Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a trajectory” (lines 11, 14, and 18) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the time spans” (line 15) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the motion plan” (line 14) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a trajectory” (line 1) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the motion plan” (line 4) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a time span” (line 2) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the motion plan” (lines 1-2) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the motion plan” (lines 2 and 6) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a trajectory” (line 1) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a trajectory” (line 4) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 7 is depended on claim 6, thus the feature “a new trajectory” (line 2) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the motion plan” (line 2) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a trajectory” (lines 17, 18, and 21) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the motion plan” (lines 14 and 19) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the time spans” (line 20) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a trajectory” (line 1) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “the motion plan” (lines 2 and 6) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: The feature “a time span” (line 2) has insufficient antecedent basis.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 1 and 18:
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 18 are drawn to a method for machine tool motion planning therefore falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Nonetheless, claims 1 and 18 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 18 recites the limitations “defining waypoints for a multi-step motion plan for the machining operation, including start and end waypoints for at least two steps, with at least one intermediate waypoint”, “computing an initial estimate of a non-stationary state of the intermediate waypoint, including calculating the initial estimate of the state based on a distance traveled in an air-cut step of the motion plan, a state at an opposite end of the air-cut step from the intermediate waypoint, and the machine tool limits” (as recited only in claim 18), “generating a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan in which the at least one intermediate waypoint has a non-stationary state”, and “calculating one or more states of the at least one intermediate waypoint” that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental and/or a mathematical concept. Other than reciting a generic “a computing device having a processor”, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from the mathematical concept and/or mental process/evaluation. As such, a human can mentally define a paper cutting path including a fixed starting point and a fixed ending point to determine a curve path to cut the paper with at least one middle point that can change. The human can visually estimate where the middle point is based on the distance when a scissor is not yet in touch with the paper at the first point and then can mentally adjust the state or position of the middle point. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform the mathematical and/or mental concept does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I and III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Each of claims 1 and 18 recites additional feature “a memory” and an additional limitation “providing input data for a machining operation, including geometry of a workpiece and at least one feature to be machined in or on the workpiece by a machine tool, a machining feed speed and machine tool limits including a maximum velocity, acceleration and jerk” that are forms of insignificant input-solution activities, such that data gathering and data storing are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The additional feature/limitation that are a forms of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data gathering and data storing (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i/iv)). As such, claims 1 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 19-23:
Step 1:
Claims 2-17 and 19-23 are drawn to a method for machine tool motion planning therefore falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-17 and 19-23 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1 and 18.
Steps 2A-2B:
Claims 2-14 and 19-23 recite further the abstract mental and/or mathematical concepts of “generating a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan [a cutting step] includes computing an initial estimate of the velocity state of each intermediate waypoint” (claims 2-4), “computing a motion profile in each of at least two coordinate directions for each of the air-cut steps, where the motion profiles are computed using equations for a seven-phase jerk-bound motion” (claims 5 and 19), “calculating one or more states of the at least one intermediate waypoint includes iteratively revising the one or more states and generating a new trajectory for the multi-step motion plan until states are found which result in a trajectory having a minimum total time” (claim 6), “iteratively revising the one or more states and generating a new trajectory for the multi-step motion plan includes using a gradient descent method to identify the one or more states of the at least one intermediate waypoint which result in the minimum total time” (claims 7 and 20), “adding one or more new waypoints [to avoid an interference between the trajectory and an obstacle] to one of the air-cut steps of the motion plan and generating a trajectory for a revised motion plan including the one or more new waypoints, where the one or more new waypoints have variable non-stationary states” (claims 8, 12, and 21-22), “generating the trajectory for the revised motion plan includes computing a first trajectory segment from an origin waypoint of the air-cut step to the one or more new waypoints and a second trajectory segment from the one or more new waypoints to a destination waypoint of the air-cut step” (claims 9 and 21), “generating the trajectory for the revised motion plan includes optimizing the states of the one or more new waypoints and the at least one intermediate waypoint to provide the trajectory for the revised motion plan having a minimum total time” (claims 10 and 22), “optimizing the states of the one or more new waypoints and the at least one intermediate waypoint includes using a gradient descent method to identify the states of the one or more new waypoints and the at least one intermediate waypoint which result in the minimum total time for the revised motion plan” (claim 11), “computing a critical point at a location nearest one of the waypoints where the trajectory interferes with the obstacle, and computing a location of the one or more new waypoints which is offset from the critical point and outside the obstacle” (claims 13 and 23), and “computing initial estimates of the non-stationary states of the one or more new waypoints” (claim 14) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(III)). Claims 15 and 16 recite further the forms of insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, “[providing input data for a machining operation, including geometry of a workpiece and at least one feature to be machined in or on the workpiece by a machine tool] wherein the machine tool is a multi-axis industrial robot or a multi-axis numerically-controlled machine” (claim 15), “providing input data for a machining operation, including geometry of a workpiece and at least one feature to be machined in or on the workpiece by a machine tool] wherein the machining operation is drilling one or more holes in the workpiece and the waypoints are top and bottom points on a centerline of the one or more holes, or the machining operation is milling one or more passes across the workpiece and the waypoints are beginning and ending points on a centerline of the one or more passes” (claim 16) (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional feature/limitation that are a forms of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data gathering (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i/iv)). As such, claims 2-16 and 19-23 are not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but appears to include an additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, such that if the limitation “The method according to claim 1 further comprising using the trajectory to perform the machining operation by the machine tool” gets integrated with claims 1 and 18 as a whole will provide a practical application to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US-2007/0046677-A1) in view of Nishida et al. ("Machining Time Reduction by Tool Path Modification", Int. J. of Automation Technology, 2020, p.459-466).
With respect to claim 1, Hong teaches a method for machine tool motion planning (a motion control systems [and method] for computer-controllable machine tools, [0003]), said method comprising:
providing input data for a machining operation, including geometry of a workpiece and at least one feature to be machined in or on the workpiece by a machine tool (receives part data from the part program…data specifying the dimensions, shape, and other physical characteristics of the part or "work piece" to be machined, S102 of fig.1 and [0103]), a machining feed speed and machine tool limits including a maximum velocity, acceleration and jerk (the S-curve speed profile [of the controlled tool] is fixed, i.e., the maximum acceleration and jerk are fixed, [0241]; parameters [of spindle] that are modified may include the Z-axis velocity, acceleration and jerk, wherein jerk is defined as the change in acceleration per unit time, [0297]);
defining waypoints for a multi-step motion plan for the machining operation, including start and end waypoints for at least two steps, with at least one intermediate waypoint including an intermediate waypoint in common to any two adjoining steps (part program may provide the locations of discrete points on the surface of the part, and the Numerical Control may interpolate between these discrete points to thereby define a desired trajectory or tool path formed of contiguous lines and arcs, [0104]; three points p0, p1, p2 are joined by an arc. A distance d1 is the shortest distance between a middle portion of line segment p0p1 and the arc p0p1p2; and a distance d2 is the shortest distance between the middle portion of line segment p1p2 and the arc p0p1p2. In one embodiment, distance d1 is the shortest distance between a midpoint of line segment p0p1 and the arc p0p1p2; and a distance d2 is the shortest distance between the midpoint of line segment p1p2 and the arc p0p1p2, [0156]; identify three consecutive points of the data path p0, p1, and p2, fig.18 and [0160]);
generating a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan in which the at least one intermediate waypoint has a non-stationary state, by a computing device having a processor and memory (part program may provide the locations of discrete points on the surface of the part, and the Numerical Control may interpolate between these discrete points to thereby define a desired trajectory or tool path formed of contiguous lines and arcs, [0104]; points may be adjusted, both in direction and magnitude, to achieve gradual curvature changes such that the trajectory approaches being elliptical. Gradual change of curvature along the trajectory may facilitate motion control. Gradual change of curvature may be characterized by the curvature changing, or at least possibly changing, after each point along the trajectory, [0138]; tool may have veered off to point B instead of following the linear tool path from (1, 4, 0) to (5, 1, 6) due to random errors as well as predictive errors that are systematic and repeatable, fig.12 and [0286]; CPU and memory, [0404]), including computing a trajectory and a time span for each step of the motion plan, where a total time is a sum of the time spans for all of the steps (a servo is issued every 200 microseconds, i.e., corresponding with each of the points A-F, fig.12 and [0285], FIG. 13 illustrates the timing and duration of each servo over the course of a one millisecond command. That is, FIG. 13 illustrates the control loop cycle time of the servos. Each servo may have a duration of less than 35 microseconds. In one embodiment, each servo has a duration of approximately between 10 and 15 microseconds, and [0285]); and
calculating one or more states of the at least one intermediate waypoint to provide a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan (encoder or some other type of position sensing device may sense the actual position of the tool at point B. Upon sensing the tool position at point B, a new target point T to which the tool should be redirected by the servo along a tool subpath 1202 may be calculated or otherwise identified. The calculation of target tool subpath 1202 may be dependent upon a deviation of the actual position of the tool from the target tool path. An example of such a deviation 1204 is shown in FIG. 12. The tool may continue to move past the first actual position B during the calculation of tool subpath 1202. The Run System Task of FIG. 2 includes a servo 220 having a compute position step 222, an S-Curve step 224, a Predictive Error Compensation step 226, and a Random Error Compensation step 228. The tool may have veered off to point B instead of following the linear tool path from (1, 4, 0) to (5, 1, 6) due to random errors as well as predictive errors that are systematic and repeatable. The predictive errors may be identified via empirical analysis of historic tool position data. Based upon the predictive error, it may be determined that redirecting the tool to point T is most likely to result in the tool actually moving near the desired linear tool path in a smooth motion from point B, [0286]).
With respect to claim 1, Hong does not appear to teach where at least one of the steps is an air-cut step having flexibility in shape and speed of its trajectory.
However, it is known by Nishida to teach a method for machine tool motion planning (Nishida: calculate the tool path and to modify the tool path during air cutting motion to reduce the machining time, Abstract), said method comprising: providing input data for a machining operation, including geometry of a workpiece and at least one feature to be machined in or on the workpiece by a machine tool (Nishida: Constructive solid geometry (CSG) and boundary representation (B-rep) models representative of 3D shapes [of object] …a complex shape can be represented by connecting the boundary surfaces between an object and its surroundings, figs.1-2 and p.460 section 2.1; description of product and tool with contour line model, i.e., machining depth of cut and product shape, fig.9, fig.13 and p.462), a machining feed speed and machine tool limits including a maximum velocity1, acceleration and jerk2 (Nishida: relationship between feed rate, acceleration and distance for tool feed motion, fig. 16, actual tool feed speed depends on the acceleration of the tool feed axis, Fig. 16; a reduction of the influence of the feed axis acceleration as shown in Fig. 17, p.463; tool position can be calculated by offsetting the tool in the Z-axis direction by the maximum degree of interference. By calculating the tool position at intervals of one minute with respect to the tool feed direction, the tool path can be calculated as shown in Fig. 10(b), p.462); defining waypoints for a multi-step motion plan for the machining operation, including start and end waypoints for at least two steps (Nishida: contour line model, which represents the surface of the product shape as discrete points at intervals, fig.7 and p.460-461; tool path obtained by calculating the tool position at one-minute intervals, fig.10b; the tool paths are sequentially calculated for each machining depth based on the workpiece surface as shown in Fig. 13 and p.463), where at least one of the steps is an air-cut step having flexibility in shape and speed of its trajectory (Nishida: air cutting motion in roughing operation with shape and speed of its trajectory as shown in figs.14-17); and generating a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan including computing a trajectory and a time span for each step of the motion plan, where a total time is a sum of the time spans for all of the steps (Nishida: machining time and machining distance for tool paths before and after modification to avoid air cutting motion, fig.22, table 2, and p.465).
Because Nishida’s teaching is also directed to a method for machine tool motion planning (Nishida: calculate the tool path and to modify the tool path during air cutting motion to reduce the machining time, Abstract; Hong: a motion control systems [and method] for computer-controllable machine tools, [0003]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of an air-cut step having flexibility in shape and speed of its trajectory including computing a trajectory and a time span for each step of the motion plan, where a total time is a sum of the time spans for all of the steps as disclosed by Nishida with the method for machine tool motion planning as taught by Hong for the purpose of avoiding air cutting motion to reduce the machining time (Nishida: p.463).
With respect to claim 2, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein the non-stationary state of the at least one intermediate waypoint includes a velocity state (Hong: it is ensured that there is enough distance to accelerate or decelerate between all velocity changes in the program data. For each programmed move, a stop distance is computed that defines the distance required to decelerate the axes to zero velocity according to S-curve acceleration. It is referred to as S-Curve because the acceleration/deceleration part of the velocity profile (velocity plotted versus time) illustrated in FIG. 10 looks like an "S" instead of a straight line. The stop distance may be determined by the lower of: a) the maximum move velocity determined by the angle between the current and next moves; and b) the maximum move velocity for the path curvature determined by the machine model, [0219]).
With respect to claim 3/2, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein generating a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan includes computing an initial estimate of the velocity state of each intermediate waypoint, including calculating the initial estimate of the velocity state based on a distance traveled in a step of the motion plan, a velocity state at an opposite end of the step from the intermediate waypoint, and the machine tool limits (Hong: current velocity may be estimated by the modified Laplace transformation, [0353], viscous friction estimation in which the error velocity is estimated, [0357]).
With respect to claim 4, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein one of the steps of the motion plan is a cutting step with defined boundary conditions including locations of beginning and ending waypoints, trajectory shape for the step and a velocity for the step being equal to the feed speed (Hong: Tolerance boundaries or constraints on the tool path are indicated by dashed lines 402, 404, including point P0 to point P3 with intermediate points P1 and P2, fig.4a and [0120]; adjustment of the data points is acceptable in applications such as the multi-axis contouring (or metal cutting using CNC machines) because the adjustments are very small (typically less than 0.0005 inch) and are within a specified tolerance, [0137,0401-0402]).
With respect to claim 8, Hong and Nishida combined teaches further comprising adding one or more new waypoints to one of the air-cut steps of the motion plan and generating a trajectory for a revised motion plan including the one or more new waypoints, where the one or more new waypoints have variable non-stationary states (Nishida: [new] points inserted by linear interpolation for tool path as disclosed in fig.7 and p.461).
With respect to claim 9/8, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein generating the trajectory for the revised motion plan includes computing a first trajectory segment from an origin waypoint of the air-cut step to the one or more new waypoints and a second trajectory segment from the one or more new waypoints to a destination waypoint of the air-cut step (Nishida: from original points, added linear interpolation points along the tool path, fig.7; Modified tool path to avoid air cutting motion for improvement of machining efficiency, fig.17, modifies the tool path to move straightly toward the Z retracting position on the upper surface of the workpiece, and return to cutting motion to avoid the air cutting motion. This results in a reduction of the influence of the feed axis acceleration as shown in Fig. 17, p.463).
With respect to claim 10/8, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein generating the trajectory for the revised motion plan includes optimizing the states of the one or more new waypoints and the at least one intermediate waypoint to provide the trajectory for the revised motion plan having a minimum total time (Nishida: the tool path should be modified only when the distance for the air cut motion is longer than a specific length. As previously described, the machining time can be reduced by generating tool paths to avoid air cutting motion, p.463).
With respect to claim 12/8, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein the one or more new waypoints are added to avoid an interference between the trajectory and an obstacle, where the obstacle is a physical object or a mathematically-defined interference zone into which entry by the machine tool is prohibited (Nishida: the tool position can be determined by calculating the degree of interference between the product surface and the tool in the Z-axis direction at every minute interval with respect to the tool feed direction, and offsetting the maximum value of the degree of interference in the Z-axis direction, p.461; the degree of interference on each divided plane is calculated by detecting the product surface points that exist in the tool as shown in Fig. 10(a). The maximum value of the degree of interference is calculated from the extent of the interference on each divided plane. The tool position can be calculated by offsetting the tool in the Z-axis direction by the maximum degree of interference. By calculating the tool position at intervals of one minute with respect to the tool feed direction, the tool path can be calculated as shown in Fig. 10(b), p.462).
With respect to claim 13/12/8, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein adding the one or more new waypoints includes computing a critical point at a location nearest one of the waypoints where the trajectory interferes with the obstacle, and computing a location of the one or more new waypoints which is offset from the critical point and outside the obstacle (Nishida: the tool position can be determined by calculating the degree of interference between the product surface and the tool in the Z-axis direction at every minute interval with respect to the tool feed direction, and offsetting the maximum value of the degree of interference in the Z-axis direction, p.461; the degree of interference on each divided plane is calculated by detecting the product surface points that exist in the tool as shown in Fig. 10(a). The maximum value of the degree of interference is calculated from the extent of the interference on each divided plane. The tool position can be calculated by offsetting the tool in the Z-axis direction by the maximum degree of interference. By calculating the tool position at intervals of one minute with respect to the tool feed direction, the tool path can be calculated as shown in Fig. 10(b), p.462).
With respect to claim 14/13/12/8, Hong and Nishida combined teaches further comprising computing initial estimates of the non-stationary states of the one or more new waypoints (Nishida: [new] points inserted by linear interpolation for tool path as disclosed in fig.7 and p.461).
With respect to claim 15, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein the machine tool is a multi-axis industrial robot or a multi-axis numerically-controlled machine (Hong: three-axis CNC milling machine, [0008,0137]; Nishida: NC machine, p.459, with operations performed in bi-direction (zigzag scanning tool paths), fig.8 and 461).
With respect to claim 16, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein the machining operation is drilling one or more holes in the workpiece and the waypoints are top and bottom points on a centerline of the one or more holes, or the machining operation is milling one or more passes across the workpiece and the waypoints are beginning and ending points on a centerline of the one or more passes (Nishida: figs.11-17).
With respect to claim 17, Hong and Nishida combined teaches further comprising using the trajectory to perform the machining operation by the machine tool (Nishida: figs.11-17).
With respect to claim 18, Hong teaches a method for machine tool motion planning (a motion control systems [and method] for computer-controllable machine tools, [0003]), said method comprising:
providing input data for a machining operation, including geometry of a workpiece and at least one feature to be machined in or on the workpiece by a machine tool (receives part data from the part program…data specifying the dimensions, shape, and other physical characteristics of the part or "work piece" to be machined, S102 of fig.1 and [0103]), a machining feed speed and machine tool limits including a maximum velocity, acceleration and jerk (the S-curve speed profile [of the controlled tool] is fixed, i.e., the maximum acceleration and jerk are fixed, [0241]; parameters [of spindle] that are modified may include the Z-axis velocity, acceleration and jerk, wherein jerk is defined as the change in acceleration per unit time, [0297]);
defining waypoints for a multi-step motion plan for the machining operation, including start and end waypoints for two steps, with an intermediate waypoint being a waypoint in common to the two steps (part program may provide the locations of discrete points on the surface of the part, and the Numerical Control may interpolate between these discrete points to thereby define a desired trajectory or tool path formed of contiguous lines and arcs, [0104]; three points p0, p1, p2 are joined by an arc. A distance d1 is the shortest distance between a middle portion of line segment p0p1 and the arc p0p1p2; and a distance d2 is the shortest distance between the middle portion of line segment p1p2 and the arc p0p1p2. In one embodiment, distance d1 is the shortest distance between a midpoint of line segment p0p1 and the arc p0p1p2; and a distance d2 is the shortest distance between the midpoint of line segment p1p2 and the arc p0p1p2, [0156]; identify three consecutive points of the data path p0, p1, and p2, fig.18 and [0160]), where one of the steps is [[a cutting step with defined and unchangeable boundary conditions (that the S-curve profile is fixed. Therefore, the stop distance has a direct correspondence to the end point speed; and if the stop distance is given, the end point speed may be accordingly uniquely determined, and vice versa. The additive lookahead algorithm may use the stop distance as a metric of end point speed, which allows the algorithm to be computationally efficient, [0241]; geometric orientation of the cutting tool with respect to the work piece may be fixed due to its mounting position on the z-axis, [0401]);
generating a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan, by a computing device including a processor and memory (part program may provide the locations of discrete points on the surface of the part, and the Numerical Control may interpolate between these discrete points to thereby define a desired trajectory or tool path formed of contiguous lines and arcs, [0104]; points may be adjusted, both in direction and magnitude, to achieve gradual curvature changes such that the trajectory approaches being elliptical. Gradual change of curvature along the trajectory may facilitate motion control. Gradual change of curvature may be characterized by the curvature changing, or at least possibly changing, after each point along the trajectory, [0138]; tool may have veered off to point B instead of following the linear tool path from (1, 4, 0) to (5, 1, 6) due to random errors as well as predictive errors that are systematic and repeatable, fig.12 and [0286]; CPU and memory, [0404]), including computing a trajectory and a time span for each step of the motion plan, where a total time is a sum of the time spans for all of the steps (a servo is issued every 200 microseconds, i.e., corresponding with each of the points A-F, fig.12 and [0285], FIG. 13 illustrates the timing and duration of each servo over the course of a one millisecond command. That is, FIG. 13 illustrates the control loop cycle time of the servos. Each servo may have a duration of less than 35 microseconds. In one embodiment, each servo has a duration of approximately between 10 and 15 microseconds, and [0285]); and
calculating the state of the intermediate waypoint to provide a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan (encoder or some other type of position sensing device may sense the actual position of the tool at point B. Upon sensing the tool position at point B, a new target point T to which the tool should be redirected by the servo along a tool subpath 1202 may be calculated or otherwise identified. The calculation of target tool subpath 1202 may be dependent upon a deviation of the actual position of the tool from the target tool path. An example of such a deviation 1204 is shown in FIG. 12. The tool may continue to move past the first actual position B during the calculation of tool subpath 1202. The Run System Task of FIG. 2 includes a servo 220 having a compute position step 222, an S-Curve step 224, a Predictive Error Compensation step 226, and a Random Error Compensation step 228. The tool may have veered off to point B instead of following the linear tool path from (1, 4, 0) to (5, 1, 6) due to random errors as well as predictive errors that are systematic and repeatable. The predictive errors may be identified via empirical analysis of historic tool position data. Based upon the predictive error, it may be determined that redirecting the tool to point T is most likely to result in the tool actually moving near the desired linear tool path in a smooth motion from point B, [0286]).
With respect to claim 18, Hong does not appear to teach computing an initial estimate of a non-stationary state of the intermediate waypoint, including calculating the initial estimate of the state based on a distance traveled in an air-cut step of the motion plan, a state at an opposite end of the air-cut step from the intermediate waypoint, and the machine tool limits.
However, it is known by Nishida to teach a method for machine tool motion planning (Nishida: calculate the tool path and to modify the tool path during air cutting motion to reduce the machining time, Abstract), said method comprising: providing input data for a machining operation, including geometry of a workpiece and at least one feature to be machined in or on the workpiece by a machine tool (Nishida: Constructive solid geometry (CSG) and boundary representation (B-rep) models representative of 3D shapes [of object] …a complex shape can be represented by connecting the boundary surfaces between an object and its surroundings, figs.1-2 and p.460 section 2.1; description of product and tool with contour line model, i.e., machining depth of cut and product shape, fig.9, fig.13 and p.462), a machining feed speed and machine tool limits including a maximum velocity3, acceleration and jerk4 (Nishida: relationship between feed rate, acceleration and distance for tool feed motion, fig. 16, actual tool feed speed depends on the acceleration of the tool feed axis, Fig. 16; a reduction of the influence of the feed axis acceleration as shown in Fig. 17, p.463; tool position can be calculated by offsetting the tool in the Z-axis direction by the maximum degree of interference. By calculating the tool position at intervals of one minute with respect to the tool feed direction, the tool path can be calculated as shown in Fig. 10(b), p.462); defining waypoints for a multi-step motion plan for the machining operation, including start and end waypoints for at least two steps (Nishida: contour line model, which represents the surface of the product shape as discrete points at intervals, fig.7 and p.460-461; tool path obtained by calculating the tool position at one-minute intervals, fig.10b; the tool paths are sequentially calculated for each machining depth based on the workpiece surface as shown in Fig. 13 and p.463), where at least one of the steps is an air-cut step having flexibility in shape and speed of its trajectory (Nishida: air cutting motion in roughing operation with shape and speed of its trajectory as shown in figs.14-17); computing an initial estimate of a non-stationary state of the intermediate waypoint, including calculating the initial estimate of the state based on a distance traveled in an air-cut step of the motion plan, a state at an opposite end of the air-cut step from the intermediate waypoint, and the machine tool limits (Nishida: from original points, added linear interpolation points along the tool path, fig.7; Modified tool path to avoid air cutting motion for improvement of machining efficiency, fig.17, modifies the tool path to move straightly toward the Z retracting position on the upper surface of the workpiece, and return to cutting motion to avoid the air cutting motion. This results in a reduction of the influence of the feed axis acceleration as shown in Fig. 17. If the distance for the air cutting motion is reduced, this avoidance motion will take a longer time. Therefore, the tool path should be modified only when the distance for the air cut motion is longer than a specific length. As previously described, the machining time can be reduced by generating tool paths to avoid air cutting motion, p.463; The tool path is modified when the distance for the air cutting motion is longer than 10% of the X-axis length of the workpiece. The tool paths after modification are shown in Fig. 22. To avoid the air cutting motion, the tool path is modified to move straightly at the Z retracting position on the upper surface of the workpiece. The distance to avoid the air cutting motion becomes longer as the machining depth increases, p.464); and generating a trajectory for the multi-step motion plan including computing a trajectory and a time span for each step of the motion plan, where a total time is a sum of the time spans for all of the steps (Nishida: machining time and machining distance for tool paths before and after modification to avoid air cutting motion, fig.22, table 2, and p.465).
Because Nishida’s teaching is also directed to a method for machine tool motion planning (Nishida: calculate the tool path and to modify the tool path during air cutting motion to reduce the machining time, Abstract; Hong: a motion control systems [and method] for computer-controllable machine tools, [0003]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of computing an initial estimate of a non-stationary state of the intermediate waypoint, including calculating the initial estimate of the state based on a distance traveled in an air-cut step of the motion plan, a state at an opposite end of the air-cut step from the intermediate waypoint, and the machine tool limits as taught by Nishida with the method for machine tool motion planning as taught by Hong for the purpose of avoiding air cutting motion to reduce the machining time (Nishida: p.463).
With respect to claim 21, Hong and Nishida combined teaches further comprising adding one or more new waypoints to one of the air-cut steps of the motion plan and generating a trajectory for a revised motion plan including the one or more new waypoints, where the one or more new waypoints have variable non-stationary states (Nishida: [new] points inserted by linear interpolation for tool path as disclosed in fig.7 and p.461), including computing a first trajectory segment from an origin waypoint of the air-cut step to the one or more new waypoints and a second trajectory segment from the one or more new waypoints to a destination waypoint of the air-cut step (Nishida: from original points, added linear interpolation points along the tool path, fig.7; Modified tool path to avoid air cutting motion for improvement of machining efficiency, fig.17, modifies the tool path to move straightly toward the Z retracting position on the upper surface of the workpiece, and return to cutting motion to avoid the air cutting motion. This results in a reduction of the influence of the feed axis acceleration as shown in Fig. 17, p.463).
With respect to claim 22/21, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein generating the trajectory for the revised motion plan includes computing initial estimates of the states of the one or more new waypoints, then optimizing the states of the one or more new waypoints and the intermediate waypoint to provide the trajectory for the revised motion plan having a minimum total time (Nishida: the tool path should be modified only when the distance for the air cut motion is longer than a specific length. As previously described, the machining time can be reduced by generating tool paths to avoid air cutting motion, p.463).
With respect to claim 23/21, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein the one or more new waypoints are added to avoid an interference between the trajectory and an obstacle, where adding the one or more new waypoints includes computing a critical point at a location nearest one of the waypoints where the trajectory interferes with the obstacle, and computing a location of the one or more new waypoints which is offset from the critical point and outside the obstacle (Nishida: the tool position can be determined by calculating the degree of interference between the product surface and the tool in the Z-axis direction at every minute interval with respect to the tool feed direction, and offsetting the maximum value of the degree of interference in the Z-axis direction, p.461; the degree of interference on each divided plane is calculated by detecting the product surface points that exist in the tool as shown in Fig. 10(a). The maximum value of the degree of interference is calculated from the extent of the interference on each divided plane. The tool position can be calculated by offsetting the tool in the Z-axis direction by the maximum degree of interference. By calculating the tool position at intervals of one minute with respect to the tool feed direction, the tool path can be calculated as shown in Fig. 10(b), p.462).
Claims 6/1, 7/6, 11, and 20/18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US-2007/0046677-A1) in view of Nishida et al. ("Machining Time Reduction by Tool Path Modification", Int. J. of Automation Technology, 2020, p.459-466) and further in view of Kim et al. (KR-101570359-B1).
With respect to claims 6/1, 7/6, 11, and 20/18, Hong and Nishida combined teaches wherein calculating one or more states of the at least one intermediate waypoint and generating a new trajectory for the multi-step motion plan until states are found which result in a trajectory having a minimum total time (Nishida: from original points, added linear interpolation points along the tool path, fig.7; Modified tool path to avoid air cutting motion for improvement of machining efficiency, fig.17, modifies the tool path to move straightly toward the Z retracting position on the upper surface of the workpiece, and return to cutting motion to avoid the air cutting motion. This results in a reduction of the influence of the feed axis acceleration as shown in Fig. 17, p.463; the tool path should be modified only when the distance for the air cut motion is longer than a specific length. As previously described, the machining time can be reduced by generating tool paths to avoid air cutting motion, p.463).
Hong and Nishida combined does not appear to teach iteratively revising the one or more states includes using a gradient descent method to identify the one or more states.
However, it is known by Kim to teach iteratively revising the one or more states includes using a gradient descent method to identify the one or more states (Kim: generating a tool path optimized by using a gradient descent, abstract, page 4; gradient descent technique is applied with repeating the learning rate and adjusts the learning speed and precision until the stop condition is satisfied, the stop condition is determined by the maximum number of iterations, page 4).
Because Kim’s teaching is also directed to a system and a method for generating an optimized a tool path (Kim: abstract; Hong: [0003]; and Nishida: Abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of iteratively revising the one or more states includes using a gradient descent method to identify the one or more states as taught by Kim with the method for generating an optimized/trajectory tool path as taught by Hong and Nishida for the purpose of reducing the machining path so that an optimized machining path can be created by the gradient descent technique used for machine learning (Kim: pages 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the claim objections and the 101 rejections and further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, which makes the following claims allowable over the prior art:
With respect to claim 5/1, wherein computing a trajectory and a time span for each step of the motion plan includes computing a motion profile in each of at least two coordinate directions for each of the air-cut steps, where the motion profiles are computed using equations for a seven-phase jerk-bound motion, one or more states of the at least one intermediate waypoint, the machine tool limits and starting and ending boundary conditions for the motion plan.
With respect to claim 19/18, wherein computing a trajectory and a time span for each step of the motion plan includes computing a motion profile in each of at least two coordinate directions for each of the air-cut steps, where the motion profiles are computed using equations for a seven-phase jerk-bound motion, the state of the intermediate waypoint, the machine tool limits and starting and ending boundary conditions for the motion plan.
Conclusion
The additional prior arts made of record and have not been relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows: Petruzzi et al. (US 2019/0171189-A1), Amersdorfer et al. (“Equidistant Tool Path and Cartesian Trajectory Planning for Robotic Machining of Curved Freeform Surfaces”, IEEE, 2022, p.3311-3323), JP_2004220435_A, US-5204599-A, US-5412300-A, US-5953233-A, US-6447223-B1, US-6922606-B1, US-20150127139-A1, and US-20230158592-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Ken Lo can be reached on 571-272-9774. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 February 14, 2026
1 Velocity is interpreted as a rate of change in position with respect to time as taught by Nishida in fig.16.
2 Jerk is interpreted as a rate change in acceleration a as taught by Nishida in fig.16.
3 Velocity is interpreted as a rate of change in position with respect to time as taught by Nishida in fig.16.
4 Jerk is interpreted as a rate change in acceleration a as taught by Nishida in fig.16.