Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the communications filed 9/05/2023. As per the claims filed 3/30/2023:
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words (currently contains 172 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Title of the Invention
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: a sensor configured to measure a physical quantity, a sensor driver configured to add, a control device configured to transmit the control signal, a buffer unit configured to hold an array of a number of elements, a control unit configured to generate the control signal, and a transmitter configured to transmit in claim 1.
A control device configured to transmit a control signal, a receiver configured to receive the physical quantity, a buffer unit configured to hold an array, a control unit configured to generate the control signal, a transmitter configured to transmit the generated control signal in claim 7, and 8, 9;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention includes “control program” which is not embodied on any statutory medium (i.e., physical or tangible form), hence it is referred to as software per se and software is not a statutory category of patentable subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 1:
None of the closest prior art either alone or in obvious combination disclose the claimed invention. The closest prior art of record, Yoshida (US 2019/0215254) discloses a control device that receives a control result from a target device and generates control data for performing a feedback control with dead time compensation.
Yasuda (US2020/0305180) discloses a control apparatus transmitting a control signal at a prescribed transmission interval to a device that sends out a reply signal. The control apparatus calculates a communication delay time from the difference between a transmission time of the control signal and a reception time of the reply signal, then changing the prescribed transmission interval to maintain a stable control.
Xie et al (Visual Servoing with Modified Smith Predictor for Micromanipulation Tasks) discloses a control program with modified Smith predicator to eliminate delay in the model.
The prior art of record failed to specifically disclose:
“a sensor driver configured to add a transmission sequence number incremented for each control cycle to the physical quantity, and transmit the physical quantity; and a control device configured to transmit the control signal to the target device based on the physical quantity and a command value, and perform feedback control, wherein the control device includes: a receiver configured to receive the physical quantity to which the transmission sequence number is added; a buffer unit configured to hold an array of a number of elements determined based on a maximum value of a number of delay periods with which the physical quantity is delayed and received in a control cycle; a control unit configured to generate the control signal based on the physical quantity and the command value; and a transmitter configured to transmit the generated control signal to the target device, and the control unit: increments a reception sequence number for each control cycle, stores the physical quantity at a storage position of an array determined based on the transmission sequence number and the reception sequence number added to the received physical quantity, and generates the control signal based on the physical quantity stored in a storage position for control among storage positions of the array, and the command value.” with the remaining claimed features and limitation.
It is for these reasons that applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2-6 are allowed due to their direct/indirect dependency on claim 1.
Independent claim 7 and 8 recites the similar allowable subject matter as claim 1. Hence claim 7-8 are also allowed.
Independent claim 9 recites the same allowable subject matter as claim 1 and would be allowable when claim 9 is amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118