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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on August 30th, 2023, which claims 10-29 are presented for examination.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 have been preliminarily canceled and claims 10-29 have been examined below.
Claims 10, 17, and 24 are presented in independent form.
Effective Date
Effective date that has been considered for this application is March 11th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 08/30/2023; 09/29/2023; 11/08/2024; 01/29/2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. The complied IDS have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns 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 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.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 21, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14, 21, and 28 recite the limitation “a basis of a result of extraction” in lines 3-4, 4, and 28, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading -- a basis of [[a]] the result of extraction -- for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 15-16, 22-23, and 28-29 depend on claims 14, 21, and 28, respectively, but not cure the deficiencies of those claims. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13, 20, and 27 recite the limitation “acquire the second list of one or more projects specified by a user as the information” in lines 2-3, 3, and 3, respectively. It is unclear that which information this limitation refers to, such as, the information acquired by the acquisition unit or information for specifying the second variable.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-16 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as reciting means-plus functions.
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 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 storage unit configured to store,” “an extraction unit configured to extract,” “an acquisition unit configured to acquire,” “a determination unit configured to determine,” “a variable deletion unit configured to delete” “an interface unit for inputting” and “the interface unit is configured to output” recited in claims 10-16.
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.
Claims 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 10-16 are directed to devices and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 17-23 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 24-29 is directed to non-transitory storage medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 10, 17, and 24: recite the limitations of “
extracting a first variable that is unused in a source code of the control program from a first list that declares a plurality of variables used in the source code;
acquiring information for specifying a second variable having a possibility of being exchanged between the control target and the control device out of the plurality of variables in a state before execution of the control program; and
determining that a variable corresponding to the second variable out of the first variable is indelible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the extracting and the information acquired by the acquiring in the state before execution of the control program.”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a) and (c) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
Claims 10, 17, and 24: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “a development support device,” “control program,” “control device,” “control target” “storage unit,” “extraction unit,” “acquisition unit,” “determination unit,” “a network” “a variable deletion unit,” “an interface unit,” “development support method,” “a non-transitory storage medium encoded with a computer-readable development support program,” “a computer,” and “one or more processors,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Step (b) is recited at high level of generality and amount to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 10, 17 and 24 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claims 10, 17, and 24:
Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 10, 17, and 24 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 11, 18, and 25, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein each of the plurality of variables has attribute information that defines whether the variable is public to a network including the control target and the control device, the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute information as information for specifying the second variable, and the determination unit is configured determine that a variable specified to be public to the network by the attribute information out of the plurality of variables is indelible from the first list as the second variable” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 11, 18, and 25 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 11, 18, and 25 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 11, 18, and 25 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 12, 19, and 26, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire a second list indicating a variable specified to be a target of exchange between the control target and the control device when the control program is executed, as information for specifying the second variable, in the state before execution of the control program” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 12, 19, and 26 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 12, 19, and 26 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 12, 19, and 26 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 13, 20, and 27, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the second list of one or more projects specified by a user as the information, and the determination unit is configured to execute the determination by regarding a variable included in the second list in at least one of the projects out of the plurality of variables to be the second variable” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 13, 20, and 27 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 13, 20, and 27 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 13, 20, and 27 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 14, 21, and 28, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the extraction unit and the information acquired by the acquisition unit in the state before execution of the control program” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 14, 21, and 28 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 14, 21, and 28 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 14, 21, and 28 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 15, 22, and 29, they recite additional element recitations of “a variable deletion unit configured to delete the third variable from the first list” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 15, 22, and 29 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 15, 22, and 29 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 15, 22, and 29 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 16 and 23, they recite additional element recitations of “an interface unit for inputting an operation of a user, wherein the extraction unit, the acquisition unit, and the determination unit are configured to operate in accordance with an input of a first operation that activates deletion processing of an unnecessary variable on the interface unit, the interface unit is configured to output a message asking the user whether to delete the third variable extracted by the determination unit from the first list, and the variable deletion unit is configured to operate in accordance with an input of a second operation that gives a command for deleting the third variable in accordance with the message on the interface unit” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 16 and 23 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 16 and 23 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 16 and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 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.
Claims 10-12, 14-19, 21-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Munamoto Kenichi (JP2002/062910 – hereinafter, Munamoto – IDS filed 08/30/2023) in view of Hitomi Shigeru et al. (JP2009/009607 – hereinafter, Hitomi – IDS filed 08/30/2023).
Regarding claim 10:
Munamoto discloses a development support device for supporting development of a control program for a control device that controls a control target (“The present invention relates to a system having a function of displaying a state of a control target device and/or a function of controlling an operation of the control target device, and relates to an editor device for programming a display content according to a state of the control target device and/or a control procedure of the control target device, and a recording medium on which the editor program is recorded” (See para [0001])), the development support device comprising:
a storage unit configured to store a source code of the control program and a first list that declares a plurality of variables used in the source code (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The ladder editor 32a as the second editor means is programming software for creating a ladder program for determining a control procedure of the PLC 2 so that the input/output device 4 operates according to a desired sequence, and is configured to create a ladder diagram by arranging a ladder symbol (image block) corresponding to the operation of the input/output device 4 on the display screen 35a (see FIG. 17A) of the display 35. In this ladder editor 32a, for example, the aforementioned programming language conforming to the International Reference IEC is used. In addition, the ladder editor 32a uses a variable processing unit V described later to assign an input/output number to an input number and an output number assigned to each of an input terminal and an output terminal of the PLC 2 and a variable set for the input/output device 4 connected to each input/output terminal (I)／ This is performed as an O assignment. The result of this allocation is stored in a ladder file 33a to be described later.” (See paras [0048] – [0049]). FIG. 5 and associated text, such as, “The variable setting unit V1 causes the display 35 to display the variable list VL as illustrated in FIG. 5 in order to allow the user to set a variable, and stores data (variable data) related to the set variable in a data file 33 to be described later. A variable, a variable type, a variable type, and an attribute are displayed in the variable list VL. The variable type represents a type of a variable such as an integer or a discrete type, and the variable type represents a type of a variable such as an input, an output, an internal, and a system. The input is a variable allocated to the input device, and the output represents a variable allocated to the output device.” (See para [0055]));
an extraction unit configured to extract a first variable that is unused in the source code from the plurality of variables on the first list (“when an undefined variable is extracted from the common database and registered in the screen file in the ladder diagram, since the variable is undefined, the variable is not associated with the control target device, and even if the control target device is operated by actually executing the ladder program, there is a disadvantage that the mark is not correctly displayed” (See para [0016]));
a determination unit configured to determine that a variable corresponding to the second variable out of the first variable is indelible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the extraction unit (“Further, the variable setting unit V 1 as the deletion unit has a function of collectively deleting a variable determined not to be allocated to the address by the variable allocation determination unit V 2, that is, an unused variable by an instruction of the user. Therefore, the variable setting unit V 1 displays a dialog box (not shown) or the like for confirming whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted. The variable setting unit V 1 May be configured to display only unused variables when closing the variable list VL, and to confirm whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted by displaying the dialog box or the like described above” (See para [0058]) [[and the information acquired by the acquisition unit in the state before execution of the control program]]).
But Munamoto does not explicitly teach:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information for specifying a second variable having a possibility of being exchanged between the control target and the control device out of the plurality of variables in a state before execution of the control program;
However, Hitomi discloses:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information for specifying a second variable having a possibility of being exchanged between the control target and the control device out of the plurality of variables in a state before execution of the control program (“the control execution unit for operating the control device (node) can access the data stored in the storage unit by acquiring the related information based on the logical name.” (See para [0014]). “That is, as shown in the flowchart shown in FIG. 12, creation of the Export variable list 20 searches for an output variable in which the offset value is set to 0 (ST1) and the input/output attribute is output by accessing the variable database 17, that is, a network global variable that the own node discloses to the other node (ST2).” (See paras [0053] – [0054]). “Then, in the case of the input variable, it is determined whether or not the variable is already a variable (a public variable) disclosed in another node (ST83). In the case of an unpublished (undisclosed variable), since it is not possible to acquire and use the data of the variable at the present time point, an Import variable table for the variable is created and valid／ The invalid flag is set to be invalid and then added to the Import variable list (ST84). The flag for this variable is effectively switched when the other node discloses the network global variable” (see para [0087])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hitomi into the teachings of Munamoto because that would have provided the control execution unit for operating the control device (node) can access the data stored in the storage unit by acquiring the related information based on the logical name as suggested by Hitomi (See para [0014]).
Regarding claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, but Munamoto does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the plurality of variables has attribute information that defines whether the variable is public to a network including the control target and the control device, the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute information as information for specifying the second variable, and the determination unit is configured determine that a variable specified to be public to the network by the attribute information out of the plurality of variables is indelible from the first list as the second variable.
However, Hitomi discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of variables has attribute information that defines whether the variable is public to a network including the control target and the control device, the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the attribute information as information for specifying the second variable, and the determination unit is configured determine that a variable specified to be public to the network by the attribute information out of the plurality of variables is indelible from the first list as the second variable (“Then, in the case of the input variable, it is determined whether or not the variable is already a variable (a public variable) disclosed in another node (ST83). In the case of an unpublished (undisclosed variable), since it is not possible to acquire and use the data of the variable at the present time point, an Import variable table for the variable is created and valid／ The invalid flag is set to be invalid and then added to the Import variable list (ST84). The flag for this variable is effectively switched when the other node discloses the network global variable” (see para [0087])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hitomi into the teachings of Munamoto because that would have provided the control execution unit for operating the control device (node) can access the data stored in the storage unit by acquiring the related information based on the logical name as suggested by Hitomi (See para [0014]).
Regarding claim 12:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, but Munamoto does not explicitly teach:
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire a second list indicating a variable specified to be a target of exchange between the control target and the control device when the control program is executed, as information for specifying the second variable, in the state before execution of the control program.
However, Hitomi discloses:
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire a second list indicating a variable specified to be a target of exchange between the control target and the control device when the control program is executed, as information for specifying the second variable, in the state before execution of the control program (“the control execution unit for operating the control device (node) can access the data stored in the storage unit by acquiring the related information based on the logical name.” (See para [0014]). “That is, as shown in the flowchart shown in FIG. 12, creation of the Export variable list 20 searches for an output variable in which the offset value is set to 0 (ST1) and the input/output attribute is output by accessing the variable database 17, that is, a network global variable that the own node discloses to the other node (ST2).” (See paras [0053] – [0054])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hitomi into the teachings of Munamoto because that would have provided the control execution unit for operating the control device (node) can access the data stored in the storage unit by acquiring the related information based on the logical name as suggested by Hitomi (See para [0014]).
Regarding claim 14:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, Munamoto further discloses wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the extraction unit and the information acquired by the acquisition unit in the state before execution of the control program (“Further, the variable setting unit V 1 as the deletion unit has a function of collectively deleting a variable determined not to be allocated to the address by the variable allocation determination unit V 2, that is, an unused variable by an instruction of the user. Therefore, the variable setting unit V 1 displays a dialog box (not shown) or the like for confirming whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted. The variable setting unit V 1 May be configured to display only unused variables when closing the variable list VL, and to confirm whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted by displaying the dialog box or the like described above” (See para [0058])).
Regarding claim 15:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Munamoto further comprising a variable deletion unit configured to delete the third variable from the first list (“Further, the variable setting unit V 1 as the deletion unit has a function of collectively deleting a variable determined not to be allocated to the address by the variable allocation determination unit V 2, that is, an unused variable by an instruction of the user. Therefore, the variable setting unit V 1 displays a dialog box (not shown) or the like for confirming whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted. The variable setting unit V 1 May be configured to display only unused variables when closing the variable list VL, and to confirm whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted by displaying the dialog box or the like described above” (See para [0058])).
Regarding claim 16:
The rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, Munamoto further comprising an interface unit for inputting an operation of a user, wherein
the extraction unit, the acquisition unit, and the determination unit are configured to operate in accordance with an input of a first operation that activates deletion processing of an unnecessary variable on the interface unit (“when an undefined variable is extracted from the common database and registered in the screen file in the ladder diagram, since the variable is undefined, the variable is not associated with the control target device, and even if the control target device is operated by actually executing the ladder program, there is a disadvantage that the mark is not correctly displayed” (See para [0016])),
the interface unit is configured to output a message asking the user whether to delete the third variable extracted by the determination unit from the first list (“When at least one of the display of the usage variable and the unused variable is selected by the variable setting unit V1, the variable allocation determination unit V2 as the determination means searches the variable data stored in the data file 33 to determine whether or not each variable is allocated to the address, and notifies the variable setting unit V1 of the result. In the determination result, the variable allocated to the address is used as the use variable, and the variable not allocated to the address is used as the unused variable” (See para [0059])), and
the variable deletion unit is configured to operate in accordance with an input of a second operation that gives a command for deleting the third variable in accordance with the message on the interface unit (“Further, the variable setting unit V 1 as the deletion unit has a function of collectively deleting a variable determined not to be allocated to the address by the variable allocation determination unit V 2, that is, an unused variable by an instruction of the user. Therefore, the variable setting unit V 1 displays a dialog box (not shown) or the like for confirming whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted. The variable setting unit V 1 May be configured to display only unused variables when closing the variable list VL, and to confirm whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted by displaying the dialog box or the like described above” (See para [0058])).
Regarding claim 17:
This is a development support method version of the rejected development support device claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
The rejection of base claim 17 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 11, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
The rejection of base claim 17 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 12, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21:
The rejection of base claim 17 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 14, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22:
The rejection of base claim 17 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 15, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23:
The rejection of base claim 17 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 16, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24:
This is a non-transitory storage medium version of the rejected development support device claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25:
The rejection of base claim 24 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 11, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26:
The rejection of base claim 24 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 12, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 28:
The rejection of base claim 24 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 14, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 29:
The rejection of base claim 24 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 15, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 13, 20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Munamoto in view of Hitomi as applied to claims 10, 17, and 24 above, and further in view of Iwase Tomohiko et al. (JP 2017/204090 – hereinafter, Iwase – IDS filed 08/30/2023).
Regarding claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, Munamoto further discloses [[wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the second list of one or more projects specified by a user as the information]], and the determination unit is configured to execute the determination by regarding a variable included in the second list in at least one of the projects out of the plurality of variables to be the second variable (“Further, the variable setting unit V 1 as the deletion unit has a function of collectively deleting a variable determined not to be allocated to the address by the variable allocation determination unit V 2, that is, an unused variable by an instruction of the user. Therefore, the variable setting unit V 1 displays a dialog box (not shown) or the like for confirming whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted. The variable setting unit V 1 May be configured to display only unused variables when closing the variable list VL, and to confirm whether or not the unused variables may be collectively deleted by displaying the dialog box or the like described above” (See para [0058])).
But, Munamoto does not explicitly teach:
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the second list of one or more projects specified by a user as the information.
However, Iwase discloses:
wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the second list of one or more projects specified by a user as the information (“At this time, the user can specify data to be displayed in the list of static analysis results by simultaneously inputting information for specifying the project and information for specifying the source code. For example, when the project name is designated, the correction probability calculation system 10 refers to the project information DB 12to acquire the project ID 701 corresponding to the project name 702, and refers to the source code DB 11 to acquire the source code ID 601 corresponding to the project ID 701. The source code ID 601 acquired here is a source code ID corresponding to the designated project name.” (See para [0085])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Iwase into the teachings of Munamoto because that would have analyzed multifaceted of the data of the static analysis result of the source code, and the priority of the source code that needs to be corrected can be presented to the user as suggested by Hitomi (See para [0008]).
Regarding claim 20:
The rejection of base claim 17 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 13, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 27:
The rejection of base claim 24 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 13, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 February 6th, 2026