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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/27/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1 and 4-8 have been
amended, claims 9-13 have been added and claims 2-3 have been canceled. Thus claims 1 and 4-13 are remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant
Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
… Applicant notes that the claimed invention is directed to achieving a simulation environment for estimating behavior of a system including a control device which controls a target.
When the simulation estimating a behavior of a drive device driving a control target is performed like the simulation of a PLC program of an actual machine, for example, a user performs operation of setting related to an IO program in order to generate or update IO data (i.e., input and output data ) corresponding to the actual device instead of the actual device connected to the PLC. However, the number of types of devices connected to the PLC has been increasing, and it is desired to provide an environment that enables easy operation related to the above setting operation.
According to the claimed invention, a setting for generating or updating data referred to be a simulation program may be set based on a position in a 3D virtual space or based on an operating condition. Thus, an environment in which the device simulates the behavior of a real system connected to the control device may be more easily implemented.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem and thus recite significantly more than any abstract idea.
Applicant has further amended the independent claims to recite the processing circuitry, the detection range of the sensor, and generates drawing data for visualizing the generated sensor object.
Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of features recited in the claim provide a practical application of any abstract idea. That is, the claims recite a particular structural configuration for the payment as well as a particular set of interactions among the structural components such that the combination of recited structural components and interactions form a practical application of any abstract idea.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
(see Response filed 05/27/2025 [page 10-11]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner disagrees that “the claims are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem and thus recite significantly more than any abstract idea, and the amended claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter”.
The claims do recite a mental process.
In MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “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." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Regarding claim limitation “execute a simulation program estimating the behavior; … execute a setting for generating or updating data referred to during the execution of the simulation program; …, wherein the processing circuitry selectively executes the setting based on a position in the three-dimensional virtual space or based on an operating condition, according to the user operation, wherein the setting based on the position in the three-dimensional virtual space includes a sensor setting for generating or updating data associated with a sensor object corresponding to the sensor arranged in the three dimensional virtual space, the sensor object includes a detection range object representing a detection range within which the sensor can detect the approach of an approaching workpiece,…”, as drafted, recite a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing a system layout and evaluating how it might behave under different positions or operating conditions, imaging how the behavior of a system would change based on sensor range and component location including what sensor parameter should be updated, how a sensor’s performance would change if moved to different position or trigger under a new condition, and whether to apply a setting based on a particular position or trigger condition (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Therefore, the limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, in order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
However, the additional limitation of claim 1, "A simulation device that estimates a behavior of a system including that includes a control device that controls a target and a sensor that performs a detection operation for a control performed by the control device, the simulation device comprising processing circuitry configured to:" which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
The following additional elements “the processing circuity generates the sensor object arranged in the three dimensional virtual space based on the position in the three dimensional virtual space or based on the operating condition” and “generates drawing data for visualizing the generated sensor object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic generation step to generate sensor object for visualizing the generated sensor object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception or significant more- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The following additional elements “virtually construct the system in a three-dimensional virtual space;” and “receive a user operation to the simulation device” and “draws the sensor object on a display” which is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering (i.e., receive data) and data output (i.e., display virtual system and sensor object) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
The additional limitation does not specify how the claimed improvement performs the additional element in a manner that is different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field or any known technical field. For example, the claim fails to describe how the claimed “processing circuitry” and “generate data for visualizing…” and “draws … on a display” and “receive a user operation …”are technologically distinct from generic or conventional computer that receive operation data, generate and display simulation data. Likewise, the claim does not provide any details indicating that receive, generation and display function has non-conventional architecture, algorithm, or technique that would distinguish it from known generic computer function. In contrast, the claim limitation merely describes a generic receive, generation and display step in which the sensor object is generated and displayed at a high level generality would not consider as an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) ; …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log).
In MPEP 2106.05(f): (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claims 1, 7 and 8 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The amended claims 1, 7 and 8 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the dependent claims are similar rejected, as they incorporate the deficiency of independent claim 1, 7 and 8.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 in “Applicant
Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
… In the office Action, the Examiner alleges that "executes setting based on a position in a three-dimensional virtual space" as claimed is taught by Nagatsuka (JP2010-218036A).
However, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's position, because Nagatsuka fails to teach or suggest this feature as claimed.
Specifically, paragraph 0030 of Nagatsuka discusses "FIG. 4 shows an example in which a virtual area sensor 56 that detects an object entering a predetermined area near the virtual machine tool 38 and outputs a signal is defined in the robot simulator 32 as an example of the virtual sensor 42 and added to the virtual space in the configuration of FIG. 3. In the example of FIG. 4, the virtual area sensor 56 detects an object such as the virtual robot 36 entering the space between the virtual movable table 48 and the virtual gate 54, and simulates the function of an area sensor used in an actual system including an NC machine tool and a robot. The simulation control module 46 (FIG. 1) defines conditions such as the direction in which the object approaches and the distance range detected by the area sensor, and further the signal to be output when the object is detected, in the virtual area sensor 56. When the virtual robot 36, the virtual workpiece 50, or another virtual external device approaches the virtual area sensor 56 in the virtual three-dimensional space and the preset conditions are satisfied, various signals are output. (omitted)".
With respect to the conditions of the distance range detected by the area sensor, Nagatsuka only teaches that the simulation control module 46 defines the conditions in the virtual area sensor 56, and fails to disclose, teach or reasonably suggest that the conditions are defined (set) based on a position in the three-dimensional virtual space and the defining (setting) is executed according to a user operation.
The Examiner also alleges that "change the position and orientation of the robot model" described in paragraph 0072of Atohira is interpreted as an execution setting. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegation. Specifically, Atohira only describes that the position and orientation are changed by the simulation execution unit 42, and Atohira fails to teach or suggest that the position and orientation are changed (set) based on a position in the three-dimensional virtual space and the changing (setting) is executed according to a user operation.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim is patentable over the cited art of record. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Independent Claim 7-8
Claims 7-8 each recites features similar to, but not necessarily coextensive with, those of claim 1. The Office applies the same analysis in rejecting claims 7 and 8 as in rejecting claim 1. Therefore, claims 7-8 are patentable over the cited art of record for reasons similar to claim 1 discussed above.
Remaining rejected claims
The remaining rejected claims are patentable based on their respective dependencies.
New Claims
Claims 11-13 are added based on claim 4, paragraphs 0122 and 0124 of the specification, and Fig. 18. Claims 11-13 are patentable based on their respective dependencies.
(see Response filed 05/27/2025 [page 12-14]).
Applicant's arguments, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on pages 11-14, filed 5/27/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the claim language explicitly recites “selectively executes the setting based on a position in the three-dimensional virtual space or based on an operating condition.” The disjunctive language (“or”) makes clear that the processing circuitry need only selectively execute a setting based on either (1) a position in a virtual 3D space or (2) an operating condition.
Accordingly, since the prior art (Nishi, e.g., [0088]) teaches execution of a setting based on an operating condition according to a user operation, the claim limitation is met. Therefore, the rejection under U.S.C. 103 for claims 1, 7 and 8 is maintained.
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.
The claims 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1, 4-6 and 9-11 are directed to device and fall within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, Claim 7 and 12 are directed to method and falls within the statutory category of process;
Yes. Claim 8 and 13 are directed to non-transitory recording medium and fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “execute a simulation program estimating the behavior; execute a setting for generating or updating data referred to during the execution of the simulation program ; …, wherein the processing circuitry selectively executes the setting based on a position in the three-dimensional virtual space or based on an operating condition, according to the user operation, wherein the setting based on the position in the three-dimensional virtual space includes a sensor setting for generating or updating data associated with a sensor object corresponding to the sensor arranged in the three dimensional virtual space, the sensor object includes a detection range object representing a detection range within which the sensor can detect the approach of an approaching workpiece”, as drafted, recite a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing a system layout and evaluating how it might behave under different positions or operating conditions, imaging how the behavior of a system would change based on sensor range and component location including what sensor parameter should be updated, how a sensor’s performance would change if moved to different position or trigger under a new condition, and whether to apply a setting based on a particular position or trigger condition (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
The elements of claims 7 and 8 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 7 and 8 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 8 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 7 and 8: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "A simulation device that estimates a behavior of a system including that includes a control device that controls a target and a sensor that performs a detection operation for a control performed by the control device, the simulation device comprising processing circuitry configured to:" and “A simulation method executed by a computer that estimates a behavior of a system including a control device that controls a target, the simulation method comprising:” and “A non-transitory recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a simulation method that estimates a behavior of a system including a control device that controls a target, the simulation method comprising:” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Further, the following additional elements “the processing circuity generates the sensor object arranged in the three dimensional virtual space based on the position in the three dimensional virtual space or based on the operating condition” and “generates drawing data for visualizing the generated sensor object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic generation step to generate sensor object for visualizing the generated sensor object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception or significant more- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the following additional elements “virtually construct the system in a three-dimensional virtual space;” and “receive a user operation to the simulation device” and “draws the sensor object on a display” which is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering (i.e., receive data) and data output (i.e., display virtual system and sensor object) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 7 and 8 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 7 and 8: the claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP §2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) ; …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); …
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;…
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 7 and 8 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 4-6 and 9-13 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 4-6 and 9-13 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 7 and 8.
Claim 4 recites “the system includes: a peripheral device that operates in association with the control, the detection operation of the sensor is linked with an operation of the peripheral device, and the operating condition includes a condition based on the detection operation of the sensor linked with the operation of the peripheral device. ”
This merely further defines the system is virtually constructed and operating condition refers to claim 1; therefore, it is merely an extension of mental process. Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “the setting for generating or updating the data includes a program corresponding to a parameter received by the user operation.”
This merely further defines setting that uses a program to generate or update data, and that program is selected or customized based on a parameter entered by the user; therefore, it mere a recitations of insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering (i.e., receive data from user) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the drawing data for visualizing motion of the target during the execution of the simulation program in the three-dimensional virtual space and drawing the motion on the display.”
This merely specifies module generates the drawing data for visualizing motion of the target during the execution of the simulation program in the three-dimensional virtual space and drawing the motion on the display; therefore, it merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic generation step to generate data for visualizing the motion of object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception or significant more- see MPEP 2106.05(f), and an insignificant extra-solution activities as outputting drawing on display in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites “the processing circuitry comprises a dedicated hardware circuit that executes the simulation program, virtually constructs the system, executes the setting, and receives the user operation.”
This merely further defines processing circuitry without specifying any particular dedicated hardware; therefore, it merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Therefore, the claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “the processing circuitry comprises a storage that stores data and at least one program, and a central processing unit (CPU) that accesses the storage and executes the at least one program to execute the simulation program, virtually construct the system, execute the setting, and receive the user operation.”
This merely further defines processing circuitry with generic computer components; therefore, it merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 recites “the system further includes another sensor that performs a second detection operation for the control, the system further includes a peripheral device that operates in association with the control, the second detection operation of the another sensor is linked with an operation of the peripheral device, and the operating condition includes a detection condition based on the detection operation of the another sensor linked with the operation of the peripheral device, and a time condition indicating an elapsed time from when the detection condition is satisfied until the another sensor outputs a detection value.”
This merely further defines the system is virtually constructed includes second sensor performs detection operation related to a peripheral device, and uses a time condition based on when that detection occurs refers back to claim 1; therefore, it is merely an extension of mental process. A person, for example, is capable of observing a system in which a sensor detects an object, mentally link that detection with the expected operation of a peripheral device, and then evaluate how much time passes between the satisfaction of the detection condition and when the sensor outputs a detection value, and determine whether the timing meets expectations based on a judgment (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).). Therefore, the claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The elements of claims 12-13 are substantially the same as those of claim 11. Therefore, the elements of claims 12-13 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi JP2003288113A in
view of Nagatsuka JP2010218036A.
Claim 1, Nishi teaches (currently amended): A simulation device that estimates a behavior of a system that includes a control device that controls a target and a sensor that performs a detection operation for a control performed by the control device (fig.1. simulation apparatus 20 and PLC 30; [0009], “…according to the first and fifth aspects of the present invention, a facility simulation in which the operation of the facility controlled by the control device is simulated by a computer. The operator selects one of a plurality of equipment devices constituting the equipment as a target device, the operator inputs an operation program indicating an operation on the simulation of the target device, and based on the operation program, the A technical feature is that the operation of the target device is simulated alone.”; [0018], “it is possible to compare the simulation result in the offline simulation with the result of the online simulation, so it is easy and reliable to determine whether or not the control program of the control device is operating as intended. can do.” [0033], “The PLC 30 is mainly configured by a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, an input / output control circuit, and the like (not shown). The PLC 30 is originally a device having a function of issuing an operation instruction to equipment devices such as various actuators connected to the PLC 30 and acquiring detection information from various sensors of the equipment device. The PLC 30 plays a role as a control device of a facility device that is virtually configured by software in the simulation device 20.”), the simulation device comprising processing circuitry (fig.1. simulation apparatus 20 including CPU 21, RAM 22, ROM23, HDD 24 (note: i.e., storage), etc.) configured to:
execute a simulation program estimating the behavior ([0020], “the simulation apparatus 20 has a function of causing a computer simulation of the operation mode of a facility apparatus (3D mechanism model) configured virtually by software, and mainly includes a CPU 21, a RAM 22, a ROM 23, and a hard disk.”; [0018], “it is possible to compare the simulation result in the offline simulation with the result of the online simulation, so it is easy and reliable to determine whether or not the control program of the control device is operating as intended. can do.”);
virtually construct the system in a three-dimensional virtual space (fig.1, The 3D model information DB 24a,The 3D model attribute information DB 24b; [0025], “The 3D model information DB 24a stores parameters relating to the operation mode of the mechanism constituting the equipment device. For example, as a motion definition, the origin position, the number of coordinate systems, gravity, a friction coefficient, etc., and as a motion attribute, a movable range The moving speed, acceleration, and the like are stored for each equipment device.” See also [0026] and [0037]; [0043], “…the 3D mechanism model of the equipment device at a predetermined position on the screen of the display 27 based on the graphic data of the equipment device (3D mechanism model) stored in the HDD 24. Processing to arrange and display. Thereby, for example, as shown in FIG. 6, the clamp device CL-1, the clamp device CL-2,… are graphically displayed on the display 27.” Note: the space of display 27 displaying 3D mechanism model is interpreted as three-dimensional virtual space of 3D mechanism model);
execute a setting for generating or updating data referred to during the execution of the simulation program ([0084], “a process for displaying a screen for setting I / O state information (operation control information) for each operation of the selected target device is performed. This process is performed by the input function unit program 23a.”; [0088], “…the operator performs processing for inputting each signal state, thereby setting I / O state information for each operation of the target device.” See also, [0089]-[0106]; [0107], “…The execution instruction of the operation program is output to the 3D operation program execution unit program 23b. At this time, the signal states of solenoids A, B, C, D and position sensors A, B, C, D are set in the I / O signal table of the I / O processing section program 23d, …”. [0108], “The 3D operation program execution unit program 23b that has received the operation command executes in accordance with the operation program “CLAMP1” waiting to be executed in advance. Therefore, the execution of the “MOVES W [1]” instruction, that is, the clamping operation is waited until the solenoid A is turned on and the solenoid B is turned off with reference to the I / O signal table. Then, when the WaitSignal conditions are met, the clamping operation is performed, and the “BetweenSignal (“ LS_A = OFF, LS_B = OFF”)” instruction and the “EndSignal (“ LS_A = ON, LS_B = OFF ”)” instruction are sequentially executed, that is, The status signals of the position sensors A and B are output to the I / O processing unit program 23d. Thereby, since the signal states of the position sensors A and B in the I / O signal table are rewritten, the state of the clamping device 1 can be notified to the PLC 30 and other equipment devices in real time (note: i.e., generating instructions and commands and updating signals during the simulation according to setting I/O state information for each operation of the target device based on signal states are inputted by operator is interpreted by examiner as execute setting for generating or updating data referred to during the execution of the simulation program).”); and
receive a user operation to the simulation device (fig.1, simulation apparatus 20, interface 25 and input device 26; [0030], “The input device 26 can input predetermined information as required by the input function unit program 23a or the like, and is connected to the system bus via the input / output interface 25. There are a keyboard in which a predetermined number of push-type switches are arranged, a pointing device such as a so-called mouse or a trackball, or a touch panel provided on the surface of the display 27.”)),
wherein the processing circuitry selectively executes the setting based on a position in the three-dimensional virtual space or based on an operating condition, according to the user operation
wherein the setting based on the position in the three-dimensional virtual space includes a sensor setting for generating or updating data associated with a sensor object corresponding to the sensor arranged in the three dimensional virtual space, the sensor object includes a detection range object representing a detection range within which the sensor can detect the approach of an approaching workpiece (([0084], “… setting I / O state information (operation control information) for each operation of the selected target device is performed. This process is performed by the input function unit program 23a.”); [0088], “…the operator performs processing for inputting each signal state, thereby setting I / O state information for each operation of the target device.” See also, [0089]-[0106]; [0107], “…The execution instruction of the operation program is output to the 3D operation program execution unit program 23b. At this time, the signal states of solenoids A, B, C, D and position sensors A, B, C, D are set in the I / O signal table of the I / O processing section program 23d, …”. [0108], “The 3D operation program execution unit program 23b that has received the operation command executes in accordance with the operation program “CLAMP1” waiting to be executed in advance. Therefore, the execution of the “MOVES W [1]” instruction, that is, the clamping operation is waited until the solenoid A is turned on and the solenoid B is turned off with reference to the I / O signal table. Then, when the WaitSignal conditions are met, the clamping operation is performed, and the “BetweenSignal (“ LS_A = OFF, LS_B = OFF”)” instruction and the “EndSignal (“ LS_A = ON, LS_B = OFF ”)” instruction are sequentially executed, that is, The status signals of the position sensors A and B are output to the I / O processing unit program 23d. Thereby, since the signal states of the position sensors A and B in the I / O signal table are rewritten, the state of the clamping device 1 can be notified to the PLC 30 and other equipment devices in real time…; Examiner note: i.e., the instruction and commands are executed according to setting I/O state information for each operation of the target device based on signal states are inputted by operator is interpreted as executes the setting based on an operating condition is selected, according to the user operation). Additionally, since the claim recites the processing circuitry selectively executes the setting based on a position in the three-dimensional virtual space or based on an operating condition, prior art needs only execute the setting based on one of the features meet the claim limitation), and
[[the processing circuity generates the sensor object arranged in the three dimensional virtual space based on the position in the three dimensional virtual space or based on the operating condition, and generates drawing data for visualizing the generated sensor object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space and draws the sensor object on a display.]]
However, Nishi fails to teach the processing circuity generates the sensor object arranged in the three dimensional virtual space based on the position in the three dimensional virtual space or based on the operating condition, and generates drawing data for visualizing the generated sensor object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space and draws the sensor object on a display.
Nagatsuka teaches the processing circuity generates the sensor object arranged in the three dimensional virtual space based on the position in the three dimensional virtual space or based on the operating condition, and generates drawing data for visualizing the generated sensor object disposed in the three dimensional virtual space and draws the sensor object on a display. ([0030], “4 defines a virtual area sensor 56 that senses that an object has entered a predetermined area in the vicinity of the virtual machine tool 38 (note: based on the position) and outputs a signal in the configuration of FIG. Then, an example added in the virtual space is shown. In the example of FIG. 4, the virtual area sensor 56 detects that an object such as the virtual robot 36 has entered the space between the virtual movable table 48 and the virtual gate 54, and includes an NC machine tool and a robot … The simulation control module 46 (FIG. 1) defines the virtual area sensor 56 with conditions such as the direction in which the object is approaching, the distance range sensed by the area sensor, and the signal output upon sensing. When the virtual robot 36, the virtual work 50, or another virtual external device approaches the virtual area sensor 56 in the virtual three-dimensional space and a preset condition is satisfied, various signals are output.” [0014] “… Means for arranging and display