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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/9/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/9/23, 1/28/25, 3/25/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim 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: program path creation unit in claim 1, machining condition storage unit in claims 1 and 3, machining condition change unit in claims 1 and 3-6, compensation path creation unit, excessive cutting determination unit, avoidance path creation unit, and unmachined path detection unit in claim 2.
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 § 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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “an unmachined part” in line 8, it further recites “an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process” in lines 10-11, it then further recites “the unmachined part” in line 12, first, it is not clear whether the unmachined part in line 12 is referring to “an unmachined part” in line 8 or “an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process” in lines 10-11. Second, it is not clear how an “unmachined” part can occur in a prior machining process, since any machining process would produce some kind of machined part, for the purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “an unmachined part” in line 8 as “a specified part” and the examiner has interpreted “a machining condition change unit that, when an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process, changes a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the unmachined part” in lines 10-12 as “where the program path for each of the machining processes is analyzed by a compensation path creation unit configured to correct the program path for each of the machining processes based on amount of wire diameter compensation to create a compensation path; an excessive cutting determination unit configured to determine whether or not there is a part where excessive cutting is expected to occur in the compensation path; and if it is determined that the excessive cutting is expected to occur, an avoidance path creation unit is configured to create an avoidance path for avoiding the excessive cutting, determining that the specified part occurs based on the avoidance path, a machining condition change unit that changes a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the specified part when the specified part occurs” based on the examiner’s understanding of the specification.
Claim 7 recites “an unmachined part” in page 1 line 8, it further recites “an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process” in page 2 line 1, it then further recites “the unmachined part” in page 2 lines 2-3, first, it is not clear whether the unmachined part in page 2 lines 2-3 is referring to “an unmachined part” in page 1 line 8 or “an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process” in page 2 line1. Second, it is not clear how an “unmachined” part can occur in a prior machining process, since any machining process would produce some kind of machined part, for the purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “an unmachined part” in page 1 line 8 as “a specified part” and the examiner has interpreted “when an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process, change a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the unmachined part” in page 2 lines 1-3 as “where the program path for each of the machining processes is analyzed by correcting the program path for each of the machining processes based on amount of wire diameter compensation to create a compensation path; determine whether or not there is a part where excessive cutting is expected to occur in the compensation path; and if it is determined that the excessive cutting is expected to occur, create an avoidance path for avoiding the excessive cutting, determine that the specified part occurs based on the avoidance path, change a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the specified part when the specified part occurs” based on the examiner’s understanding of the specification.
Claims 2-6 and 8, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiency of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving analyzes a machining program consisting of a plurality of machining processes including rough machining, semi-finishing machining, and final finishing machining and creates a program path for each of the machining processes, when an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process, changes a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the unmachined part, creates a compensation path corrected from the program path by an amount of electrode shape compensation; determines whether or not excessive cutting is expected to occur when the compensation path is used for machining; detects an unmachined part from the compensation path and the avoidance path, creates an avoidance path that is a path for avoiding the excessive cutting; changes a machining condition to a machining condition corresponding to the shape of the unmachined part; determines whether or not a change to the machining condition for the unmachined part causes excessive cutting to occur and, when excessive cutting is expected to occur, does not change a machining condition, when the current machining process is final finishing machining, the machining condition change unit does not change a machining condition, when machining the unmachined part in forward and return paths, the machining condition change unit does not change a machining condition for the return path, analyze a machining program consisting of a plurality of machining processes including rough machining, semi-finishing machining, and final finishing machining and create a program path for each of the machining processes; when an unmachined part occurs in a prior machining process, change a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the unmachined part; create a compensation path corrected from the program path by an amount of electrode shape compensation; determine whether or not excessive cutting is expected to occur when the compensation path is used for machining; create an avoidance path that is a path for avoiding the excessive cutting; and detect an unmachined part from the compensation path and the avoidance path (claims 1-8), these limitations as described in the specification is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a machining condition storage unit that stores a plurality of machining conditions suited to the machining processes and at least one machining condition suited to an unmachined part, wherein the machining condition storage unit stores a shape of the unmachined part and a machining condition in association with each other, store a plurality of machining conditions suited to the machining processes and at least one machining condition suited to an unmachined part (claims 1, 3, and 7) represent mere data storage which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The program path creation unit, machining condition change unit, compensation path creation unit, excessive cutting determination unit, avoidance path creation unit, unmachined path detection unit (claims 1-6) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d)(II). The program path creation unit, machining condition change unit, compensation path creation unit, excessive cutting determination unit, avoidance path creation unit, unmachined path detection unit are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
As per claims 7-8, it is rejected because the BRI of the term "storage medium” includes non-statutory matter. The applicant did not provide any further detail regarding what “storage medium” could be in the specification. The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended (as examiner’s interpretation of the claims) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, is overcome.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, US20200001384 discloses a control device for a wire electric discharge machine includes: a shape analysis portion which looks ahead a machining program, and analyzes a machined shape of a workpiece; a machining path creation portion which creates machining paths of identical circular arc shape offsetting from a machined shape analyzed, wherein the offset value differs for the machining paths, and shape of a corner part are identical circular arc shape; a machining path creation portion which creates machining paths of concentric circle shape offsetting from a machined shape analyzed, wherein the offset value differs for the machining paths, and shape of a corner part are concentric circle shape; and a machining path selection portion which selects either of the machining paths of identical circular arc shape and concentric circle shape, based on at least one among the machining program, machined shape analyzed, and the machining paths of identical circular arc shape and concentric circle shape.US20140364992 discloses a CAM apparatus includes: an input receiving unit that receives designation of a part where core fixing machining is performed in a machining shape forming a core and divides the machining shape into a first machining shape element for which the core fixing machining is performed and a second machining shape element, which is connected to the first machining element and for which the core fixing machining is not performed, a machining-condition setting unit that allocates a first electric condition for the core fixing machining to the first machining shape element and allocates a second electric condition to the second machining shape element, and a machining-program generating unit that generates a machining program for machining the second machining shape element under the second electric condition and continuously machining the first machining shape element under the first electric condition after the machining of the second machining shape element.
However, regarding claim 1, the combination of prior arts does not describe:
a machining condition storage unit that stores a plurality of machining conditions suited to the machining processes and at least one machining condition suited to a specified part; and where the program path for each of the machining processes is analyzed by a compensation path creation unit configured to correct the program path for each of the machining processes based on amount of wire diameter compensation to create a compensation path; an excessive cutting determination unit configured to determine whether or not there is a part where excessive cutting is expected to occur in the compensation path; and if it is determined that the excessive cutting is expected to occur, an avoidance path creation unit is configured to create an avoidance path for avoiding the excessive cutting, determining that the specified part occurs based on the avoidance path, a machining condition change unit that changes a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the specified part when the specified part occurs.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, US20200001384 discloses a control device for a wire electric discharge machine includes: a shape analysis portion which looks ahead a machining program, and analyzes a machined shape of a workpiece; a machining path creation portion which creates machining paths of identical circular arc shape offsetting from a machined shape analyzed, wherein the offset value differs for the machining paths, and shape of a corner part are identical circular arc shape; a machining path creation portion which creates machining paths of concentric circle shape offsetting from a machined shape analyzed, wherein the offset value differs for the machining paths, and shape of a corner part are concentric circle shape; and a machining path selection portion which selects either of the machining paths of identical circular arc shape and concentric circle shape, based on at least one among the machining program, machined shape analyzed, and the machining paths of identical circular arc shape and concentric circle shape.US20140364992 discloses a CAM apparatus includes: an input receiving unit that receives designation of a part where core fixing machining is performed in a machining shape forming a core and divides the machining shape into a first machining shape element for which the core fixing machining is performed and a second machining shape element, which is connected to the first machining element and for which the core fixing machining is not performed, a machining-condition setting unit that allocates a first electric condition for the core fixing machining to the first machining shape element and allocates a second electric condition to the second machining shape element, and a machining-program generating unit that generates a machining program for machining the second machining shape element under the second electric condition and continuously machining the first machining shape element under the first electric condition after the machining of the second machining shape element.
However, regarding claim 7, the combination of prior arts does not describe:
store a plurality of machining conditions suited to the machining processes and at least one machining condition suited to a specified part; and where the program path for each of the machining processes is analyzed by correcting the program path for each of the machining processes based on amount of wire diameter compensation to create a compensation path; determine whether or not there is a part where excessive cutting is expected to occur in the compensation path; and if it is determined that the excessive cutting is expected to occur, create an avoidance path for avoiding the excessive cutting, determine that the specified part occurs based on the avoidance path, change a machining condition for the current machining processes to a machining condition adapted to the specified part when the specified part occurs
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20130238114 discloses a block in an electric discharge machining program is read out and analyzed, and when determined that a machining route correction command is issued to correct the machining route at a corner formed by consecutive first and second machining blocks, the machining route is corrected such that the end point of the first machining block, an extension point obtained by extending the first machining block from the end point thereof by a predetermined distance in the machining advancing direction, and a new start point obtained by partially removing the second machining block by a predetermined distance from the start point thereof are connected. Then, the wire electrode is moved with respect to the workpiece, following the corrected machining route.
US9895759 discloses a wire electric discharge machining apparatus includes a machining unit that forms a product part by cutting off an outer frame portion from a workpiece and a control device that controls the machining unit. The machining unit machines a first boundary region in a boundary between the outer frame portion and the product part to leave an uncut portion, cuts off the product part from the outer frame portion by machining a second boundary region, which is the uncut portion, and repeats machining for the first/second boundary regions. When n is a natural number equal to or larger than 2, the control device sets, based on a machining state when the first boundary region is machined, different machining conditions as first machining conditions in machining the first boundary region for n-th time and second machining conditions in machining the second boundary region for n-th time. US9950379 discloses a wire electric discharge machining apparatus is constructed in such a manner as to include: a wire electrode having a plurality of cutting wire portions that are separated from one another in parallel and are opposed to a workpiece; a machining power supply that generates a pulsed machining voltage; a plurality of power feed contact units that are electrically connected to the cutting wire portions and apply the machining voltage between the cutting wire portions and the workpiece; and a nozzle that ejects machining liquid from an ejection opening toward an electrode gap along the cutting wire portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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 E. 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 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117