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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application U.S. Provisional App# 63462466 (filed 04/27/2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text is on shaded portions of the drawing, proving difficult to read. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that text should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, fig. 5A, fig. 6 etc.
The drawings are objected to because of the quality of the lines and characters. 37 CFR 1.84(l) requires that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. See. Chart in Fig. 3 and ARV, MRV marking in fig. 7.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q). Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. See fig. 1, 2, 3, 5B, 5C, 6B, 6C, 7, 9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12, 13,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system. Claim 16 recites, determine, based on the accessed information, a set of tools suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining a feature to be machined into a workpiece; identify, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature; generate, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining the feature; calculate a cost of performing each removal operation sequence; and determine, based on the calculated cost of each removal operation sequence, which of the removal operations sequences is optimal. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites, determine, based on the accessed information, a set of tools suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining a feature to be machined into a workpiece. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining a set of tools suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining a feature to be machined into a workpiece. Similarly, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of identifying those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, generating various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining the feature utilizing identified tools, calculating cost of performing the removal sequences and determining based on the cost which sequence is optimal. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations directed to, at least one database containing information regarding one or more available machining tools; at least one processor; and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: access the information regarding the one or more machining tools on the at least one database. Limitations directed to database, processor and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in this claim do no more than recite the components as a tool. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to the processor accessing the information regarding the one or more machining tools on the at least one database, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites additional limitations directed to, at least one database containing information regarding one or more available machining tools; at least one processor; and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: access the information regarding the one or more machining tools on the at least one database. Limitations directed to database, processor and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in this claim do no more than recite the components as a tool. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not provide significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to the processor accessing the information regarding the one or more machining tools on the at least one database, is directed to mere data gathering. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 17 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 17 further recites, wherein information regarding one or more available machining tools includes any one or combination of a type, size, material, cutting features, and cost of each machining tool. This limitation merely narrows the information regarding the machining tools to include specific types of information. Which is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of claim 16. This limitation reciting a list of information regarding one or more available machining tools amounts to merely linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of machine tools and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 18 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 18 further recites, wherein the one or more databases further contain information regarding one or more available computer numeric control (CNC) machines, and wherein (i) determining the set of tools suitable for performing a removal operation includes excluding, based on the information regarding the one or more available CNC machines, any tools not suitable for use with the one or more available CNC machines, (ii) generating the various sequences of removal operations includes excluding, based on the information regarding the one or more available CNC machines, removal operations not suitable for use with the one or more available CNC machines, and/or (iii) calculating the cost of performing each removal operation sequence is a function of at least the information regarding the one or more available CNC machines. Limitation regarding database containing information regarding CNC machines, merely narrows the information to include specific types of information. Which is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of claim 16. This amounts to merely linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of CNC machining and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitation directed to determining the set of tools, generating the various sequences of removal operations and calculating the cost of performing each removal operation are directed to steps that can be performed by a human mind mentally or with pen and paper and are therefore also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 19 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 19 further recites, wherein the information regarding one or more available CNC machines includes any one or combination of a type, number of axes, table parameters, number of tool holders, and feed/speed capability of each of the one or more available CNC machines. This limitation merely narrows the information to include specific types of information. Which is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of claim 16. This limitation reciting a list of information regarding one or more available machining tools amounts to merely linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of CNC machine and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 20 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 20 further recites, computing, for each feature, a maximum removal volume achievable by each tool used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the feature; computing, for each removal operation sequence, an actual removal volume to be removed during a given removal operation based on the maximum removal volume of the tool(s) used to perform each preceding removal operation in the removal operation sequence; and calculating a cost of performing each removal operation included in a given removal operation sequence based on the associated actual removal volume. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of computing, a maximum removal volume achievable by each tool used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the feature. Similarly, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of computing an actual removal volume to be removed during a given removal operation based on the maximum removal volume of the tool(s) used to perform each preceding removal operation in the removal operation sequence; and calculating a cost of performing each removal operation included in a given removal operation sequence based on the associated actual removal volume. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 21 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 21 further recites, identifying, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature; and generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of identifying, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. Similarly, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 22 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 22 further recites, wherein computing the maximum removal volume of a given tool for a particular feature is performed by the at least one processor via at least one of (i) a geometric analysis based on the respective dimensions and shapes of the tool and the feature and (ii) a medial axis transform (MAT) technique.. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of computing the maximum removal volume via a geometric analysis or a medial axis transform (MAT) technique. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 23 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 23 further recites, wherein the cost of performing each removal operation sequence is calculated based at least in part on an estimated machining time required to perform each removal operation of the removal operation sequence. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of calculating the cost of each removal operation sequence based on an estimated machining time required to perform each removal operation of the removal operation sequence. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 24 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 24 further recites, wherein the estimated machining time required is a function of an actual removal volume of each removal operation of the removal operation sequence and a material removal rate of the tool(s) used to perform each removal operation of the removal operation sequence. This limitation is directed to a mathematical relationship and is therefore also directed to an abstract idea of mathematical concepts grouping.
Claim 25 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 25 further recites, wherein the at least one processor uses geometric analysis to determine the suitability of a particular tool for performing a removal operation associated with machining a respective feature, the geometric analysis being based at least in part on one or more of a minimum required and maximum allowable tool diameter for the feature, a cut depth of the feature, a flute length of the tool, a stick out of the tool, a presence of a reduced shank on the tool for clearance, and whether the tool is side-cutting and/or center-cutting or otherwise. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of using geometric analysis based on the claimed parameters to determine the suitability of a particular tool for performing a removal operation. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 26 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 26 further recites, wherein the at least one processor uses a medial axis transform technique to identify, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, without any specific steps being claimed regarding how the medial axis transform technique is being used to identify the tools, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of using medial axis transform technique to identify the tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 27 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 27 further recites generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features by identifying the possible combinations that satisfy the claimed constraints. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 28 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 28 further recites generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible sequences of tool use that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not all tools must be used but if they are they must be used in a prescribed order, and (ii) when a tool is used, all features associated with that particular tool should be machined before moving on to the next tool in the tool sequence, but such features need not necessarily be machined in any particular order by a given tool. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features by identifying the possible combinations that satisfy the claimed constraints. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 29 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 29 further recites, generating, based on the set of tools determined as being suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining a respective feature, a matrix of cells or undirected graph of nodes depicting each valid tool-feature combination; and identifying, in the matrix or undirected graph, those cells or nodes corresponding to the tools identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of generating a matrix of cells or undirected graph of nodes depicting each valid tool-feature combination and identifying those cells or nodes corresponding to the tools identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 30 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 30 further recites, selecting a first cell in which to begin, the first cell having been identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation associated with a first feature; and connecting the first cell in series with one or more additional cells until the connected cells collectively represent the performance of a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation for each feature, each additional cell (i) being neither the first cell nor any other cell selected prior to the selection of such cell, and (ii) having been identified as being suitable for either (a) performing a roughing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has not yet been performed, or (b) performing a finishing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has already been performed, wherein the connected cells represent a removal operation sequence suitable for machining all of the one or more features. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of selecting a first cell in the matrix and connecting the first cell in series with one or more additional cells based on some criteria until the connected cells collectively represent the performance of a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation for each feature. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 31 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 31 further recites, the extent an undirected graph of nodes was generated, converting the undirected graph into a series of directed graphs, the directed graphs representing the various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function and without any specific limitation reciting the method of the conversion, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of converting the undirected graph into a series of directed graphs, the directed graphs representing the various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 32 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 32 further recites, selecting a first node at which to begin, the first node having been identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation associated with a first feature; and connecting the first node in series with one or more additional nodes until the connected nodes collectively represent the performance of a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation for each feature, each additional node (i) being neither the first node nor any other node selected prior to the selection of such node, and (ii) having been identified as being suitable for either (a) performing a roughing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has not yet been performed, or (b) performing a finishing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has already been performed, wherein the connected nodes represent a removal operation sequence suitable for machining all of the one or more features. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function and without any specific limitation reciting the method of the conversion, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of selecting a first node at which to begin, connecting the first node in series with one or more additional nodes until the connected nodes collectively represent the performance of a roughing removal operation and a finishing based on the claimed criteria. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 33 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system. Claim 33 recites, A system for automatic generation of toolpaths for machining one or more features into a workpiece, the system comprising: at least one processor; and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: compute a maximum removal volume achievable by one or more tools used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the one or more feature into the workpiece; determine, in parallel, a state of the workpiece at each removal operation of a removal operation sequence to be performed to machine the one or more features into the workpiece by subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation; and computing, in parallel, toolpaths for machining the one or more features into the workpiece in accordance with the removal operation sequence based on the corresponding determined state of the workpiece at each removal operation.. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites, compute a maximum removal volume achievable by one or more tools used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the one or more feature into the workpiece. A human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of computing a maximum removal volume achievable by one or more tools used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the one or more feature into the workpiece. Similarly, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of determining a state of the workpiece at each removal operation of a removal operation sequence to be performed to machine the one or more features into the workpiece by subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation and computing toolpaths for machining the one or more features into the workpiece in accordance with the removal operation sequence based on the corresponding determined state of the workpiece at each removal operation. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations directed to, at least one processor; and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to. Limitations directed to database, processor and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in this claim do no more than recite the components as a tool. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites additional limitations directed to, at least one processor; and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to. Limitations directed to database, processor and non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in this claim do no more than recite the components as a tool. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 34 is a dependent claim which includes the abstract idea of the preceding claims based on its dependency. Claim 34 further recites, wherein computing the maximum removal volume of a given tool for a particular feature is performed by the at least one processor via at least one of (i) a geometric analysis based on the respective dimensions and shapes of the tool and the feature and (ii) a medial axis transform (MAT) technique. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of computing the maximum removal volume via a geometric analysis or a medial axis transform (MAT) technique. Therefore, this claim also recites a mental process and is directed to an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-10 and 14-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 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:
Claim 9 recites,
The automated machining system of claim 1, wherein generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation.
A thorough search has been conducted for the subject matter with the most relevant prior art found to be discussed.
TAKAHIRO (JP2017109277A) in ¶0125 teaches, selecting roughing tool and finishing tool for a three-dimensional workpiece. However it doesn’t explicitly teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Mackman (US20200065446A1) in ¶0028 teaches, determining tool sequences based on information regarding the available tools 172, and the specified final tool 172, plus cutting data for the available tools. Then, using these estimates, the program(s) 116 compare different combinations of tool sequences to select a set of candidate combinations of the different cutting tools 172. ¶0030 teaches, The program(s) 116 can then search for an optimal solution for the different combinations of cutting tools 172 for the roughing operation by using cost metric optimization techniques to minimize the cost metric while ensuring any required rule(s) are kept (e.g., a rule about how much excess stock is left after the roughing, which can be ensured by finishing with the user specified final cutting tool). However it doesn’t explicitly teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Chen (An optimal approach to multiple tool selection and their numerical control path generation for aggressive rough machining of pockets with free-form boundaries) in Page 660 -662 section Applications teaches medial axis transform technique to identify and select end mills for roughing and finishing. However it doesn’t explicitly teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Blarigan (AUTOMATED ESTIMATION OF TIME AND COST FOR DETERMINING OPTIMAL MACHINING PLANS) Blarigan in Page 6 Section 3.3.1 teaches selecting big tool and small tool to machine an area and determining tool path. However it doesn’t explicitly teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Kadono (US20010000805A1) in ¶0040 teaches, The cutting scenario generator 9 executes two processes, one is to decide an optimal cutting method on the basis of data stored in the tool/cutting data storage 8 and also on the basis of feature data stored in the feature data storage 7, the other is to generate information related to cutting on the basis of the decided cutting method. However it doesn’t explicitly teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Peters (US20240424626A1) ¶0071 teaches, extracting geometric features of a part to be machined in a workpiece by the machine from a design of the part (operation 704) and filtering the plurality of tools by applying a series of rules based on the geometric features of the part to identify a selected tool for a machining operation to form the part (operation 706). However it doesn’t explicitly teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
KUMASAKA (US20210365005A1) in ¶0169-¶0170 teaches, generating tool sequence of milling and chamfering process. However it doesn’t explicitly teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible combinations of removal operations that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not using a given tool to perform the same removal operation more than once, (ii) for a given feature, performing only one terminal roughing removal operation and only one terminal finishing removal operation, and (iii) for a given feature, performing an associated roughing removal operation prior to performing an associated finishing removal operation, in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 9 is therefore objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 recites,
The automated machining system of claim 1, wherein generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible sequences of tool use that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not all tools must be used but if they are they must be used in a prescribed order, and (ii) when a tool is used, all features associated with that particular tool should be machined before moving on to the next tool in the tool sequence, but such features need not necessarily be machined in any particular order by a given tool.
Prior art cited in the rejection below and with respect to claim 9 above fails to teach, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible sequences of tool use that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not all tools must be used but if they are they must be used in a prescribed order, and (ii) when a tool is used, all features associated with that particular tool should be machined before moving on to the next tool in the tool sequence, but such features need not necessarily be machined in any particular order by a given tool.
No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches, generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features includes identifying possible sequences of tool use that satisfy the following constraints: (i) not all tools must be used but if they are they must be used in a prescribed order, and (ii) when a tool is used, all features associated with that particular tool should be machined before moving on to the next tool in the tool sequence, but such features need not necessarily be machined in any particular order by a given tool.
Claim 10 is therefore objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 recites,
The automated machining system of claim 12, further comprising, to the extent an undirected graph of nodes was generated, converting the undirected graph into a series of directed graphs, the directed graphs representing the various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features.
Prior art cited in the rejection below and with respect to claim 9 above fails to teach, to the extent an undirected graph of nodes was generated, converting the undirected graph into a series of directed graphs, the directed graphs representing the various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features.
No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches, to the extent an undirected graph of nodes was generated, converting the undirected graph into a series of directed graphs, the directed graphs representing the various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features.
Claim 14 is therefore objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14 and is also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in view of the dependency.
Claim 27-28 and 31-32 would be allowable if it overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 27 recites similar limitations as claim 9 above and is therefore would be allowable if it overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 28 recites similar limitations as claim 10 above and is therefore would be allowable if it overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim 31 recites similar limitations as claim 14 above and is therefore would be allowable if it overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for the same reasons as claim 14.
Claim 32 depends on claim 31 and therefore would be allowable if it overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in view of the dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-13, 16-25, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRO (JP2017109277A) in view of Mackman (US20200065446A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Takahiro teaches, An automated machining system, comprising:
a computer numeric control (CNC) machine; and (¶00646 teaches, a CNC machining device)
at least one processor in electronic communication with the CNC machine, the at least one processor being adapted to obtain computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory memory that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to automatically: (¶0052 teaches, a program for realizing each function of the cutting tool selection system 1 of FIGS. 1 and 2 may be recorded on a computer-readable recording medium, and the program recorded on the recording medium may be read and executed by a computer system to perform a process of selecting a cutting tool from the shape of the three dimensional shape model of the workpiece.)
identify, in a computer aided design (CAD) model of a part to be machined, one or more features to be machined into a workpiece to form the part; (¶0019 teaches, The three dimensional shape generation unit 102 reads out the CAD data from the 3D storage unit 112. Then, the three dimensional shape generation unit 102 generates, from the CAD data indicating the design information of the workpiece, a three dimensional shape model (a completed shape of the workpiece) in the three dimensional coordinate system of the workpiece to be cut out by cutting a material of a predetermined material (a material of the material))
determine, from a database of machining tools, for each feature(s) a set of tools suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining the respective feature; (¶0058 teaches, Returning to FIG. 1, the mode-compatible tool extraction unit 105 refers to each of the tool catalog tables of the tool database 111 described above, and extracts the cutting tool corresponding to the mode of the workpiece to be machined.)
identify, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature; (¶0125 teaches, The tool selection unit 109 selects the extracted cutting tool for the rough process and the cutting tool for the finish process as recommended tools.)
Takahiro doesn’t teach, generate, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features; (Takahiro in ¶0125 teaches selecting roughing tool and finishing tool. However, it doesn’t tech generating sequences of removal operation. Mackman in ¶0028 teaches, determining tool sequences based on information regarding the available tools 172, and the specified final tool 172, plus cutting data for the available tools. Then, using these estimates, the program(s) 116 compare different combinations of tool sequences to select a set of candidate combinations of the different cutting tools 172)
calculate a cost of performing each removal operation sequence; (Mackman in ¶0070 teaches, multidimensional roughing operations representation vector for the expanded set of combinations are then optimized 220 using a cost function for the target machining result, and simulation of the roughing operations, to specify tool selections and operational parameters for the roughing operations.)
determine, based on the calculated cost of each removal operation sequence, which of the removal operations sequences is optimal; (Mackman in ¶0030 teaches, The program(s) 116 can then search for an optimal solution for the different combinations of cutting tools 172 for the roughing operation by using cost metric optimization techniques to minimize the cost metric while ensuring any required rule(s) are kept (e.g., a rule about how much excess stock is left after the roughing, which can be ensured by finishing with the user specified final cutting tool).)
generate, based on the removal operation determined to be optimal, corresponding toolpaths for machining the features into the workpiece; and (Mackman in ¶0027 teaches, the system 100 are designed to automatically generate CNC roughing toolpath sequences for the 3D model 132)
provide instructions to the CNC machine for automatically implementing the optimal removal operation sequence and corresponding toolpaths to machine the features into the workpiece to form the part. (Mackman in ¶0031 teaches, the program(s) 116 specify tool selections and operational parameters for the roughing operations for the 3D model 132. These specified tool selections and operational parameters can be provided in a document 160 to the CNC machine 170 for use in roughing the part 180 from the workpiece by the CNC machine 170. Thus, the document 160 can include roughing toolpaths (and potentially also semi-finishing and finishing toolpaths) provided by the program(s) 116 (in an appropriate format) to the CNC machine 170 to create the physical structure of the part 180)
Mackman is an art in the area of interest as it relates to computer aided design and manufacture of physical structures using subtractive manufacturing systems and techniques (see ¶0001). A combination of Mackman with Takahiro would allow the combined system to generating operation sequence, calculating cost, determining optimal sequency, generating tool paths and providing instruction to CNC to implement the toolpath. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Mackman with Takahiro. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow determining an optimal sequence of different cutting tool. This would improve the system by finding an implementing the best solution for machining a feature as taught by Mackman in ¶0011 and ¶0044.
Regarding Claim 2,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 1, wherein calculating a cost of performing each removal sequence includes the at least one processor:
computing, for each feature, a maximum removal volume achievable by each tool used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the feature; (Mackman in ¶0046 and ¶0052 teaches determining material removal rate of respective tool based on step down)
computing, for each removal operation sequence, an actual removal volume to be removed during a given removal operation based on the maximum removal volume of the tool(s) used to perform each preceding removal operation in the removal operation sequence; and (Mackman in ¶0046 teaches, calculating a respective volume of excess material left on the workpiece after roughing with the respective tool)
calculating a cost of performing each removal operation included in a given removal operation sequence based on the associated actual removal volume. (Mackman in ¶0048 teaches determining a time to rough the part using a second of the respective tools on the workpiece after material removal by a first of the respective tools)
Regarding Claim 3,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor performs the steps of claim 2 in parallel with the following steps of claim 1: (Mackman in ¶0011 teaches the systems and technique described are readily parallelizable in that significant portions of the processes described can be performed in parallel on two or more computer processors.)
identifying, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature; and (Takahiro in ¶0125 teaches, The tool selection unit 109 selects the extracted cutting tool for the rough process and the cutting tool for the finish process as recommended tools.)
generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features. (Mackman in ¶0028 teaches, determining tool sequences based on information regarding the available tools 172, and the specified final tool 172, plus cutting data for the available tools (e.g., volume removal rates and/or data from which volume removal rates can be calculated, such as a feedrate, a maximum stepdown, and a maximum stepover for each of the different cutting tools 172))
Regarding Claim 4,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 2, wherein computing the maximum removal volume of a given tool for a particular feature is performed by the at least one processor via at least one of (i) a geometric analysis based on the respective dimensions and shapes of the tool and the feature and (ii) a medial axis transform (MAT) technique. (Mackman in ¶0046 and ¶0052 teaches determining material removal rate of respective tool based on geometric analysis of the tool and the feature)
Regarding Claim 5,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 1, wherein the cost of performing each removal operation sequence is calculated based at least in part on an estimated machining time required to perform each removal operation of the removal operation sequence. (Mackman in ¶0071 teaches, the optimization process 220 involves using a downhill optimization process to minimize the cost function (e.g., to minimize machining time).)
Regarding Claim 6,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 5, wherein the estimated machining time required is a function of an actual removal volume of each removal operation of the removal operation sequence and a material removal rate of the tool(s) used to perform each removal operation of the removal operation sequence. (Mackman in ¶0048-¶0049 teaches machining time as a function of removal volume and removal rate.)
Regarding Claim 7,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor uses geometric analysis to determine the suitability of a particular tool for performing a removal operation associated with machining a respective feature, the geometric analysis being based at least in part on one or more of a minimum required and maximum allowable tool diameter for the feature, a cut depth of the feature, a flute length of the tool, a stick out of the tool, a presence of a reduced shank on the tool for clearance, and whether the tool is side-cutting and/or center-cutting or otherwise. (Takahiro in ¶0121 teaches selecting tool based on maximum vertical height h read from the CAD acquisition information (cut depth of the feature))
Regarding Claim 12,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, based on the set of tools determined as being suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining a respective feature, a matrix of cells or undirected graph of nodes depicting each valid tool-feature combination; and (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches generating a matrix of cells depicting valid tool-feature combination)
identifying, in the matrix or undirected graph, those cells or nodes corresponding to the tools identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches determining optimal vector is <5,4> with machining time 33.64391 minutes, which represents starting the machining with tool 5, then machining with tool 4, and finally machining with tool 0, i.e., choosing the 63 mm diameter tool followed by the 32 mm diameter tool followed by the 20 mm diameter tool.)
Regarding Claim 13,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 12, further comprising, to the extent a matrix of cells was generated:
selecting a first cell in which to begin, the first cell having been identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation associated with a first feature; and (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches selecting starting the machining with tool 5)
connecting the first cell in series with one or more additional cells until the connected cells collectively represent the performance of a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation for each feature, each additional cell (i) being neither the first cell nor any other cell selected prior to the selection of such cell, and (ii) having been identified as being suitable for either (a) performing a roughing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has not yet been performed, or (b) performing a finishing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has already been performed, (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches after selecting machining with tool 5, then machining with tool 4, and finally machining with tool 0, i.e., choosing the 63 mm diameter tool followed by the 32 mm diameter tool followed by the 20 mm diameter tool
wherein the connected cells represent a removal operation sequence suitable for machining all of the one or more features. (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0056 teaches, chart 340 shows estimated times for machining a part from a workpiece using three tools selected from a set of nine available cutting tools)
Regarding Claim 16,
Takahiro teaches, A system for automatic generation and optimization of machining strategies, the system comprising:
at least one database containing information regarding one or more available machining tools; (¶0017 teaches a tool-database 111)
at least one processor; and (¶0152 teaches computer system)
non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (¶0152 teaches, a computer-readable recording medium, and the program recorded on the recording medium may be read and executed by a computer system to perform a process of selecting a cutting tool)
access the information regarding the one or more machining tools on the at least one database; (¶0052 teaches, the mode-compatible tool extraction unit 105 refers to each of the tool catalog tables of the tool database 111)
determine, based on the accessed information, a set of tools suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining a feature to be machined into a workpiece; (¶0058 teaches, Returning to FIG. 1, the mode-compatible tool extraction unit 105 refers to each of the tool catalog tables of the tool database 111 described above, and extracts the cutting tool corresponding to the mode of the workpiece to be machined.)
identify, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature; (¶0125 teaches, The tool selection unit 109 selects the extracted cutting tool for the rough process and the cutting tool for the finish process as recommended tools.)
