DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to papers filed on 6 November 2023.
Claims 1-7 are pending and presented for examination.
Applicant's submission of references on form PTO-1449, filed on November 6, 2023, November 7, 2024, and February 14, 2025, have been considered. A signed copy of each form is attached.
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.
Claims 2-4 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.
The terms “explicit” and “implicit” in claim each of the claims 2-4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “explicit” and “implicit” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms “explicit” and “implicit” are used to imply a variety of points or issues. With regard to the instant claims a term or period of time or object is intended to be described but the terms “explicit” and “implicit” do not give a definition or explanation to what is implied as considered to be “explicit” and “implicit”; therefore, causing indefiniteness on the subject of the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0095246 A1 to Nakano et al..
The reference to Nakano et al. (herein after “Nakano”) teaches of “a support device which is connected to a control device for controlling a control target and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a support program for realizing the support device.” In doing so, the limitations of the instant invention are taught/fairly suggested as stated herein below.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7 where a control device and method, respectively, for executing a process on a processing request from a client for an industrial machine, the control device or method comprising:
a priority analysis unit configured to, upon receiving the processing request from the client, perform an analysis of a priority that is set for the received processing request - (taught by Nakano in paragraph [0033] as the “user program” portion where it is described as ““user program” includes a program which can be entirely scanned every execution and can output a control command every execution. Basically, the user program is arbitrarily generated by a user in response to a control target or an application”; and
a priority change unit configured to change the priority with respect to the received processing request on the basis of a result of the analysis by the priority analysis unit - (is taught as the “task means” in paragraph [0041]-[0049] where ““task” means the unit of execution of a process including one or a plurality of processes. An execution cycle may be set for each task in addition to the priority. When the execution cycle is set, a scheduler triggers the execution of the task in accordance with the set execution cycle.” Furthermore, the execution of the “task” is described as “the execution of the plurality of tasks is managed by the function of the control device 100 called the scheduler. The scheduler allocates the process time (hereinafter, also referred to as “processor resources”) of one or a plurality of processors of the control device 100 to a target task” in paragraph [0041]).
Claim 5 is directed to the control device according to claim 1, wherein the industrial machine is a machine tool, and the control device is a numerical control device. Nakano teaches the use of a machine tool and a numerical control device in paragraph [0070] as “the field device 500 includes a remote input/output (I/O) device 510, a robot 520, a robot controller 522, a CNC machine tool 530, a servo driver 538, and a servomotor 532.” (emphasis added).
In claim 6 the control device according to claim 1, wherein the industrial machine is an industrial robot, and the control device is a robot control device is stated. As aforementioned the use of a robot and robot control device is taught in paragraph [0070] and in paragraph [0038] where “a “control application” includes, for example, a device or machine performing specific processing or operation using computer numerical control (CNC) and/or a robot and such control” is stated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0095246 A1 to Nakano et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2019/0101904 A1 to Shimamura et al..
The teachings of Nakano are stated above.
Regarding claims 2-4, claim 2 where the control device according to claim 1, wherein the priority that is set for the processing request is an explicit priority that is designated by the client is recited. In claim 3 the control device according to claim 1, wherein the priority that is set for the processing request is an implicit priority that is set in advance is claimed. And claim 4 where the control device according to claim 1, wherein the priority that is set for the processing request is a combination of an explicit priority designated by the client, and an implicit priority that is set in advance is stated. Nakano teaches the setting of a processing request through the “scheduler” wherein the priority level of the task is set (see paragraphs [0041]-[0049]. However, Nakano does not particularly teach the designation of an “explicit priority”. For this reason the prior art of Shimamura et al. (herein after “Shimamura”) is introduced. In paragraph [0176], Shimamura teaches of assigning priority statuses based on client input as “the application arbitration part 162 instructs the scheduler 154 to change the priority that has been set to the task related to the generation of the internal command. In response to the priority change instruction, the scheduler 154 changes the priority of the target task and allocates more processor resources, thereby completing generation of the internal command earlier”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Nakano with the scheduling assignment portion of Shimamura so as to allow for improved completion and allocate more resources.
For the reasons stated above, the limitations of the instant invention are taught and/or fairly suggested by the prior arts of record; thereby, rendering the instant claims unpatentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. US 2021/0187742 A1 Ozeki
relates to a control device and a control method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sheela Rao whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday from 7:00 am to 1:00 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali, can be reached on (571) 272-4105. The fax number for the organization where this application or any proceeding papers has been 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. It should be noted that 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 any questions arise regarding 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.
/Sheela Rao/Examiner, Art Unit 2119 January 27, 2026
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119