DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 recite the following claim limitations which are not positively recited:
Claim 1 recites “a product to be machined” in line 2, wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “machined”.
Claim 2 recites “the product to be machined” in line 5, wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “machined”.
Claim 5 recites “a surface to be subjected to semi-finishing” in line 2, wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “subjected to semi-finishing”.
Claim 7 recites “the product to be machined” in lines 2-3, wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “machined”.
Claim 8 recites “the product to be machined” in line 7, wherein use of the phrase “to be” does not positively recite “machined”.
Examiner’s Note:
The objections of the claims are too numerous to list; however, several examples have been provided to the Applicant as a sample of the outstanding issues with the claims, as well as, suggested language for several of the examples. The examiner respectfully asserts these samples are not an all-inclusive list of the outstanding issues with the claims filed on 20 March 2024. In addition, if the applicant requires further clarification, the applicant is invited to contact the examiner for an interview.
The applicant is respectfully requested to thoroughly assess any subsequent claim amendments for grammatical issues and make the necessary corrections prior to submission to obviate future objections in the interest of advancing prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “the following steps” in line 1
Claim 2 recites “the finishing” in lines 10-13
Claim 4 recites “the semi-finishing” in line 3
Claim 6 recites “the finishing” in lines 4, 5, 10, and 12
Claim 7 recites “the following condition” in line 5
Claim 1 recites “step 1” in line 2, “step 2” in line 4, and “step 3” in line 6 and claim 2 recites “step 1” in line 2, “step 2” in line 3, and “step 3” in line 5. The limitations of “step 1” in line 2, “step 2” in line 3, and “step 3” in line 5 of claim 2 has antecedent support from the limitations of “step 1” in line 2, “step 2” in line 4, and “step 3” in line 6 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “step 4” in line 8 and claim 5 recites “step 4” in line 2. The limitation of “step 4” in line 2 of claim 5 has antecedent support from the limitations of “step 4” in line 8 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “step 5” in line 10 and claim 7 recites “step 5” in line 2. The limitation of “step 5” in line 2 of claim 7 has antecedent support from the limitations of “step 5” in line 10 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “An ultra-precision machining method” in line 1 and claim 8 recites “an ultra-precision machining method” in lines 1-2. The limitation of “an ultra-precision machining method” in lines 1-2 of claim 8 has antecedent support from the limitations of “An ultra-precision machining method” in line 1 of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, claim 1 recites an ultra-precision machining method comprising of a plurality of steps, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “step 1: determining a total material removal amount based on a product to be machined and a blank”; “step 3: establishing an ultra-precision machining error prediction model by using an existing machining error, and predicting a semi-finishing error”; and “step 4: re-establishing an ultra-precision machining error prediction model considering influence of the semi-finishing error”.
The limitation of “step 1: determining a total material removal amount based on a product to be machined and a blank”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “step 1: determining a total material removal amount …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… based on a product to be machined and a blank”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “step 1: determining a total material removal amount based on a product to be machined and a blank” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 3, par. [0052]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “step 3: establishing an ultra-precision machining error prediction model by using an existing machining error …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 1, par. [0014] and [0015] and pg. 3, par. [0050]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “step 3: … predicting a semi-finishing error” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 1, par. [0019] and pg. 3, par. [0055]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “step 4: re-establishing an ultra-precision machining error prediction model considering influence of the semi-finishing error” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 2, par. [0022] and [0023] and pg. 4, par. [0060] and [0061) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “step 2: performing rough machining to complete a material removal amount of the rough machining” and “step 5: performing finishing process planning”.
The limitations of “step 2: performing rough machining to complete a material removal amount of the rough machining” and “step 5: performing finishing process planning” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “step 2: performing rough machining to complete a material removal amount of the rough machining” and “step 5: performing finishing process planning” represent an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “in step 1, the total material removal amount is calculated based on geometric features of the blank, with a removed volume of Vall”; “in step 3, precision of the product to be machined is required to be Rr, and the ultra-precision machining error prediction model Rf=f1(Tf,Mf) is established by using the existing machining error: … (formula1) …”; and “… a material volume removal amount of the finishing is calculated, with a removed volume of Vf: Vf = f2(Tf,Mf) …”.
The limitation of “in step 1, the total material removal amount is calculated based on geometric features of the blank, with a removed volume of Vall” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 1, par. [0008] and pg. 3, par. [0048]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “in step 3, precision of the product to be machined is required to be Rr, and the ultra-precision machining error prediction model Rf=f1(Tf,Mf) is established by using the existing machining error: … (formula1) …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 3, par. [0050] and [0055]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… a material volume removal amount of the finishing is calculated, with a removed volume of Vf: Vf = f2(Tf,Mf) …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 3, par. [0052]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites ”… in step 2, rough machining process planning is performed to complete the material removal amount of the rough machining, with a removed volume of Vr …” and “… preliminary planning of a finishing process is performed …”.
The limitations of ”… in step 2, rough machining process planning is performed to complete the material removal amount of the rough machining, with a removed volume of Vr …” and “… preliminary planning of a finishing process is performed …” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of ”… in step 2, rough machining process planning is performed to complete the material removal amount of the rough machining, with a removed volume of Vr …” and “… preliminary planning of a finishing process is performed …” represent an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… a material removal amount of semi-finishing is calculated, with a removed volume of Vs: Vs=Vall-Vr-Vf”.
The limitation of “… a material removal amount of semi-finishing is calculated, with a removed volume of Vs: Vs=Vall-Vr-Vf” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 3, par. [0053]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… a semi-finishing error Rs=f1(Ts,Ms) is predicted based on existing ultra-precision machining quality …” and “…the ultra-precision machining error prediction model Rf=f1(Tf,Mf)”.
The limitation of “… a semi-finishing error Rs=f1(Ts,Ms) is predicted based on existing ultra-precision machining quality …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 3, par. [0055]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “…the ultra-precision machining error prediction model Rf=f1(Tf,Mf)” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 3, par. [0055]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “semi-finishing process planning is performed …” and “… a cutting tool Ts and a processing parameter Ms of the semi-finishing are determined”.
The limitation of “semi-finishing process planning is performed …” is recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The limitation of “… a cutting tool Ts and a processing parameter Ms of the semi-finishing are determined” represents mere data gathering of information. The limitation of “determined” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “semi-finishing process planning is performed …” represents an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
The limitation of “… a cutting tool Ts and a processing parameter Ms of the semi-finishing are determined”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… in step 4, a surface to be subjected to semi-finishing is discretized into i cutting tool location points, and an instantaneous cutting thickness ti during the finishing based on the influence of the semi-finishing error and a calculation process thereof are as follows: … (formula 2), … (formula 3), … (formula 4) …”.
The limitation of “… in step 4, a surface to be subjected to semi-finishing is discretized into i cutting tool location points, and an instantaneous cutting thickness ti during the finishing based on the influence of the semi-finishing error and a calculation process thereof are as follows: … (formula 2), … (formula 3), … (formula 4) …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pgs. 3-4, par. [0058] and [0059]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… ultra-precision machining error prediction model is re-established: … (formula 6) …”.
The limitation of “… ultra-precision machining error prediction model is
re-established: … (formula 6) …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 4, par. [0060] is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… in step 5, the finishing process planning is performed based on the precision of the product to be machined that is required to be Rr and the ultra-precision machining error prediction model re-established in step 5, and the finishing cutting tool Tf and the finishing parameter Mf are determined to meet the following condition: … (formula 7) …”.
The limitation of “… in step 5, the finishing process planning is performed based on the precision of the product to be machined that is required to be Rr and the ultra-precision machining error prediction model re-established in step 5, and the finishing cutting tool Tf and the finishing parameter Mf are determined to meet the following condition: … (formula 7) …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0316658 A1: pg. 4, par. [0062] is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… before step 1, an ultra-precision machining method is selected based on the product to be machined”.
The limitation of “… before step 1, an ultra-precision machining method is selected based on the product to be machined”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… before step 1, an ultra-precision machining method is selected …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… based on the product to be machined”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to machining systems and modeling systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0187595 A1 discloses a method for a production of silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafers for controlling a device layer thickness variations and improvement of bonding quality at an interface of wafers.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0203432 A1 discloses a polishing machine in which a surface treatment tool is moved across a surface of a workpiece, in accordance with a predefined tool-path, in order to carry out a desired treatment process.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0290170 A1 discloses a method and system for optimal control of ultra-precision cutting.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0103466 A1 discloses a system and method of simulating and optimizing industrial and other processes includes a computer that performs multivariate analysis of input variables and output variables to generate a data model of an operation of the process.
U.S. Patent No. 3,952,458 discloses a grinding machine provided with an apparatus for changing a feed rate of a grinding wheel relative to a workpiece just before a grinding wheel comes into contact with the workpiece.
U.S. Patent No. 11,640,386 B2 discloses a process control circuit and a method for controlling a processing arrangement.
U.S. Patent No. 12,290,900 B2 discloses systems and methods for thinning substrates for semiconductor devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights