the workpiece. The data for the collision-relevant digital twin is not used/applied in a meaningful way to optimize the processing of the workpiece based on the collision check and perform the optimized processing of the workpiece. “[I]n order to optimize the processing of the workpiece based on the collision check and perform the optimized processing of the workpiece” are intended uses based on the collision check.
Providing data for the collision-relevant digital to optimize the processing of the workpiece is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Sample the tool or the complete tool for compilation of a digital image of the tool or of the complete tool (digital image recording) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity known in the industry (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, measuring at least one first cutting point or a cutting start point, and a second cutting point or a cutting end point, for the tool or the complete tool (measuring points of an image) is also directed to a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity known in the industry (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9-13, 16, and 17 do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9-13, 16, 17 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering.
Claims 3 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 10 are directed to conventional activity.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 6 and their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9-13, 16, and 17 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4 and 5 recite a particular machine to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, they are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegltrum (US 2020/0282504).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Ziegltrum discloses an apparatus (1) for measuring a tool (4) or a complete tool (4, 3) including a tool holder (3) and a tool (4) clamped in the tool holder (Fig. 1) and method for compiling a digital image of same (paragraph 0021), comprising:
a measuring unit (7) and a calculation and control unit (implied by calculation of tool unit, claim 14, lines 8-12; implied by determining of contour of tool unit, Abstract, lines 12-14) adapted:
to sample (via image sensor 11) the tool (4) or the complete tool (10) for
compilation of a digital image of the tool or of the complete tool (Abstract);
to measure at least one first cutting point, for the tool or the complete tool,
(measuring the position of cutting edges of the tools using digital camera, paragraph 0010) in addition to the sampling of the tool or of the complete tool (measuring cutting edges by cameras are in addition to sampling of a tool or tool unit via image sensor 11); and
to ascertain a cutting region in the digital image by using at least the first
cutting point (position of the measured cutting edges, paragraph 0010) to form a collision-relevant digital twin (creating a digital twin of tool units, paragraph 0032, lines 1-4).
to determine, during a determination of the cutting region by using at
least the first cutting point or the first and second cutting points (measuring the position of the cutting edges, paragraph 0010), a point lying closest (measuring the position of the cutting edges, paragraph 000) to at least the first cutting point or the first and second cutting points (cutting edges, paragraph 0010) in the digital image of the tool or complete tool (the cutting edges of the tool/tool unit are measured by a digital camera, paragraph 0010);
to ascertaining the cutting region (region of cutting edges, paragraph
0010) in the digital image by using the closest lying point (determining the region of cutting edges by measuring the position of cutting edges by a digital camera, paragraph 0010).
to provide data for the collision-relevant digital twin to a machine tool
(transmit data obtained in this way, i.e., obtaining image/digital twins of tools, to controller 6 of cutting machine, paragraph 0091, lines 1-3; Fig. 1) for processing a workpiece (cutting machine for processing black workpiece, Fig. 1), the machine tool carrying out a collision check using the provided data (digital twin is used for simulation to perform collision check, paragraphs 0015, 0016).
It is noted that to measure at least one cutting start point, and a second cutting point or a cutting end point, is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that to ascertain a cutting region in the digital image by using at least
the first and second cutting points is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that during a determination of the cutting region by using at least the first and second cutting points, determining points lying closest to at least the first and second cutting points in the digital image of the tool or complete tool is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that marking the cutting region in the digital image by using the closest lying point or closest lying points is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
While Ziegltrum does not expressly disclose the machine tool carrying out a collision check before the workpiece is processed, in order to optimize the processing of the workpiece based on the collision check and perform the optimized processing of the workpiece, Ziegltrum discloses performing an collision check (collision analysis, paragraph 0029) in order to be able to safely rule out an impermissible collision (paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to perform a collision check before the workpiece is processed in order to optimize the processing of the workpiece for determining whether there are collisions between the tool and the workpiece or surrounding components, so one can safely rule out impermissible collisions (paragraph 0029) before the workpiece is processed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ziegltrum with carrying out a collision check before the workpiece is processed in order to optimize the processing of the workpiece for the purpose of safely rule out impermissible collisions before the workpiece is processed.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Ziegltrum discloses said measuring unit and said calculation and control unit are adapted to compile a machining-relevant twin by using the digital image (paragraph 0090, lines 1-7) having at least one of further information items (paragraph 0090, lines 7-11) besides information items assigned to the collision-relevant twin (paragraph 0090, lines 1-7).
It is noted that to compile a machining-relevant twin by using the collision-relevant digital twin is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that having at least one of original information items or a particular structure or processing is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 3, Ziegltrum discloses a tool presetting instrument (Fig. 1), comprising:
the apparatus (1) for measuring a tool (4) or a complete tool (tool unit 10) including a tool holder (3) and a tool (4) clamped in the tool holder (3) (paragraph 0090; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ziegltrum discloses a processing center (Fig. 1), comprising:
the apparatus (1) for measuring a tool (4) or a complete tool (10) including a tool holder (3) and a tool (4) clamped in the tool holder (3) (paragraph 0090; Fig. 1) according claim 1; and
a machine tool (right part of 1);
the apparatus being at least one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base (Fig. 1) or integrated into said machine tool (right part of 1 is integrated in 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ziegltrum discloses a processing center (Fig. 1), comprising:
the tool presetting instrument (Fig. 1); and
a machine tool (right part of 1);
the apparatus (1) for measuring a tool (4) or a complete tool (10) including a tool holder (3) and a tool (4) clamped in the tool holder (3) being at least one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base (Fig. 1) or integrated into said machine tool (right part of 1 is integrated in 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ziegltrum discloses further carrying out samplings of the tool or of the complete tool at different tool or complete tool heights (image sensor has a greater maximum extension in at least one spatial coordinates direction than the tool unit, Abstract, lines 9-14), and ascertaining the digital image from the samplings (via image sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Ziegltrum discloses during the sampling, carrying out a 2D scan of the tool or of the complete tool by using the apparatus for measuring a tool or a complete tool (optical scanning of cutting edges of tool/complete tool, paragraph 0028, using digital cameras, paragraphs 0010), and measuring a bilateral contour of the tool or of the complete tool in a predetermined fixed position during the 2D scan (using digital cameras for recording area, paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 10, Ziegltrum discloses during the sampling, carrying out a 3D scan of the tool or of the complete tool (3D scan is implied by scanning of the tool while the tool is rotating, paragraph 0090) by using the apparatus for measuring a tool or a complete tool (using the image sensor 11 of 7), measuring a unilateral contour of the tool or of the complete tool (measuring via 11 the contour of the tool in the X direction, Fig. 2) during the 3D scan (while the tool is rotating, paragraph 0090), rotating the tool or the complete tool during the measuring (paragraph 0090), and ascertaining an envelope contour (paragraph 0026, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 11, Ziegltrum discloses further comprises providing the tool as a rotating tool (paragraph 0090), and during the sampling, carrying out a 3D scan of the rotating tool or of the complete tool (3D scan is implied by scanning of the tool while the tool is rotating, paragraph 0090).
Regarding claim 12, Ziegltrum discloses for the compilation of the digital image of the complete tool (via 11, Abstract), only carrying out the sampling of the tool for the complete tool if and when data for the digital image of the tool holder are available in another way (measuring of tool/tool unit when image sensor 11 senses image data from tool/tool unit, Abstract) or have already been at least one of stored or read in.
It is noted that carrying out the sampling of the tool for the complete tool if and when data for the digital image of the tool holder have already been at least one of stored or read in is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 13, Ziegltrum discloses, during the compilation of the digital image of the tool or of the complete tool, generating at least one data set (it is implied that by creating the digital twins, the datasets are generated to be compared with existing datasets, paragraph 0145) and having data from measuring, by using the apparatus for measuring a tool or a complete tool (the digital twins are created by the image sensor 11 measuring the tool 4/tool unit 10, the image sensor is part of the apparatus 1).
It is noted that generating at least a plurality of data sets, or a data set having data of the digital image and having data for the ascertained cutting region or a data set having data of the digital image is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that having data for the ascertained cutting region as well as having measuring data of the tool is not required because the limitation is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 17, Ziegltrum discloses carrying out the method with at least one of a cutting tool or a cutting tool compressed in the tool holder (paragraphs 0032, 0085).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and arguments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “data of the cutting region and digital twin obtained by the invention is used to optimize the processing of the workpiece and the workpiece is processed based on this optimization.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims recite “a measuring unit and a calculation and control unit adapted … to provide data for the collision-relevant digital twin to a machine tool for processing a workpiece, the machine tool carrying out a collision check using the provided data before the workpiece is processed, in order to optimize the processing of the workpiece based on the collision check and perform the optimized processing of the workpiece. Thus, “carrying out a collision check using the provided data” is a capability and “optimizing the processing of the workpiece based on the collision check” is an intended use.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue that Ziegltrum does not teach “determining closest lying points in the digital image.”
Examiner’s position is that Ziegltrum teaches “[t]he position of the cutting edges is often measured optically using digital cameras (measuring the position of cutting edges of the tools using digital camera, paragraph 0010)”. The position of the cutting edges is closest to the cutting point, since the cutting point is the point cut by the cutting edges. Thus, clearly, Ziegltrum teaches “determining closest lying points in the digital image.”
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to determining the closest lying point(s) to at least the first cutting point have been considered but the examiner maintains the positions that the position of the cutting edges is often measured optically using digital cameras (measuring the position of cutting edges of the tools using digital camera, paragraph 0010), as discussed above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights