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 .
1. Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
2. 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:
Claim 1, the generic placeholder, “program storage unit”, “path derivation unit”, “condition specification unit” and “a path selection unit” coupled with the functional language, “that”,
Claim 2, the generic placeholder, “condition modification unit” coupled with the functional language, “that”,
Claim 3, the generic placeholder, “data modification unit” coupled with the functional language, “that”,
Claim 4, the generic placeholder, “path selection unit” coupled with the functional language, “configured to”,
Claim 5, the generic placeholder, “an information output unit” coupled with the functional language, “that”,
The above listed functional limitation of claims 1-5, cited a generic placeholder for performing a specified function without explicitly reciting the corresponding structure. The claim is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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
3. 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 1-6 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 limitations claim 1, “program storage unit”, “path derivation unit”, “condition specification unit” and “a path selection unit”; claim 2, “condition modification unit”; claim 3, “data modification unit”; claim 4, “path selection unit”; and claim 5, “an information output unit”; invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, the specification, Par. [0016], [0041], “The program storage unit 10” stores the machining program. The program storage unit 10 may be configured to include a storage area of the memory constituting the numerical control apparatus 1; Par. [0030], “the path derivation unit 30” derives a plurality of machining paths connecting machining points from the machining program, i.e., derives the paths of the machining head that moves relative to the workpiece; Par. [0031], the “condition specification unit 40” specifies the position (block number) of the nearest preceding machining command in the machining program for each machining path derived by the path derivation unit 30; and Par. [0032], “The path selection unit 50” provides a user interface that allows for selecting machining paths; Par. [0042], “The condition modification unit 60” provides a user interface that allows for modifying the machining conditions applicable to the machining path selected by the path selection unit; par. [0038] “The program modification unit 62” rewrites the condition commands specifying the machining conditions applicable to the machining path selected by the path selection unit 50 in the machining program stored in the program storage unit; Par. [0028], “The database unit 20” may be configured to include a memory storage area constituting the numerical control apparatus; par.[0044], “a data modification unit 63” that modifies the data of the records applicable to the machining path selected from the database unit 20; Par. [0035], “the path selection unit 50” displays the machining paths; and Par. [0043], “The information output unit 61” may be configured to output information on the machining conditions via audio or the like; are devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed functions as stated above. There is no disclosure of any structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the listed.
There is no disclosure of any structure for “program storage unit”, “path derivation unit”, “condition specification unit” and “a path selection unit”; claim 2, “condition modification unit”; claim 3, “data modification unit”; claim 4, “path selection unit”; and claim 5, “an information output unit”; either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of the listed in claims 1-5 functions. The use of those terms is not adequate structure for performing the functions as listed because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As per claim 6, at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claim 1. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of claim 1, “program storage unit”, “path derivation unit”, “condition specification unit” and “a path selection unit”; claim 2, “condition modification unit”; claim 3, “data modification unit”; claim 4, “path selection unit”; and claim 5, “an information output unit”; The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
5. 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.
5.1 Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al. (US 5831407 A) in view of Kimura (US 2017/0371316 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ouchi discloses numerical control apparatus (Fig. 4, Abstract, the NC apparatus) that controls a machining device (Abstract, column 3, lines 50-54, Fig. 4, a machine tool is controlled in response to a numerical control program that is indicative of tool path data), including at least one condition command specifying a machining condition (column 1, lines 9-12, a numerically controlling apparatus for the machine tool comprising the function of automatically determining tools and machining conditions) and a plurality of movement commands specifying machining points (column 2, lines 64-66, operating the movement amounts of each shaft of the NC machine tool at every minute period of time in the interpolating means), the apparatus comprising:
a path derivation unit tool (column 6, lines 18-24, path generating means or a tool path identifying means) that derives a plurality of machining paths connecting the machining points, from the machining program (Fig. 22, column 6, lines 18-24, column 6, lines 34-39, column 20, lines 43-50, NC program, the tool path information for working one or more working regions (or holes, pockets, ditches, and so on) a NC apparatus for the machine tool comprising a tool path generating means generating a tool path, a tool path identifying means classified by a working block adding an identifier so as to identify the generated tool path by fractionizing to each working block),
a condition specification unit (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, a tool and machining condition automatically determining means) that specifies the condition command specifying the machining condition applicable to each of the machining paths from the machining program (column 1, lines 10-12, Fig. 4, automatically determining tools and machining conditions and the function of displaying and editing tool paths);
a path selection unit (tool path selection means 69) that provides a user interface (display unit 68) that allows for selecting the machining paths (Abstract, column 22, lines 9-12, the tool path data are connected to the working regions by the identifiers, a user selects a working region on which the machine tool will operate. A portion of the tool path data that corresponds to the selected working region is determined); and
a condition modification unit (Abstract, data editing means 22) that provides a user interface (display unit 68) that allows for modifying the machining condition applicable (Fig. 7, column 3, lines 63-67, column 14, lines 43-54, to provide a NC apparatus for the machine tool capable of modifying its NC programs by enabling an operator to locally modify the tool paths to the appointed working regions displayed on its display unit) to the machining paths selected in the path selection unit (Abstract, column 3, lines 38-47, column 9, lines 41-49, provided a NC apparatus for the machine tool comprising a tool path modifying means corresponding to the modified working information appointing arbitrary data of the kind of a tool and a machining condition displayed on a display unit and modifying the appointed data to re-make up a tool path on the basis of the modified data and giving editing data to an NC program making means so as to make up a new NC program on the basis of the re-made tool path).
Kimura discloses a program storage unit (storage unit 26) that stores the machining program (Fig. 1, stores machine program p),
Ouchi and Kimura are analogous art. They relate to a numerical control program that is indicative of tool path data. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a program editing unit configured to edit a machining program, taught by Kimura, incorporated with automatically determining tools and machining conditions and the function of displaying and editing tool paths, taught by Ouchi, in order to provide a machining program editing apparatus, a method and a storage medium that can reduce the man-hour for editing a machining program.
Regarding claim 2, Kimura discloses the condition modification unit (a program management unit 32) includes a program modification unit (a program editing unit 34) that modifies the condition command of the machining program (Abstract, [0007], [0016], a program editing unit configured to edit the machining program indicative of the original machining path to thereby form a new machining path by replacing an area from the start point to the end point on the original machining path, with the indication route specified by the GUI unit).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ouchi and Kimura disclose:
Ouchi discloses a database unit (The standard database 1) that stores a plurality of records (column 4, lines 52-57, NC apparatus for the machine tool comprising a standard database storing standard data), each specifying the machining condition (column 4, lines 52-57, column 12, lines 50-53, The standard database 1 means a database registering standard machining conditions supplied by so called tool makers as regards the machining conditions of the tools attached to machine tools or possessed by the whole factory machining condition); and
Kimura discloses the condition command ([0053], [0079], The command information generating unit 38) specifies the records in the database unit (store in the data acquisition unit 40); and
the condition modification unit (program management unit 32) includes a data modification unit (The command information generating unit 38) that modifies data of the records in the database unit ([0053] The command information generating unit 38 updates the block information B using the instruction information is stored in the storage unit).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura discloses the path selection unit is configured to display an image of the machining paths ([0051], [0059], the GUI unit 24, based on the path information T acquired at step S2, visualizes and displays the target of the actual machining path 18) and allow for directly selecting (selection stylus pen 64) the image of the machining paths displayed (Fig. 4B, Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B, [0062] in a display area 50 of the GUI unit 24 (the display unit 30), a drawing area 54 with the original machining path 52 being drawn thereon is arranged, and three buttons 56, 57 and 58 are further arranged on the lower side of the drawing area 54. The “INPUT” button 56 is a user control key for allowing the user to edit the original machining path 52. The “ERASE” button 57 is a user control to reset to the original machining path 52. The “REFLECT EDIT” button 58 is a user control to reflect the content of edition to the original machining path 52).
Regarding claim 5, kimura discloses the condition modification unit (program management unit 32) includes an information output unit ([0046], display unit 24an output function of a display unit 30) on that outputs information the machining condition applicable to the machining paths selected ([0050]-[0051], [0058], GUI unit 24, based on the path information T acquired at step S2, visualizes and displays the target of the actual machining path 1; display data D for a visible image of the actual machining path 18 with the path information T, and outputs the display data D to the GUI unit 24).
Regarding claim 6, Ouchi discloses the information output unit (display device 68) provides a popup display of information on the machining condition while the path selection unit is displaying the machining paths (Abstract, a user selects a working region on which the machine tool will operate. A portion of the tool path data that corresponds to the selected working region is determined, so that both the selected working region and the portion of the tool path data may be displayed on a display. Such a display may also include a grid so that the user may select grid areas).
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsubara et al. (WO 2020012581 A1) discloses the interactive operation processing unit 10 is an interface between the numerical control device 1 and the operator, and an interface between the NC machining program generation device 40 and the operator. The interactive operation processing unit 10 transmits instruction information input by the operator via the instruction input unit 30 to the NC machining program generation device.
Nishikawa (WO 2020008891 A1) discloses a numerical control device (10) is provided with a program storage unit (11), a program analysis unit (12), an execution control unit (13), a determination unit (15), a to be machined block determination unit (16), and a correspondence information storage unit (17). The program analysis unit (12) analyzes an NC program in the program storage unit (11) and extracts an operation command as a first operation command.
Yasukochi (KR 20190013993 A) discloses a storage section 27 for storing machining conditions and a machining program for generating a machining program based on the tool path and store in the storage section.
Kawai (US 2016/0327938 A1) discloses control apparatus for controlling a machine tool on the base of a machining program is provided with a program analysis unit which analyzes an input machining program.
Tezuka (US 20130338816 A1) discloses numerical control apparatuses for controlling a machine tool are used together with a tool path display apparatus that displays a tool path along which a tool moves. An operator uses visual information on a tool path displayed by the tool path display apparatus.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Worku, whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad, can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR 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 PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217 - 9197. 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.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights