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 .
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the same space at the same time.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1-2, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process directed to opinion, observation, and judgment comprising limitations incorporating design a physical shape of the manufacturing apparatus; associates the sensor and the actuator arranged in the manufacturing apparatus with a device in a control program of the manufacturing apparatus; that designs the control program of the manufacturing apparatus; identifying to-be-affected-by-change portions in final design products, determining a correspondence among final design products of the machine design device, and when a change is made to the final design product of any of the machine design device, and identifying a portion to be affected by the change in the final design product of another design device different from the design device that has undergone the change, claims 1-2,MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). But for the inclusion of general computing components, the limitations are not meaningfully limited. (Examiner note: it is suggested to manufacture a particular object using the optimal design by operating or regulating particular manufacturing components to implement the design for producing a product).
As per claim 3, the limitations comprising when it is determined that interference does not occur between the moving part of the manufacturing apparatus and the residual part thereof during the simulation performed by the final-machine-design-product simulator for verification purposes represent comparative limitations falling within a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
As per claim 4, the limitations comprising learns, in accordance with the verification data, physical shapes and operations of the moving part and the residual part that do not cause interference represents a mental process via learning. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
As per claim 5, the limitations comprising the detecting interlock in which a moving part of the final design product of the machine design device and another moving part occupy the same space at the same time, represents a mental process via detecting. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
As per clam 6, the limitations comprising the detecting whether a moving part of the final design product of the machine design device operates at a predetermined tact time represents opinion and judgment. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a processor and memory having associated operation of causing and extracting represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, claims 1-2. MPEP 2106.05(f). The sensor, actuator, and manufacturing system are described generally so as to generically link the abstract idea to the field of manufacturing design, claims 1-2. MPEP 2106.05(h). The extracts a common group in which program blocks in the control program share a device represent tangential data gathering, claims 1-2. MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, as per claim 2, the simulator that virtually operates a final design product of the machine design device; simulator that virtually operates a final design product of the electric design device; and simulator that virtually operates a final design product of the control-program design device represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea because the claim describes the process of operating/mere instructions. MPEP 2106.05(f). As interpreted, operating a simulator represents instructions for realizing the claimed operations (e.g. virtually operating). Furthermore, as per claim 2, the moving-part interference determiner that operates the final-machine-design-product simulator, the final-electric-design-product simulator, and the final-control-program-design-product simulator in cooperation with one another to determine whether interference occurs between the moving part of the manufacturing apparatus and a residual part thereof during simulation performed by the final-machine-design-product simulator represents mere instructions for realizing the determination steps and inferences. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As per claim 3, the additional limitations of moving-part interference determiner causes the final-control-program-design-product simulator to execute a common group in part of the control program and, when it is determined that interference does not occur between the moving part of the manufacturing apparatus and the residual part thereof during the simulation performed by the final-machine-design-product simulator, generates verification data and stores the verification data in a verification database, the verification data describing portions of the final design products of the machine design device, the electric design device, and the control-program design device that correspond to the common group in the part executed, represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As per claim 4, the additional limitation of storing represents insignificant extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The ladder program of claims 7 and 10; text program of claims 8 and 11; the cloud system of claims 9 and 12 are recited generally so as to generically link the abstract idea to the field of manufacturing design. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and memory represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea while the extraction steps are well understood, conventional, and routine limitations, MPEP 2106.05(d), see general simulations 20240272605, 20240061984, 11714931, 20200334399.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1 relevancy
6748346 11714931 20040088144 20070299642 20020123812 10140395 6847922
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) 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 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117