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 Objections
Claims 10 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claims 10 and 30, each claim recites generating a revised CNC program but later refers to “said initial CNC program including at least one alternative proposed pairing.”
It appears that “said initial CNC program” should read “said revised CNC program” in each claim to maintain consistency with what was previously claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for further consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 21, 23, 25-26 and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,308.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
With respect to pending independent claim 1, patented claim 1 recites substantially similar features with respect to both directed to computerized machining using historical data identifying depth of cut and rpm combinations that are known to cause undesirable chatter (UDC), wherein both determine a suitable rpm for a given depth of cut by employing a plurality of the known chatter producing combinations.
Pending claim 1 further requires establishing historical mapping, whereas patented claim 1 employs an existing mapping. In the opinion of the examiner, establishing the mapping would have been an obvious preparation step for carrying out the patented method because the method requires the historical mapping to be available for selecting machining parameters, and it is further noted that patented claim 7 further discloses generating that mapping.
Pending claim 1 further omits the step of operating the machine tool, however this feature appears to be an obvious implementation of the patented claim since the patented claim already discloses the programming steps that are required by pending claim 1.
With respect to pending independent claim 21, patented claim 7 both recite a historical mapping generator and a computerized machine tool programmer that determines chatter free machining parameters using multiple historical combinations known to produce UDC.
However, pending claim 21 does not require the physical machine tool that is required by patented claim 7, but the other features of the generator, programmer, and rpm selection function are the same as those required by patented claim 7, and therefore, in the opinion of the examiner, the exclusion of the machine tool does not appear to rise to the level of a patentable distinction between the claims.
With respect to pending dependent claims 3 and 23, patented claims 2 and 8 teach corresponding subject matter in that they recite neighborhood-based parameter selection.
With respect to pending dependent claims 5 and 25, patented claims 3 and 9 teach corresponding subject matter in that they recite that the selected rpm does not need to correspond to a known pairing.
With respect to pending dependent claims 6 and 26, patented claims 4 and 10 teach corresponding subject matter in that they recite that the selected rpm does not need to correspond to a known pairing.
With respect to pending dependent claims 9 and 29, patented claims 5 and 11 teach corresponding subject matter in that they recite essentially the same initial CNC program generation and validation features.
With respect to pending dependent claims 10 and 30, patented claims 6 and 12 teach corresponding subject matter in that they recite essentially the same disallowing of unsuitable pairings, revising the CNC program, and validation of replacement pairings features.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 21, 23, 25-26 and 29-30 are unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,308 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Examiner Notes
It is noted that the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggests the combination of claimed features, with respect to at least the independent claims.
As bet understood, the prior art appears to disclose using historical machining data to select cutting parameters that reduce or avoid undesirable chatter (UDC).
However, the prior art does not appear to teach or adequately suggest using a plurality of previously known depth of cut and rpm pairings that produced UDC to determine a suitable rpm for a given depth of cut that will avoid UDC, as is required by independent claims 1 and 21.
Specifically, the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed use of multiple known chatter producing pairings from a historical mapping to determine a suitable chatter free rpm, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed. The dependent claims are therefore deemed to be allowable as being dependent upon allowed independent base claims.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2015/0254336 A1, which discloses collecting past results to map chatter conditions and help machine choose cutting settings that avoid vibration;
(2) US 2016/0116899 A1, which discloses recording machining chatter and using vibration information to recommend spindle speeds that reduce or eliminate chatter;
(3) US 2014/0297021 A1, which discloses using computer optimization to select spindle speeds, cutting depths, and toolpaths that improve milling efficiency while avoiding chatter;
(4) US 2006/0271231 A1, which discloses mapping stable machining conditions and helping control cutting speeds to prevent chatter during machining; and
(5) US 2010/0034609 A1, which discloses detecting harmful machining vibrations and adjusting machine operation to reduce chatter and prevent milling problems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
October 9, 2026;
/RDH/