Takahiro doesn’t teach, generate, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining the feature; (Takahiro in ¶0125 teaches selecting roughing tool and finishing tool. However, it doesn’t tech generating sequences of removal operation. Mackman in ¶0028 teaches, determining tool sequences based on information regarding the available tools 172, and the specified final tool 172, plus cutting data for the available tools. Then, using these estimates, the program(s) 116 compare different combinations of tool sequences to select a set of candidate combinations of the different cutting tools 172)
calculate a cost of performing each removal operation sequence; and (Mackman in ¶0070 teaches, multidimensional roughing operations representation vector for the expanded set of combinations are then optimized 220 using a cost function for the target machining result, and simulation of the roughing operations, to specify tool selections and operational parameters for the roughing operations.)
determine, based on the calculated cost of each removal operation sequence, which of the removal operations sequences is optimal. (Mackman in ¶0030 teaches, The program(s) 116 can then search for an optimal solution for the different combinations of cutting tools 172 for the roughing operation by using cost metric optimization techniques to minimize the cost metric while ensuring any required rule(s) are kept (e.g., a rule about how much excess stock is left after the roughing, which can be ensured by finishing with the user specified final cutting tool).)
Mackman is an art in the area of interest as it relates to computer aided design and manufacture of physical structures using subtractive manufacturing systems and techniques (see ¶0001). A combination of Mackman with Takahiro would allow the combined system to generating operation sequence, calculating cost, determining optimal sequency, generating tool paths and providing instruction to CNC to implement the toolpath. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Mackman with Takahiro. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow determining an optimal sequence of different cutting tool. This would improve the system by finding an implementing
Regarding Claim 17,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 16, wherein information regarding one or more available machining tools includes any one or combination of a type, size, material, cutting features, and cost of each machining tool. (Takahiro in ¶0054 teaches, The catalog data in database 111 includes items of a name, a tool shape, the number of blades (sheets), a tool material, a coating film type, a price, a blade diameter, a corner R, a blade length, an effective length, a neck diameter, a shank diameter, a total length, an outer peripheral torsion angle)
Regarding Claim 18
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 16,
wherein the one or more databases further contain information regarding one or more available computer numeric control (CNC) machines, and (¶0054 teaches, tool catalog data table is provided for each cutting tool. The catalog data includes machine information)
wherein (i) determining the set of tools suitable for performing a removal operation includes excluding, based on the information regarding the one or more available CNC machines, any tools not suitable for use with the one or more available CNC machines, (ii) generating the various sequences of removal operations includes excluding, based on the information regarding the one or more available CNC machines, removal operations not suitable for use with the one or more available CNC machines, and/or (iii) calculating the cost of performing each removal operation sequence is a function of at least the information regarding the one or more available CNC machines. (¶0060 teaches, The machine-corresponding tool extraction unit 107 refers to each of the tool catalog tables of the tool database 111 described above, and extracts a cutting tool corresponding to a machine that can be used when a workpiece is cut from a material in a factory, an office, or the like. That is, for example, at the time of selection from the tool database 111, the machine-corresponding tool extraction unit 107 refers to the column of the machine in the tool catalog table according to the type of the usable machine input by the process designer, and extracts the cutting tool attachable to the type of the usable machine from the tool database 111.)
Regarding Claim 19,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 18, wherein the information regarding one or more available CNC machines includes any one or combination of a type, number of axes, table parameters, number of tool holders, and feed/speed capability of each of the one or more available CNC machines. (¶0060 teaches, type of the usable machine)
Regarding Claim 20,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 16, wherein calculating a cost of performing each removal sequence includes the at least one processor:
computing, for each feature, a maximum removal volume achievable by each tool used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the feature; (Mackman in ¶0046 and ¶0052 teaches determining material removal rate of respective tool based on step down)
computing, for each removal operation sequence, an actual removal volume to be removed during a given removal operation based on the maximum removal volume of the tool(s) used to perform each preceding removal operation in the removal operation sequence; and (Mackman in ¶0046 teaches, calculating a respective volume of excess material left on the workpiece after roughing with the respective tool)
calculating a cost of performing each removal operation included in a given removal operation sequence based on the associated actual removal volume. (Mackman in ¶0048 teaches determining a time to rough the part using a second of the respective tools on the workpiece after material removal by a first of the respective tools)
Regarding Claim 21,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 20, wherein the at least one processor performs the steps of claim 20 in parallel with the following steps of claim 16: (Mackman in ¶0011 teaches the systems and technique described are readily parallelizable in that significant portions of the processes described can be performed in parallel on two or more computer processors.)
identifying, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature; and (Takahiro in ¶0125 teaches, The tool selection unit 109 selects the extracted cutting tool for the rough process and the cutting tool for the finish process as recommended tools.)
generating, based on utilizing only the tools identified as necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature, various sequences of removal operations suitable for machining all of the one or more features. (Mackman in ¶0028 teaches, determining tool sequences based on information regarding the available tools 172, and the specified final tool 172, plus cutting data for the available tools (e.g., volume removal rates and/or data from which volume removal rates can be calculated, such as a feedrate, a maximum stepdown, and a maximum stepover for each of the different cutting tools 172))
Regarding Claim 21,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 20, wherein computing the maximum removal volume of a given tool for a particular feature is performed by the at least one processor via at least one of (i) a geometric analysis based on the respective dimensions and shapes of the tool and the feature and (ii) a medial axis transform (MAT) technique. (Mackman in ¶0046 and ¶0052 teaches determining material removal rate of respective tool based on geometric analysis of the tool and the feature)
Regarding Claim 23,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 16, wherein the cost of performing each removal operation sequence is calculated based at least in part on an estimated machining time required to perform each removal operation of the removal operation sequence. (Mackman in ¶0071 teaches, the optimization process 220 involves using a downhill optimization process to minimize the cost function (e.g., to minimize machining time).)
Regarding Claim 24,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 23, wherein the estimated machining time required is a function of an actual removal volume of each removal operation of the removal operation sequence and a material removal rate of the tool(s) used to perform each removal operation of the removal operation sequence. (Mackman in ¶0048-¶0049 teaches machining time as a function of removal volume and removal rate.)
Regarding Claim 25,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor uses geometric analysis to determine the suitability of a particular tool for performing a removal operation associated with machining a respective feature, the geometric analysis being based at least in part on one or more of a minimum required and maximum allowable tool diameter for the feature, a cut depth of the feature, a flute length of the tool, a stick out of the tool, a presence of a reduced shank on the tool for clearance, and whether the tool is side-cutting and/or center-cutting or otherwise. (Takahiro in ¶0121 teaches selecting tool based on maximum vertical height h read from the CAD acquisition information (cut depth of the feature))
Regarding Claim 29,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 16, further comprising:
generating, based on the set of tools determined as being suitable for performing a removal operation associated with machining a respective feature, a matrix of cells or undirected graph of nodes depicting each valid tool-feature combination; and (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches generating a matrix of cells depicting valid tool-feature combination)
identifying, in the matrix or undirected graph, those cells or nodes corresponding to the tools identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches determining optimal vector is <5,4> with machining time 33.64391 minutes, which represents starting the machining with tool 5, then machining with tool 4, and finally machining with tool 0, i.e., choosing the 63 mm diameter tool followed by the 32 mm diameter tool followed by the 20 mm diameter tool.)
Regarding Claim 30,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The system of claim 29, further comprising, to the extent a matrix of cells was generated:
selecting a first cell in which to begin, the first cell having been identified as being suitable for performing a roughing removal operation associated with a first feature; and (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches selecting starting the machining with tool 5)
connecting the first cell in series with one or more additional cells until the connected cells collectively represent the performance of a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation for each feature, each additional cell (i) being neither the first cell nor any other cell selected prior to the selection of such cell, and (ii) having been identified as being suitable for either (a) performing a roughing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has not yet been performed, or (b) performing a finishing removal operation in connection with a feature for which a roughing removal operation has already been performed, (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0057 teaches after selecting machining with tool 5, then machining with tool 4, and finally machining with tool 0, i.e., choosing the 63 mm diameter tool followed by the 32 mm diameter tool followed by the 20 mm diameter tool
wherein the connected cells represent a removal operation sequence suitable for machining all of the one or more features. (Mackman in Fig. 3C and ¶0056 teaches, chart 340 shows estimated times for machining a part from a workpiece using three tools selected from a set of nine available cutting tools)
Claim(s) 8, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRO (JP2017109277A) in view of Mackman (US20200065446A1) and further in view of Chen (An optimal approach to multiple tool selection and their numerical control path generation for aggressive rough machining of pockets with free-form boundaries).
Regarding Claim 8,
Takahiro and Mackman doesn’t teach, The automated machining system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor uses a medial axis transform technique to identify, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. (Chen in Page 660 -662 section Applications teaches medial axis transform technique to identify and select end mills for roughing and finishing.)
Chen is an art in the area of interest as it teaches rough machining (see Abstract). A combination of Chen with Takahiro and Mackman would allow using a medial axis transform technique to identify and select end mills for roughing and finishing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Chen with Takahiro and Mackman. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would can guarantee the tool to be free of gouging and interference and allow the system to achieve the highest efficiency of the aggressive rough machining, as taught by Chen in Abstract.
Regarding Claim 26,
Takahiro and Mackman doesn’t teach, The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor uses a medial axis transform technique to identify, from each set of tools, those tools necessary for performing a roughing removal operation and a finishing removal operation in connection with each respective feature. (Chen in Page 660 -662 section Applications teaches medial axis transform technique to identify and select end mills for roughing and finishing.)
Chen is an art in the area of interest as it teaches rough machining (see Abstract). A combination of Chen with Takahiro and Mackman would allow using a medial axis transform technique to identify and select end mills for roughing and finishing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Chen with Takahiro and Mackman. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would can guarantee the tool to be free of gouging and interference and allow the system to achieve the highest efficiency of the aggressive rough machining, as taught by Chen in Abstract.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHIRO (JP2017109277A) in view of Mackman (US20200065446A1) and further in view of Blarigan (AUTOMATED ESTIMATION OF TIME AND COST FOR DETERMINING OPTIMAL MACHINING PLANS).
Regarding Claim 11,
Takahiro and Mackman teaches, The automated machining system of claim 1, wherein generating, based on the removal operation determined to be optimal, corresponding toolpaths for machining the features into the workpiece includes:
computing a maximum removal volume achievable by each tool used to perform a removal operation of the optimal removal operation sequence; (Mackman in ¶0046 and ¶0052 teaches determining material removal rate of respective tool based on step down)
Takahiro and Mackman doesn’t teach, determine, in parallel, the state of the workpiece at each of the removal operations by subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation; ((Mackman in ¶0011 teaches the systems and technique described are readily parallelizable in that significant portions of the processes described can be performed in parallel on two or more computer processors. ¶0024-¶0025 teaches, generating a toolpath specification document 160, ¶0028 teaches, determining sequences of removal operation. However, it doesn’t teach, subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation. Blarigan in Page 6 Section 3.3.1 teaches determining Area removed by large tool. Page 6 Section 3.3.1 also teaches determining tool path based on Area of Face- Big tool Area removed)
and computing, in parallel, the toolpaths based on the corresponding determined state of the workpiece. (Blarigan in Page 6 Section 3.3.1 teaches determining tool path based on Area of Face- Big tool Area removed)
Blarigan is an art in the area of interest as it relates to machining operation (see Abstract). A combination of Blarigan with Takahiro and Mackman would teach, determining, in parallel, the state of the workpiece at each of the removal operations by subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation and computing, in parallel, the toolpaths based on the corresponding determined state of the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Blarigan with Takahiro and Mackman. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow determining the amount of material the small (secondary) tool is required to remove and use this information to generate tool path for the small (secondary) tool, as taught by Blarigan in Page 5-6 Section 3.3.1.
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackman (US20200065446A1) in view of Blarigan (AUTOMATED ESTIMATION OF TIME AND COST FOR DETERMINING OPTIMAL MACHINING PLANS).
Regarding Claim 33,
Mackman teaches, A system for automatic generation of toolpaths for machining one or more features into a workpiece, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and (¶0021 teaches, a processor 112)
non-transitory memory containing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (¶0021 teaches, The computer 110 can include various types of computer storage media and devices, which can include the memory 114, to store instructions of programs that run on the processor 112.
compute a maximum removal volume achievable by one or more tools used to perform a removal operation associated with machining the one or more feature into the workpiece; (Mackman in ¶0046 and ¶0052 teaches determining material removal rate of respective tool based on step down)
Mackman doesn’t teach, determine, in parallel, a state of the workpiece at each removal operation of a removal operation sequence to be performed to machine the one or more features into the workpiece by subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation; and ((Mackman in ¶0011 teaches the systems and technique described are readily parallelizable in that significant portions of the processes described can be performed in parallel on two or more computer processors. ¶0024-¶0025 teaches, generating a toolpath specification document 160, ¶0028 teaches, determining sequences of removal operation. However, it doesn’t teach, subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation. Blarigan in Page 6 Section 3.3.1 teaches determining Area removed by large tool. Page 6 Section 3.3.1 also teaches determining tool path based on Area of Face- Big tool Area removed)
computing, in parallel, toolpaths for machining the one or more features into the workpiece in accordance with the removal operation sequence based on the corresponding determined state of the workpiece at each removal operation. (Blarigan in Page 6 Section 3.3.1 teaches determining tool path based on Area of Face- Big tool Area removed)
Blarigan is an art in the area of interest as it relates to machining operation (see Abstract). A combination of Blarigan with Mackman would teaches, computing a maximum removal volume achievable by each tool used to perform a removal operation of the optimal removal operation sequence, determine, in parallel, the state of the workpiece at each of the removal operations by subtracting, from a state of the workpiece at the first removal operation, all of the computed maximum removal volumes associated with and coming before the respective removal operation and computing, in parallel, the toolpaths based on the corresponding determined state of the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the teachings of Blarigan with Mackman. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow determining the amount of material the small (secondary) tool is required to remove and use this information to generate tool path for the small (secondary) tool, as taught by Blarigan in Page 5-6 Section 3.3.1.
Regarding Claim 34,
Mackman and Blarigan teaches, The system of claim 33, wherein computing the maximum removal volume of a given tool for a particular feature is performed by the at least one processor via at least one of (i) a geometric analysis based on the respective dimensions and shapes of the tool and the feature and (ii) a medial axis transform (MAT) technique. (Mackman in ¶0046 and ¶0052 teaches determining material removal rate of respective tool based on geometric analysis of the tool and the feature)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (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 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights