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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received amendments to the claims and remarks on 08 January 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 08 October 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejection”, “prior office action”, and the like). The examiner reviewed the amendments to the claims and noted that no new matter was presented. Basis for amendments may be found, for instance, in paragraphs [0058-0064, 0083] and Figure [6].
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner notes that by way of amendment, all concerns have been addressed. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn, however new claim objections, necessitated by claim amendment, are presented below.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the prior art of note does not read upon the amended claim language. Applicant asserts that Rafael (US 2013/0257627 A1) does not, alone or in obvious combination, disclose/teach setting data including first and second setting items, where the first item may be inherited when the second is not inheritable. The examiner respectfully disagrees; as noted further below, “setting items” are generic and while they have some form of basis in the specification of the instant application (thus, no 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is applied), they are not particularly limited. The examiner then considers vendor/model/revision information to read upon at least one of the first or second setting items and the “other” parameters discussed in Rafael to be the second or first (the opposite) setting items. Rafael discloses a series of compatibility checks where the vendor/model/revision information may not be initially compatible (thus, “not inheritable” based on a first check), but a stored look-up table may have further clarification regarding equivalency to allow parameters to be transferred with equivalent (but not identical) field devices. Therefore, Rafael continues to read upon the claim set. Regarding combinations of references in the below 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the examiner has provided KSR rationale with each combination to satisfy the examination requirements and respectfully disagrees with any argument that references are combined in a manner that is not consistent with KSR guidance. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 08 January 2026. Claims 2, 7, 11 are cancelled. Claims 13-18 are currently withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, and 19 are currently under consideration and are rejected as noted further below. Claims 1, 8-10, and 12 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“reception unit” – claims 1, 8-9
“transmission unit” – claims 1, 6, 8-9
“setting unit” – claims 1, 8
“specifying unit” – claims 1, 9-10, and 12
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding the aforementioned “units”, they are described as residing within components of known structure such as in paragraph [0018] of the specification or the applicable claim, such as within the machine tool or a computer, such as a server. Thus, the examiner is interpreting any physical component, software component, combination thereof, or equivalents to read upon the language of “unit”.
Further, regarding the term “inheritance possibility”, the Applicant noted in previous remarks on file that prior art of note checks compatibility and that "inheritance possibility" is not a compatibility check. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees and considers these terms analogous. The specification of the instant application in paragraphs [0054, 0062, 0075], for instance, discuss variations of what constitutes "inheritance possibility”, but does not clearly and explicitly redefine the term. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner is considering a compatibility check to be analogous to an "inheritance possibility". Further, as noted in the Non-Final Rejection dated 04 June 2024 of claim 2, the interpretation of "model" is broad, as different "models" of machine may simply be different types, or if a labeled "model" exists for a certain manufacturer, the "model" may have a plurality of revisions that renders each revision incompatible. Therefore, the examiner believes that the intent (and using broadest reasonable interpretation as such) of the claim terminology “model” is to state that the two machines are simply verified to be compatible.
Regarding "setting item", the examiner notes that paragraphs [0058-0064] (as examples) provide the basis for understanding and the applicable claims directly recite that the setting items are included within the setting data (thus, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withheld at this time). However, the term is not explicitly limited to a particular definition/particular elements and is therefore being interpreted broadly.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Both Claims 10 and 12 state "...the receiving the setting data including receiving selectively the first setting data item..." and should states "...the first setting [[data]] item..." to prevent a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 12 now states "...specifying, in response to an acquisition request of the setting data, the first model of the inheritance source machine tool from which setting data is inheritable to the second model of the by referring..." and is missing the phrase "inheritance destination machine tool" to then state "...to the second model of the inheritance destination machine tool by referring...", for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafael (US 2013/0257627 A1; hereinafter Rafael) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2019/0095246 A1; filed 09 Feb 2018, hereinafter Nakano).
Regarding claims 1 (system – independent), 9 (system – independent), 10 (method – independent), and 12 (apparatus – independent): Rafael discloses A machining system comprising: an information processing system; a first machine tool [which holds a tool inside] and is communicable with the information processing system; and a second machine tool [which holds a tool inside] and is communicable with the information processing system, wherein the information processing system includes: (per claim 1) / An information processing system communicable with a first machine tool [which holds a tool inside] and a second machine tool [which holds a tool inside], the information processing system comprising: (per claim 9) / An inheritance method for allowing inheritance of setting data from a first machine tool [which holds a tool inside] to a second machine tool [which holds a tool inside], the method comprising: (per claim 10) / A non-transitory computer readable medium including an inheritance program for allowing inheritance of setting data from a first machine tool [which holds a tool inside] to a second machine tool [which holds a tool inside], the inheritance program causing an information processing system to execute: (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0079-0082, 0084-0085, 0092-0098, 0102, 0120] and Figure [2, 3, 5, 9A] and Claim [1], Rafael discloses a system, apparatus, non-transitory memory housing instructions, and method comprising first and second field devices (first and second machine tools) connected to (communicable with) an apparatus and asset management system (the remainder of the system constituting an “information processing system”), in an effort to determine compatibility between the first and second field devices to permit a transfer of configuration data/parameters)
a reception unit that receives setting data in the first machine tool; (per claim 1) / a reception unit that receives setting data in the first machine tool, the setting data including a first setting item and a second setting item; (per claim 9) / receiving setting data in the first machine tool; storing the setting data received from the first machine tool into a storage device, the setting data including a first setting item and a second setting item; (per claim 10) / receiving setting data set in the first machine tool; storing the setting data received from the first machine tool into a storage device, the setting data including a first setting item and a second setting item; (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0036-0037, 0081, 0084, 0095, 0102] and Figure [2], Rafael discloses that the apparatus receives/stores data related to the first field device, certain other (generic, as they may be considered any of the other parameters described other than what follows) parameters corresponding to “first setting items” and parameters pertaining to vendor/model/revision as “second setting items”)
a storage device that stores inheritance possibility information from an inheritance source machine tool to an inheritance destination machine tool for each combination of a first model of the inheritance source machine tool and a second model of the inheritance destination machine tool and the setting data received from the first machine tool, (per claim 1) / a storage device that stores inheritance possibility information from an inheritance source machine tool to an inheritance destination machine tool for each combination of a first model of the inheritance source machine tool and a second model of the inheritance destination machine tool and the setting data received from the first machine tool, (per claim 9) / storing inheritance possibility information from an inheritance source machine tool to an inheritance destination machine tool for each combination of a first model of the inheritance source machine tool and a second model of the inheritance destination machine tool, (per claim 10) / storing inheritance possibility information which defines possibility of inheritance of setting data from an inheritance source machine tool to an inheritance destination machine tool for each combination of a first model of the inheritance source machine tool and a second model of the inheritance destination machine tool; (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0082-0086, 0100-0103, 0106, 0117] and Figure [4], Rafael discloses a compatibility check through a memory/database/server (storage devices) that contains 1) data related to compatibility between devices such as vendor, model, and revision with predetermined combinations of compatible field devices (thus “inheritance possibility information”) and 2) data related to the second field device including the model)
the setting data including a first setting item and a second setting item, the reception unit selectively receiving the first setting item when the first setting item is inheritable and the second setting items is not inheritable, the inheritance possibility information specifying whether or not the first and second setting items are inheritable; (per claim 1) / the inheritance possibility information specifying whether or not the first and second setting items are inheritable; (per claim 9) / the inheritance possibility information specifying whether or not the first and second setting items are inheritable; (per claim 10) (Paragraph [0081, 0086, 0090, 0101, 0104, 0106, 0123, 0128] and Figure [5-6], Rafael discloses that field devices comprise a plurality of parameters. Rafael further discloses that setting/parameter data comprises information such as vendor, model, and revision numbers that may be different between devices to be checked. A logical check determines if the model/revision/vendor are not identical and determines that the two field devices are not “logically compatible” (thus, the second setting item of model/revision/vendor is not “inheritable”/compatible). However, a second compatibility check (look-up table compatibility) is performed if they are deemed not “logically compatible” wherein devices with different model/revision/vendor information may be pre-determined as compatible. If the second compatibility check is performed, a set of parameters may continue to be exchanged)
a specifying unit that specifies, in response to an acquisition request of the setting data, the first model of the inheritance source machine tool from which the setting data is inheritable to the second model by referring to the inheritance possibility information; and (per claim 1) / a specifying unit that specifies, in response to an acquisition request of the setting data, the first model of the inheritance source machine tool from which the setting data is inheritable to the second model by referring to the inheritance possibility information; and (per claim 9) / specifying, in response to an acquisition request of the setting data, the first model of the inheritance source machine tool from which setting data is inheritable to the second model by referring to the inheritance possibility information; and (per claim 10) / specifying, in response to an acquisition request of the setting data, the first model of the inheritance source machine tool from which setting data is inheritable to the second model of the by referring to the inheritance possibility information; and (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0083-0085] and Figure [4], Rafael discloses specifying the model information of each device and set of compatibility checks based upon model information)
a transmission unit that transmits setting data used in the first model of the inheritance source machine tool specified by the specifying unit from among the setting data stored in the storage device to the second machine tool, and the second machine tool includes a setting unit that allows the second machine tool to inherit the setting data received from the information processing system. (per claim 1) / a transmission unit that transmits setting data used in the first model of the inheritance source machine tool specified by the specifying unit from among the setting data stored in the storage device to the second machine tool, the reception unit receiving selectively the first setting item when the first setting items is inheritable and the second setting item is not inheritable. (per claim 9) / transmitting setting data used in the first model of the inheritance source machine tool specified by the specifying unit from among the setting data stored in the storage device to the second machine tool, the receiving the setting data including receiving selectively the first setting data item when the first setting item is inheritable and the second setting item is not inheritable. (per claim 10) / transmitting setting data used in the first model of the inheritance source machine tool specified by the specifying unit from among the setting data stored in the storage device to the second machine tool, the receiving the setting data including receiving selectively the first setting data item when the first setting item is inheritable and the second setting items is not inheritable. (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0032-0034, 0081, 0098, 0117, 0123] and Claim [10-11], Rafael discloses that certain selected parameters (setting data) may be transferred to the second field device from the apparatus pending compatibility check using model information as noted above, despite initial incompatibilities (not “inheritable”) in parameter data pertaining to model/vendor/revision information)
The difference between the disclosure of Rafael and the above-noted claims of the instant application then lies in particular disclosure that the devices are specifically machine tools that hold a tool inside. The examiner submits that this is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Rafael.
Rafael does not explicitly disclose a machine tool which holds a tool inside.
However, Nakano, in a similar field of endeavor of machine system control, teaches machine tool which holds a tool inside (Paragraph [0070-0071, 0076] and Figure [3], Nakano teaches that a field device may reasonably comprise a CNC machine, with an internal tool used to perform an operation on a workpiece (the workpiece is placed inside of the CNC for the operation), such as devices (tools) for lathe machining, milling machining, etc.)
Rafael and Nakano are in a similar field of endeavor of machine system control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Rafael to include specific examples of field devices that house tools within the overarching machine such as that found in the teachings of Nakano. Rafael discloses that the field device is merely a generic term for a device with field communication capability (Rafael, Paragraph [0079]), thus leaving the type of device generic. Nakano is relied upon as a disclosure which teaches that field devices may reasonably include CNC machines, for example, which contain tools to perform subtractive manufacturing (Nakano, Paragraph [0070]). One would have been motivated to make this combination to merely apply the broad disclosure of Rafael to a more particular type of field device, such as the CNC of Nakano. Therefore, merely specifying that the device of concern is a “machine tool which holds a tool inside” is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Rafael, as evidenced by the teachings of Nakano. Merely applying the disclosure of Rafael to a more particular type of field device is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Rafael.
Regarding claim 8 (apparatus – independent): Rafael discloses A machine tool [which holds a tool inside] and is communicable with an information processing system that stores inheritance possibility information from an inheritance source machine tool to an inheritance destination machine tool for each combination of a first model of the inheritance source machine tool and a second model of the inheritance destination machine tool, (Paragraph [0079-0086, 0092-0098, 0100-0103, 0106, 0117, 0120] and Figure [2-5, 9A] and Claim [1], Rafael discloses a system, apparatus, non-transitory memory housing instructions, and method comprising first and second field devices (first and second machine tools) connected to (communicable with) an apparatus and asset management system (the remainder of the system constituting an “information processing system”), in an effort to determine compatibility between the first and second field devices to permit a transfer of configuration data/parameters. Rafael further discloses a compatibility check through a memory/database/server (storage devices) that contains 1) data related to compatibility between devices such as vendor, model, and revision with predetermined combinations of compatible field devices (thus “inheritance possibility information”) and 2) data related to the second field device including the model)
the setting data including a first setting item and a second setting item, the inheritance possibility information specifying whether or not the first and second setting items are inheritable (Paragraph [0081, 0086, 0090, 0101, 0104, 0106, 0123, 0128] and Figure [5-6], Rafael discloses that field devices comprise a plurality of parameters. Rafael further discloses that setting/parameter data comprises information such as vendor, model, and revision numbers that may be different between devices to be checked. A logical check determines if the model/revision/vendor are not identical and determines that the two field devices are not “logically compatible” (thus, the second setting item of model/revision/vendor is not “inheritable”/compatible). However, a second compatibility check (look-up table compatibility) is performed if they are deemed not “logically compatible” wherein devices with different model/revision/vendor information may be pre-determined as compatible. If the second compatibility check is performed, a set of parameters may continue to be exchanged)
the machine tool comprising: a transmission unit that transmits an acquisition request of the setting data to the information processing system; (Paragraph [0079, 0081, 0102, 0105] and Figure [6-7], Rafael discloses that parameters are download from a field device (device transmits parameters, a form of transmitting acquisition request) and that the field device is selectable (the action of selection from a connected field device may be considered an acquisition request as well), and finally “the apparatus 21 may retrieve the information and data by accessing the second field device via the interface 24” (thus, the field device itself transmits information))
a reception unit that receives selectively the first setting item transmitted from the information processing system in response to the acquisition request when the first setting item is inheritable and the second setting item is not inheritable to the machine tool based on the inheritance possibility information; and (Paragraph [0081-0082, 0086, 0090, 0101-0104, 0106-0116, 0123, 0128-0134, 0137] and Figure [5-6], Rafael discloses that the field devices receives data pending a compatibility check with the other field device. As noted above, the first compatibility check determines if the model/vendor/revision information (second setting items) is identical, and if not, deems them “logically incompatible”. Then, a second compatibility check is performed based upon a pre-determined look-up table and determines if devices that were identified as “logically incompatible” may still be compatible despite the differences in model/vendor/revision, and promotes the inheritance/transfer of the other parameters selected (first setting items))
a setting unit that allows the machine tool to inherit the setting data received from the information processing system. (Paragraph [0032-0034, 0081, 0098, 0102, 0107, 0129-0134, 0137], Figure [6-7], and Claim [10-11], Rafael discloses that the parameters (setting data) may be transferred/downloaded/exchanged to the second field device from the apparatus)
The difference between the disclosure of Rafael and the above-noted claim of the instant application then lies in particular disclosure that the devices are specifically machine tools that hold a tool inside. The examiner submits that this is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Rafael.
Rafael does not explicitly disclose a machine tool which holds a tool inside.
However, Nakano, in a similar field of endeavor of machine system control, teaches machine tool which holds a tool inside (Paragraph [0070-0071, 0076] and Figure [3], Nakano teaches that a field device may reasonably comprise a CNC machine, with an internal tool used to perform an operation on a workpiece (the workpiece is placed inside of the CNC for the operation), such as devices (tools) for lathe machining, milling machining, etc.)
Rafael and Nakano are in a similar field of endeavor of machine system control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Rafael to include specific examples of field devices that house tools within the overarching machine such as that found in the teachings of Nakano. Rafael discloses that the field device is merely a generic term for a device with field communication capability (Rafael, Paragraph [0079]), thus leaving the type of device generic. Nakano is relied upon as a disclosure which teaches that field devices may reasonably include CNC machines, for example, which contain tools to perform subtractive manufacturing (Nakano, Paragraph [0070]). One would have been motivated to make this combination to merely apply the broad disclosure of Rafael to a more particular type of field device, such as the CNC of Nakano. Therefore, merely specifying that the device of concern is a “machine tool which holds a tool inside” is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Rafael, as evidenced by the teachings of Nakano. Merely applying the disclosure of Rafael to a more particular type of field device is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Rafael.
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Rafael in view of Nakano. Rafael further discloses wherein the second machine tool receives selection of a setting item to be inherited to the second machine tool for setting items included in the setting data received from the information processing system. (The examiner is interpreting this claim to mean that the second machine tool receives a prompt to receive the setting data or that the settings themselves may be selected. Paragraph [0104, 0107, 0123], Rafael discloses that a parameter set may be determined to be changed, such as by a user)
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Rafael in view of Nakano. Rafael further discloses wherein when the second machine tool is in an initial setting state, the second machine tool receives whether to acquire the setting data stored in the storage device. (Paragraph [0082-0086, 0100-0103, 0106, 0117] and Figure [4], Rafael discloses a compatibility check prior to uploading/downloading the configuration/parameter data (the second field device is in a pre-settings transfer state, and is therefore in an “initial setting state”) and “whether to acquire” is dependent upon the compatibility check)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Rafael in view of Nakano. Rafael further discloses wherein the setting data stored in the storage device includes at least one of screen setting of the first machine tool and machining setting related to machining of the first machine tool. (The examiner notes that “at least one of” means that only one of the limitations is needed to anticipate the claim. Paragraph [0081], Rafael discloses that parameter (Setting) data may include calibration data (at least considered a “machining setting”))
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafael in view of Nakano in further view of Yang et al. (US 2003/0110371 A1; hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Rafael in view of Nakano. Rafael does not explicitly disclose user authentication to perform setting data.
However, Yang, in a similar field of endeavor of device to device settings transfer, teaches wherein each of the setting data stored in the storage device is associated with identification information of a user, the acquisition request includes identification information of a user logged in to the second machine tool, and the transmission unit transmits, to the second machine tool, setting data associated with the identification information included in the acquisition request from among the setting data stored in the storage device. (The examiner is interpreting this claim to mean that, when attempting to import the settings of the first machine to the second machine, user authentication is required. Paragraph [0016], Yang teaches that user authentication is required to import settings of the home device to the second device by way of username and password)
Rafael and Yang are in a similar field of endeavor of device to device settings transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the field device settings transfer disclosure of Rafael to require user authentication prior to transfer as taught by Yang, as this provides additional protection against inadvertent loading of settings (Yang, Paragraph [0016]). Rafael discloses that files may be encrypted to prevent unauthorized user access (Rafael, Paragraph [0100]), and while Rafael does not explicitly state that user authentication is required to import settings, the desire to provide information security is at least implied with this paragraph. Therefore, this constitutes a combination of known elements in accordance with known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafael in view of Nakano in further view of Bump et al. (US 2007/0250180 A1; published 25 Oct 2007, hereinafter Bump).
Regarding claim 19: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Rafael in view of Nakano. Rafael does not explicitly disclose user authentication to perform setting data transfer.
However, Bump, in a similar field of endeavor of device to device settings transfer, teaches wherein the possibility of inheritance is associated with an access level that is classified into a level permitting an access of a user to a function of the second machine tool and a level not permitting the access, and the transmission unit transmits the setting data to the second machine tool when the level permits the access of the user to the function of the second machine tool. (Paragraph [0047], Bump teaches that only a user having administrator rights (a user with a certain level of access, thus indicating non-admins, pertaining to a second level of access) may perform certain configuration changes)
Rafael and Bump are in a similar field of endeavor of device to device settings transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the field device settings transfer disclosure of Rafael to require user access prior to transfer as taught by Bump, as this ensures that only those with proper knowledge/rights are allowed to change the set of parameters (Bump, Paragraph [0047]). Rafael discloses that files may be encrypted to prevent unauthorized user access (Rafael, Paragraph [0100]), and while Rafael does not explicitly state that user access levels are required to import settings, the desire to provide information security is at least implied with this paragraph. Therefore, this constitutes a combination of known elements in accordance with known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658