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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “the computer system” could be interpreted as software, which is non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner recommends stating the computer system comprises a processor and a memory to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gray et al. U.S. PGPub 2024/0361747 (hereinafter “Gray”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 13, Gray discloses a computer-implemented method of managing machining information for machining a workpiece with a respective tool that is comprised by a machine tool, the method comprising: providing a sample machining process for machining a sample workpiece from a sample blank, the sample machining process comprising at least two consecutive sample machining steps (e.g. machining strategy, which comprises a sequence of actions) performed by the respective tool starting with a respective sample start part and ending with a respective sample end part (e.g. ¶23-26); wherein the respective sample end part of the respective sample machining step is the respective sample start part of the respective subsequent sample machining step (e.g. ¶23-26); determining a respective step tool volume (e.g. maximum removal volume) corresponding to a movement of the respective tool during the respective sample machining step, wherein the respective step tool volume corresponds to a difference in volume between the respective sample start part and the respective sample end part obtained through the respective sample machining step (e.g. ¶23-26); determining a respective step volume (e.g. actual removal volume) corresponding to the respective sample start part of the respective sample machining step changed by the respective step tool volume (e.g. ¶23-26 and 62-63); determining at least one respective step feature (e.g. actual toolpath) corresponding to the respective step -volume (e.g. ¶70-71, 93 and 95); and storing the respective step feature in a machining information database (e.g. ¶107-110; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 2, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the respective step feature comprises at least one of a feature type, a feature parameter, a feature geometric dimension, a feature machining area, a feature tool class, a feature geometric tool dimension (e.g. tool size), a feature operation type, a feature tolerance specification, information on at least one condition (e.g. state of workpiece) when the respective step feature may be applied, at least one dependency on at least one previous machining step or at least one other step feature, or any combination thereof (e.g. ¶70-71, 93 and 95).
Regarding claim 3, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining at least one common aspect (e.g. same removal operation) of the respective step feature of the respective sample machining step and of the respective step feature of the respective subsequent sample machining step (e.g. ¶44-46; Fig. 4); and storing information on the respective common aspect together with the respective step feature of the respective subsequent sample machining step in the machining information database (e.g. ¶107-110; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a machining rule set characterizing the respective machining step performable with the respective tool (e.g. ¶23-26 and 62-63); and segmenting the sample machining process into the respective consecutive sample machining steps using the machining rule set (e.g. ¶23-26 and 62-63).
Regarding claim 5, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising: determining the respective step feature using the machining rule set (e.g. ¶70-71, 93 and 95).
Regarding claim 6, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the respective step feature corresponds to an older respective step feature (e.g. previous removal operation) which is already stored in the machining information database (e.g. ¶70-71, 93 and 95); displaying a user interface (UI) element indicating that the respective step feature corresponds to an older respective step feature which is already stored in the machining information database to the user via a computer-aided manufacturing user interface (CAM UI) (e.g. ¶107-110; Fig. 13); capturing the user's intent to store the respective step feature in the machining information database, to replace the older respective step feature in the machining information database with the respective step feature, or to dismiss the respective step feature in response to user interactions with the CAM UI (e.g. ¶107-110; Fig. 13); and storing the respective step feature in the machining information database, replacing the older respective step feature in the machining information database with the respective step feature, or dismissing the respective step feature according to the captured user's intent (e.g. ¶107-110; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 7, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the respective step feature (e.g. tool used for a tool operation) is identical to an older respective step feature which is already stored in the machining information database (e.g. ¶44-46; Fig. 4); and dismissing (i.e. not performing a particular operation) the respective step feature without storing the respective step feature in the machining information database (e.g. ¶107-110; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 8, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the respective step feature and a storage of the respective step feature in the machining information database are performed for at least two different sample machining processes for machining at least two different sample workpieces (e.g. ¶29).
Regarding claim 9, Gray discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a start shape of a blank and a target shape of the workpiece to be machined from the blank (e.g. ¶23-26 and 62-63); determining a machining process for machining the workpiece using the respective step feature stored in the machining information database (e.g. ¶23-26 and 62-63; Fig. 1-2); and machining the workpiece with the tool according to the determined machining process (e.g. ¶23-26 and 62-63; Fig. 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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 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.
CK
July 14, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights