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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2025 have been carefully and fully considered. With respect to applicant’s argument of the remarks on the rejection which recites:
“claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter because claim 1, as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application… considering these two showings, as described below, the specification provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the invention of claim 1 provides an improvement, and claim 1 itself reflects the disclosed improvement. Applicant respectfully submits that the specification provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the invention of claim 1 is not directed to the judicial exception because it provides an improvement in relevant existing technology (i.e. viewing the state of control targets in synchronization during simulation of synchronous control… The specification clearly describes how these problems may be solved. That is “one or more aspects of the present invention are directed to a technique that allows viewing of the state of control targets in synchronization during simulation of synchronous control… such displays allow “the user to easily obtain the states about the synchronous control, and the control targets to be controlled synchronously), and to easily determine whether the details of control are as intended”
Examiner notes that “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensue 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” MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Simply displaying data does not sufficiently include the steps that provide the improvement. Additionally as listed in the MPEP 2106.05(a) II. Improvements to any other technology or technical field “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
“Applicant respectfully submits that Inukai fails to disclose or suggest the feature … Rather, Inukai merely describes real and virtual devices. That is, Inukai does not disclose or suggest the synchronization target group or the non-synchronization target group”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant’s comments are well taken and appreciated, in response to applicant's argument examiner notes that the real devices and the virtual devices that have been executed are interpreted as the synchronization target group, the real and virtual devices are synchronized, and therefore the virtual/real devices that are simulated out of a plurality of real devices are interpreted as the synchronization target group. Additionally claim 1 does not require “non-synchronization target group”, however, the “control target other than the synchronization target group” is interpreted as the other plurality of devices that are not yet executed/synchronized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “identify, among the plurality of control targets, a synchronization target group including control targets synchronously controlled in the execution of the program in the simulation” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [0014] “synchronization to allow the user to easily identify portions to be debugged, and improves efficiency”.
The limitations of “identify, among the plurality of control targets, a synchronization target group including control targets synchronously controlled in the execution of the program in the simulation” are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example language, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could make a decision, and observation, 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements- “A processing device for displaying a result of simulation of synchronous control performed by a control device to synchronously control at least two of a plurality of control targets by executing a program, the processing device comprising: a display configured to display the plurality of control targets in accordance with execution of the program in the simulation; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to cause the processing device to:”, “cause the display to display the identified synchronization target group among the plurality of control targets displayed by the display in a manner distinguishable from control targets other than the synchronization target group”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of “A processing device for displaying a result of simulation of synchronous control performed by a control device to synchronously control at least two of a plurality of control targets by executing a program, the processing device comprising: a display configured to display the plurality of control targets in accordance with execution of the program in the simulation; and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to cause the processing device to:”, “cause the display to display the identified synchronization target group among the plurality of control targets displayed by the display in a manner distinguishable from control targets other than the synchronization target group”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “ . Additionally the claim recites- “in every predetermined control cycle to calculate a first command value for controlling one or more first control targets being one or more of the plurality of control targets”, “calculate a second command value for controlling one or more second control targets being another control target of the plurality of control targets in every predetermined control cycle”, and “identifies, among the one or more first control targets and the one or more second control targets, the synchronization target group synchronously controlled”. The claim additionally recites “wherein the control device further includes a first processor configured to execute a first program in a first execution format in which the first program is fully executed for each execution”, “and a second processor configured to execute a second program in a second execution format in which parts of the second program are successively executed”, “accordance with an intermediate code generated by an interpreter interpreting at least a part of the second program, the display displays the one or more first control targets controlled by the first processor and the one or more second control targets controlled by the second processor in accordance with execution of the first program and the second program in the simulation”, “controller”, “in the execution of the first program and the second program in the simulation, and the controller causes the display to display the identified synchronization target group among the one or more of first control targets and the one or more of second control targets displayed by the display in a manner distinguishable from control targets other than the identified synchronization target group.” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits abstract ideas from claim 1. The claim additionally recites “wherein the control device synchronously controls different synchronization target groups with different degrees of synchronization precision by executing the program, and the controller causes the display to display the different synchronization target groups in different display forms in accordance with types of synchronization precision in the synchronous control” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits abstract ideas from claim 1. The claim additionally recites “wherein for the control device to perform the synchronous control with another control device including predetermined processors corresponding to the first processor and the second processor in the control device with a degree of synchronization precision different from a degree of synchronization precision within the control device, the controller causes the display to display the synchronization target group synchronously controlled by the control device and an inter-device synchronization target group synchronously controlled between the control device and the other control device in different display forms in accordance with a difference between the synchronization precision within the control device and the synchronization precision between the control device and the other control device” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits abstract ideas from claim 1. The claim additionally recites “wherein the controller causes the display to further display temporal transitions of predetermined signals associated with the synchronous control for the control targets included in the synchronization target group in accordance with the execution of the first program and the second program, and the temporal transitions of the predetermined signals are displayed with time axes matching each other” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim inherits abstract ideas from claim 1. The claim additionally recites “wherein during a predetermined period including a switching time between the synchronous control and asynchronous control of the synchronization target group, the controller causes the display to display the plurality of control targets at a slower speed than during a period other than the predetermined period” which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “identifying, among the plurality of control targets, a synchronization target group including control targets synchronously controlled” – Specification supports this as it describes this as [0014] “synchronization to allow the user to easily identify portions to be debugged, and improves efficiency”.
The limitations of “identifying, among the plurality of control targets, a synchronization target group including control targets synchronously controlled” are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example language, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses that the user mentally could make a decision, and observation, 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements- “A processing method for displaying a result of simulation of synchronous control performed by a control device to synchronously control at least two of a plurality of control targets by executing a program, the method being executed by a computer, the method comprising: causing a display device to display the plurality of control targets in accordance with execution of the program in the simulation”, “the execution of the program in the simulation; and causing the display device to display the synchronization target group identified among the plurality of control targets displayed by the display device in a manner distinguishable from control targets other than the synchronization target group”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements 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 element of “A processing method for displaying a result of simulation of synchronous control performed by a control device to synchronously control at least two of a plurality of control targets by executing a program, the method being executed by a computer, the method comprising: causing a display device to display the plurality of control targets in accordance with execution of the program in the simulation”, “the execution of the program in the simulation; and causing the display device to display the synchronization target group identified among the plurality of control targets displayed by the display device in a manner distinguishable from control targets other than the synchronization target group”, which is simply using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas -Mere instructions to apply an exception – see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inukai et al. (JP2009282755, herein Inukai, note a machine translation is being used for mapping).
Regarding claim 1, Inukai teaches A processing device for displaying a result of simulation of synchronous control performed by a control device to synchronously control at least two of a plurality of control targets by executing a program ([0001] The present invention relates to a simulation apparatus that simulates the operation of a real device to be simulated among a plurality of real devices constituting a production system in a virtual display space, [0005] the execution unit operates the virtual device in the virtual display space by the simulation unit based on the connection relation of the nodes having the tree structure set by the setting unit, or operates the real device by the execution unit. Therefore, it is easy to describe the connection relationship for controlling the operation of the real device and the virtual device), the processing device comprising: a display configured to display the plurality of control targets in accordance with execution of the program in the simulation ([0008] The monitoring unit 4 is for displaying a tree structure describing an operation sequence described by an operator (hereinafter referred to as an operation tree) and monitoring the operation of the virtual machine 6 in the virtual display space); and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to cause the processing device to: identify, among the plurality of control targets, a synchronization target group including control targets synchronously controlled in the execution of the program in the simulation ([0010] When the real machine 5 and the virtual machine 6 are mixed, the operations of both are synchronized. As a synchronization method, task management by the task management buffer 7 was used as described later, [0008] The simulation management unit 2 has the following characteristics. (1) The simulation management unit 2 stores an execution program (indicated by A, B, C... In FIG. 1) in the internal memory, and directly controls the actual machine 5 (in the conventional system, the actual machine internal In other words, the virtual machine 6 is controlled in the virtual display space. (2) The actual machine 5 is electrically connected to the gate 8 of the simulation management unit 2, and control, [0029] The simulation management unit 2 starts executing the programs corresponding to the tasks O and O ′ loaded in the task management buffer 7 in parallel. As a result, the virtual robot moves in the virtual display space at the same time as the actual robot actually moves, [0007] operating a plurality of real machines/devices or virtual machines/devices …executed in sequence) and cause the display to display the identified synchronization target group among the plurality of control targets displayed by the display in a manner distinguishable from control targets other than the synchronization target group ([0005] the execution unit operates the virtual device in the virtual display space by the simulation unit based on the connection relation of the nodes having the tree structure set by the setting unit, or operates the real device by the execution unit. Therefore, it is easy to describe the connection relationship for controlling the operation of the real device and the virtual device, [0008] The monitoring unit 4 is for displaying a tree structure describing an operation sequence described by an operator (hereinafter referred to as an operation tree) and monitoring the operation of the virtual machine 6 in the virtual display space), [0007] operating a plurality of real machines/devices or virtual machines/devices …executed in sequence).
Regarding claim 7, Inukai teaches A processing method for displaying a result of simulation of synchronous control performed by a control device to synchronously control at least two of a plurality of control targets by executing a program ([0001] The present invention relates to a simulation apparatus that simulates the operation of a real device to be simulated among a plurality of real devices constituting a production system in a virtual display space, [0005] the execution unit operates the virtual device in the virtual display space by the simulation unit based on the connection relation of the nodes having the tree structure set by the setting unit, or operates the real device by the execution unit. Therefore, it is easy to describe the connection relationship for controlling the operation of the real device and the virtual device), the method being executed by a computer, the method comprising: causing a display device to display the plurality of control targets in accordance with execution of the program in the simulation ([0008] The monitoring unit 4 is for displaying a tree structure describing an operation sequence described by an operator (hereinafter referred to as an operation tree) and monitoring the operation of the virtual machine 6 in the virtual display space); identifying, among the plurality of control targets, a synchronization target group including control targets synchronously controlled in the execution of the program in the simulation ([0010] When the real machine 5 and the virtual machine 6 are mixed, the operations of both are synchronized. As a synchronization method, task management by the task management buffer 7 was used as described later, [0008] The simulation management unit 2 has the following characteristics. (1) The simulation management unit 2 stores an execution program (indicated by A, B, C... In FIG. 1) in the internal memory, and directly controls the actual machine 5 (in the conventional system, the actual machine internal In other words, the virtual machine 6 is controlled in the virtual display space. (2) The actual machine 5 is electrically connected to the gate 8 of the simulation management unit 2, and control, [0029] The simulation management unit 2 starts executing the programs corresponding to the tasks O and O ′ loaded in the task management buffer 7 in parallel. As a result, the virtual robot moves in the virtual display space at the same time as the actual robot actually moves); and causing the display device to display the synchronization target group identified among the plurality of control targets displayed by the display device in a manner distinguishable from control targets other than the synchronization target group ([0005] the execution unit operates the virtual device in the virtual display space by the simulation unit based on the connection relation of the nodes having the tree structure set by the setting unit, or operates the real device by the execution unit. Therefore, it is easy to describe the connection relationship for controlling the operation of the real device and the virtual device, [0008] The monitoring unit 4 is for displaying a tree structure describing an operation sequence described by an operator (hereinafter referred to as an operation tree) and monitoring the operation of the virtual machine 6 in the virtual display space)).
Relevant Art Cited by Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Inukai, JP2009282755 discloses a simulation apparatus connecting relationships for controlling actions of physical devices and virtual devices at the same synchronizing their actions.
Hongqiang (CN111381815) discloses downloading programs to the controllers of two physical robots and completing dual machine collaboration, and translating trajectory information into instructions for a double robot cooperative intelligent system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are considered as allowable subject matter if written to overcome the 101 rejection. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The reasons for allowance of Claim 2 is that the prior art of record, including the reference(s) cited below, neither anticipates, not renders obvious the recited combination as a whole; including the limitations of:
“a first processor configured to execute a first program in a first execution format in which the first program is fully executed for each execution in every predetermined control cycle to calculate a first command value for controlling one or more first control targets being one or more of the plurality of control targets, and a second processor configured to execute a second program in a second execution format in which parts of the second program are successively executed to calculate a second command value for controlling one or more second control targets being another control target of the plurality of control targets in every predetermined control cycle in accordance with an intermediate code generated by an interpreter interpreting at least a part of the second program, the display displays the one or more first control targets controlled by the first processor and the one or more second control targets controlled by the second processor in accordance with execution of the first program and the second program in the simulation”
As dependent claims 3-6, depend from an allowable base claim; they are at least allowable for the same reasons as noted supra. The prior art made of record Inukai, and Hongqiang anticipates nor render obvious the above-recited combinations for at least the reasons specified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Koyama (US20130282148) teaches a motion controller improving system responsiveness.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YVONNE T FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 1-9pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YVONNE TRANG FOLLANSBEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights