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 March 5, 2026 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: collision-relevant digital twin 20”, paragraph 0140, is not shown in Figs. 3-5; “digital image 18”, paragraph 0140, is not shown in Figs. 3-5.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "56" and "58" have both been used to designate a same part (Figs. 3-5), reference characters "12" (Figs. 4, 7) and "22" (Figs. 4, 7) have both been used to designate a same part (Figs. 4, 7), reference characters "14" (Figs. 5, 8) and "24" (Figs. 5, 8) have both been used to designate a same part (Figs. 5, 8), reference characters "4" (Figs. 10a, 10b) and "18" (Figs. 10a, 10b) have both been used to designate a same part (Figs. 10a, 10b).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the apparatus being at least one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base or integrated into said machine tool” (claims 4, 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- claims 1 and 6, “the tool clamped in the tool holder” (line 2) should be – the tool or the complete tool clamped in the tool holder --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 5 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 5, “the apparatus being at least one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base or integrated into said machine tool” is misdescriptive in view of Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 shows the apparatus (2) being a separate element from the machine tool (2). However, this configuration is not recited in the claims.
While the claims recite that the apparatus (2) being at least one of mounted with said machine tool (26) on a common base or integrated into said machine tool, this configuration, however, is not shown. Fig. 1 does not show the apparatus (2) being at least one of mounted with said machine tool (26) on a common base or integrated into said machine tool.
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, 6-13, 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).
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. The data for the collision-relevant digital twin is only intended to be used/applied for processing the workpiece. The data for the collision-relevant digital twin is not used/applied in a meaningful way such that the data for the collision-relevant digital is 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, 7-13, 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 8 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, 7-13, 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 1-13, 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 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.
While Ziegltrum does not expressly disclose the machine tool carrying out a collision check before the workpiece is processed, it would have been obvious (common sense) to perform a collision check before the workpiece is processed for determining whether there are collisions between the tool and the workpiece or surrounding components, so one can make mitigating steps.
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 for the purpose of determining whether there are collisions between the tool and the workpiece or surrounding components, so one can make mitigating steps.
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 8, Ziegltrum discloses
during a determination of the cutting region by using at least the first cutting point (measuring the position of cutting edges, paragraph 0010), determining a point lying closest (measuring the position of cutting edges, paragraph 0010) to at least the first cutting point (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); and
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).
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.
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 March 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the drawing objections, Applicants argue “Applicants have addressed the drawing objections raised in A1 - A8, above, as follows:
A2 - A4. paragraphs [0139] and [140] has been amended to refer to Figs. 3 - 5 and 9, in which the collision-relevant digital twin 20, the digital image 18 … are shown.”
Examiner’s position is that the collision-relevant digital twin 20 is not shown in Figs. 3-5 (per paragraphs 0139, 0140) and the digital image 18 is not shown in Figs. 3-5 (per paragraph 0140).
Applicants further argue “Figs. 3 - 8 have been amended so that the reference character "56" designates the "section 56" referenced in paragraph [0142], and the reference character "58" designates the "display 58" of paragraph [0154]”.
Examiner’s position is that reference characters "56" and "58" have both been used to designate a same part (see Figs. 3-5).
Applicants further argue Figs. 4 and 7 have been amended so that reference characters "12" and "22" designate the cutting start point 12 and the point 22 lying closest to the first cutting point in the digital image, respectively”.
Examiner’s position is that reference characters "12" and "22" have both been used to designate a same part (see Figs. 4, 7). Reference characters "12" and "22" are pointing to the same part.
Applicants further argue Figs. 5 and 8 have been amended so that reference characters "12" and "22" designate the cutting start point 12 and the point 22 lying closest to the first cutting point in the digital image, respectively”.
Examiner’s position is that reference characters "14" and "24" have both been used to designate a same part (see Figs. 5, 8). Reference characters "14" and "24" are pointing to the same part.
Applicants further argue "Fig. 9 has been amended to separately refer to: 1) the digital image 18 of the tool or complete tool; 3) the tool holder 8”.
Examiner’s position is that reference characters "18", “6”, and "8" have been used to designate a same part (see Fig. 9). Reference characters "18", “6”, and "8" are pointing to the same part.
Applicants further argue “Figs. 10a and 10b have been amended to separately refer to the digital image 18 and the tool 4 and to add the reference number "16" referenced in paragraph [0162] and its associated lead line”.
Examiner’s position is that reference characters "4" and "18" have been used to designate a same part (see Fig. 10a, 10b). Reference characters "4" and "18" are pointing to the same part.
Applicants further argue “the "apparatus being one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base or integrated into said machine tool" is represented by the interface "36" in Fig. 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeing the presetting instrument relative to the machine tool 26 in Fig. 1, would understand, in light of the specification and the representation of the interface 36, illustrated in Fig. 1, that the presetting instrument 2 could be mounted on a common base with the machine tool 26 or integrated into the machine tool 26 of Fig. 1. Further illustration of this is not believed to be "necessary for the understanding of the invention" by a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Examiner’s position is that pursuant to 37 CFR 1.183(a), the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings do not show “the apparatus being at least one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base or integrated into said machine tool” (claims 4, 5). Examiner disagrees that the apparatus is represented by the interface "36" in Fig. 1.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicants argue “[c]laims 4 and 5 were rejected as allegedly being misdescriptive in view of Fig. 1. Applicants respectfully disagree. The "apparatus being one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base or integrated into said machine tool" is represented by the interface "36" in Fig. 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeing the presetting instrument relative to the machine tool 26 in Fig. 1, would understand, in light of the specification and the representation of the interface 36, illustrated in Fig. 1, that the presetting instrument 2 could be mounted on a common base with the machine tool 26 or integrated into the machine tool 26 of Fig. 1. Further illustration of this is not believed to be "necessary for the understanding of the invention" by a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Examiner’s position is that the drawings do not show “the apparatus being at least one of mounted with said machine tool on a common base or integrated into said machine tool” (claims 4, 5). Examiner disagrees that the apparatus is represented by the interface "36" in Fig. 1.
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(d) has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “Applicants' invention thus improves the machining technology by ensuring that the actual cutting region of a tool, ascertained while generating the collision-relevant digital image with the presetting apparatus, is not such that it will cause a collision risk during the processing of the workpiece. For example, Applicants' specification discloses that, in this technology, it is important to practice preventative collision protection in the machine tool (paragraph 0010).”
Examiner’s position is that Applicants appear to argue that the claims are directed to a technological improvement. Pursuant to MPEP 2105.05(a), “[a]n indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.”
Paragraph 0010 does not identify a prior technical problem of preventive collision protection.
Applicants further argue “[i]n order to address this important issue, Applicants' invention overcomes disadvantages of the prior art by improving presetting instruments, in particular, to improve and/or simplify collision checking by using digital images of tools or complete tools. See, for example, paragraph [0013] of the instant application.”
Is prior collision checking too complicated because the prior collision checking does not use digital images of tools or complete tools? How is the collision checking performed in prior art? Again, the collision checking of prior art is not discussed and the prior technical problem of preventive collision protection is not identified in the specification to show to support a technological improvement recited in the claims. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a technological improvement pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicants further argue “[t]he claims have been amended, herein to recite elements for achieving this improvement. For example, Applicants' claim 1 has been amended to recite, among other limitations:
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. [emphasis added by Applicants]”
Examiner’s position has been discussed above. The claims are not directed to a technological improvement pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a).
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicants argue “Ziegltrum reference … does not teach or suggest, among other things, subsequently measuring a cutting point, as further required by Applicants' claims.”
Examiner’s position is that Ziegltrum discloses “measur[ring] 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).
Applicants further argue “Applicants' invention requires that a cutting point be measured, which cutting point is used to ascertain a cutting region in the digital image and to turn the scanned digital twin into a collision-relevant digital twin including this cutting region data.”
Examiner’s position is that Ziegltrum discloses a cutting point be measured (measuring the position of cutting edges of the tools using digital camera, paragraph 0010), which cutting point is used to ascertain a cutting region in the digital image (ascertaining position of cutting edges, paragraph 0010) and to turn the scanned digital twin into a collision-relevant digital twin including this cutting region data (creating a digital twin of tool units, which includes the cutting tool, paragraph 0032, lines 1-4, where the cutting tool includes the cutting edges).
Applicants further argue “[i]n other words, Applicants' particularly claimed invention requires, among other things: 1) the measurement of at least one first cutting point for the tool or the complete tool; 2) in addition to the sampling of the tool or of the complete tool.”
Examiner’s position is that Ziegltrum discloses 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).
Applicants further argue “Ziegltrum reference does not teach or suggest, among other things, performing, in combination, both: 1) measuring the first cutting point of paragraph [0010] of Ziegltrum; and 2) scanning the tool/creating the digital twin via sensor 11 of Ziegltrum.”.
Examiner’s position is that Ziegltrum discloses measuring the first cutting point of paragraph (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, where cutting edges of a measuring tool are in addition to other part(s) of the measuring tool that is/are being sampled), as recited in the claims.
Applicants further argue “[t]he Office Action is combining two things that the Ziegltrum reference does not combine. As discussed above, paragraph [0010] of Ziegltrum, pointed to in the Office Action, merely refers to the technical background, describing a presetting operation where tool cutting edges are measured, without providing any teaching or suggestion in any way to apply it to the digital twin obtained by Ziegltrum.”
Examiner’s position is that paragraph 0010 of Ziegltrum discloses tool cutting edges are measured optically using digital cameras.
Applicants further argue “[p]aragraph [0032] of Ziegltrum, additionally pointed to in the Office Action specifically refers to the invention-related machining center of Ziegltrum, which creates a digital twin. However-as noted above-the machining center in the Ziegltrum reference only creates the digital twin. The Ziegltrum reference does not teach or suggest in any way, subsequently measuring a cutting point and using it to ascertain a cutting region in the digital image, to transform the digital twin into a collision-relevant digital twin, as required by Applicants' claims.”
Examiner’s position is that paragraph 0032 of Ziegltrum discloses “creating a digital twin of tool units that consist of a tool chuck and a cutting tool mounted therein”. Accordingly, the digital twin of tool units that consist of … a cutting tool would also consist of cutting point(s) (cutting edges) of the cutting tool. Accordingly, Ziegltrum discloses measuring a cutting point (measuring the position of cutting edges of the tools using digital camera, paragraph 0010) and using it to ascertain a cutting region in the digital image, to transform the digital twin into a collision-relevant digital twin (creating a digital twin of tool units that consist of a tool chuck and a cutting tool mounted therein, paragraph 0032, where the digital twin of tool units that consists of … a cutting tool would also consist of cutting point(s) (cutting edges) of the cutting tool). In other words, cutting points (cutting edges) of a cutting tool are used to form a digital twin of the cutting tool.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions and grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yauchi et al. (US 10,189,137) discloses a tool shape measuring apparatus for detecting shape abnormality (Abstract).
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.
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 May 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights