DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 22 June 2026. Claims 1, 11, 12, and 14 have been amended. Claims 3, 9, and 10 were previously withdrawn and have been rejoined. Claims 15-17 have been newly added. Claims 1-12 and 14-17 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Rejoinder of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14-17 are allowable. Claims 3, 9, and 10, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions of species, as set forth in the office actions mailed on 21 April 2025 and 9 December 2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 3, 9, and 10 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 10, filed 22 June 2026, with respect to objected claims 1, 11, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 22 June 2026. The objections of claims 1, 11, and 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-17, filed 22 June 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 22 June 2026. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, and 14 have been withdrawn.
Claims 9 and 10 stand under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0106195 A1 (instant application):
The rules are not limited to the rules used in the above exemplary embodiments. For example, a second rule, which is the amount of heat generated by the execution of each of a plurality of blocks, may be used. In such cases, controller 24 may determine whether at least part of apparatus 20 will reach the maximum withstand temperature if the application is executed. If controller 24 determines that at least part of apparatus 20 will reach the maximum withstand temperature, controller 24 may modify the application by changing the order in which each of the plurality of blocks is executed. If each of the plurality of blocks includes a parameter for driving at least one of actuator 22 and heater 23, controller 24 may consult the second rule, the plurality of blocks included in the application, and the parameters included in the plurality of blocks, and calculate the temperature that at least part of apparatus 20 will be upon completion of the plurality of blocks. (pg. 13, par. [0206])
Claim 1 recites:
… the first rule that prohibits the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature as a result of two or more given blocks being executed in a given order
Claim 9 recites:
the first rule prohibits, based on a calculated amount of heat generated by execution of each of the plurality of blocks, at least part of the apparatus from reaching a maximum withstand temperature when the application is executed
In summary, the specification does not disclose a first rule prohibits at least one of actuator or heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature as a result of two or more given blocks being executed in a given order and at least part of an apparatus from reaching a maximum withstand temperature when an application is executed based on a calculated amount of heat generated by execution of each of a plurality of blocks. Hence, the only support for the prohibition of the at least one of actuator or heater from reaching the maximum withstand temperature as a result of the two or more given blocks being executed in the given order and the at least part of the apparatus from reaching the maximum withstand temperature when the application is executed based on the calculated amount of heat generated by execution of each of the plurality of blocks per the first rule is found in claim 9.
Claim 10, dependent from claim 9, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0106195 A1 (instant application):
The rules are not limited to the rules used in the above exemplary embodiments. For example, a second rule, which is the amount of heat generated by the execution of each of a plurality of blocks, may be used. In such cases, controller 24 may determine whether at least part of apparatus 20 will reach the maximum withstand temperature if the application is executed. If controller 24 determines that at least part of apparatus 20 will reach the maximum withstand temperature, controller 24 may modify the application by changing the order in which each of the plurality of blocks is executed. If each of the plurality of blocks includes a parameter for driving at least one of actuator 22 and heater 23, controller 24 may consult the second rule, the plurality of blocks included in the application, and the parameters included in the plurality of blocks, and calculate the temperature that at least part of apparatus 20 will be upon completion of the plurality of blocks. (pg. 13, par. [0206])
Claim 1 recites:
… the first rule that prohibits the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature as a result of two or more given blocks being executed in a given order
Claim 10:
each of the plurality of blocks includes a parameter for driving the at least one of the actuator or the heater, and
the controller:
consults the first rule, the plurality of blocks included in the application, and the parameter included in each of the plurality of blocks, and calculates a temperature that the at least part of the apparatus will be upon completion of the plurality of blocks; and
determines whether the temperature calculated reaches the maximum withstand temperature.
In summary, the specification does not disclose a combination of a first rule prohibits at least one of actuator or heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature as a result of two or more given blocks being executed in a given order; the first rule prohibits at least part of an apparatus from reaching a maximum withstand temperature when an application is executed based on a calculated amount of heat generated by execution of each of a plurality of blocks; and the first rule is consulted to calculate a temperature of the at least part of the apparatus upon completion of the plurality of blocks. Hence, the only support for the prohibition of the at least one of actuator or heater from reaching the maximum withstand temperature as the result of the two or more given blocks being executed in the given order and the at least part of the apparatus from reaching the maximum withstand temperature when the application is executed based on the calculated amount of heat generated by execution of each of the plurality of blocks per the first rule in combination with consulting the first rule to calculate the temperature of the at least part of the apparatus upon completion of the plurality of blocks is found in claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of “… the first rule prohibits the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature as a result of the two or more given blocks being executed in the given order” in claim 6 (lines 2-4) fails to further limit the limitation of “… the first rule that prohibits the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature as a result of two or more given blocks being executed in a given order” in claim 1 (lines 9-11). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14-17 are allowed.
Reasons for the Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Numerous U.S. and Foreign Patent Publications and U.S. Patents; e.g. WIPO Publication No. 2004/088505 A2 discloses using a sequence of commands respecting at least one rule where a tree structure corresponding to the sequence of commands is built and an operation is performed on the tree structure to provide a new sequence of commands; U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0185079 A1 discloses a home appliance, a home appliance system, and a method for operating the same, which updates data in the home appliance and diagnoses a state of the home appliance by collecting the data in the home appliance; and United Kingdom Patent Publication No. GB 2 440 378 A discloses a network configuration apparatus for a network of a communication system receives a set of configuration change commands defining a desired network configuration.
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, expressly teach or fairly suggest the combination of the specifics of obtaining an application defined by a plurality of blocks that drive at least one actuator or heater and includes information on an order in which each of the plurality of blocks is executed; referring to a first rule that prohibits the at least one actuator or heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature and defines a method for changing an order in which each of the plurality of blocks is executed; modifying the application by changing the order in which each of the plurality of blocks is executed according to the method; and driving the at least one actuator or heater to control at least one of an operating timing or an operation duration based on the modified application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to control systems and methods/systems for generating and executing a program.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0252839 A1 discloses adjusting operating parameters of a robot to move an effector tool along a given path in an optimum cycle time.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0103842 A1 discloses an information processing method and the like for generating a control program for an apparatus including an actuator and/or a heater.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0113522 A1 discloses an information processing method capable of easily generating a wide variety of safety control programs.
U.S. Patent No. 7,174,359 B1 discloses a data processing system and method for scheduling a sequential execution of multiple commands.
U.S. Patent No. 12,618,182 B2 discloses an apparatus including an actuator and/or a heater and a method for controlling the apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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 at 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 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights