DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Pending
1-5, 7
Cancelled
6
35 U.S.C. 103
1-5, 7
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/15/2025, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 07/15/2025. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagasaki et al. (US 2022/0011754 A1, “Sagasaki”) and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2019/0317474, “Miyazaki”).
Regarding claim 1: Sagasaki teaches: A numerical control system that controls operation of a machine tool and operation of a robot in conjunction with each other, the numerical control system comprising (see at least [0037]-[0038], [0041]-[0042]):
a numerical control processor that controls the operation of the machine tool based on a numerical control program (see at least [0042], [0048], [0050]);
a robot control processor that controls the operation of the robot based on a robot control program (see at least [0042], [0045]); and
a variable memory that stores values of variables . . . are readable and writable by the numerical control processor and the robot control processor (see at least [0058], [0061], [0063]),
wherein the robot control processor determines execution or prohibition of read-write of the variables according to a read-write permission/prohibition request for requesting permission or prohibition of the read- write of the variables by the numerical control processor (see at least [0062], [0064]-[0066], [0068]-[0069]), and
when the robot control processor determines that read-write of the variables is executed, the robot control processor reads a value of a variable stored in the variable memory to control the operation of the robot based on the value of the variable read (see at least [0064]-[0066], [0068]-[0069]), and
when the robot control processor determines that read-write of the variables is prohibited, the robot control processor prohibits reading of a value of a variable stored in the variable memory (see at least [0069], [0072], [0076], [0119]-[0120], [0159]-[0160]).
However, Sagasaki does not explicitly teach: a variable memory that stores values of variables that are not commands themselves in the numerical control program and the robot control program but are designated by numbers or character strings, and are readable and writable by the numerical control processor and the robot control processor.
Miyazaki teaches: a variable memory that stores values of variables that are not commands themselves in the numerical control program and the robot control program but are designated by numbers or character strings, and are readable and writable by the numerical control processor and the robot control processor (see at least [0056]-[0058] reads each block of the NC program and analyzes a command content. NC program analysis unit writes a macro variable value in a macro variable value table. stores the setting values necessary for controlling the operation of a machine tool as the values of macro variables. stores the information on the tool or the work obtained as the results of the image processing as the values of macro variables. the macro variable values can be read and written by the NC program analysis unit. NC program creator and NC program analysis unit can read and write data).
Sagasaki and Miyazaki are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of numerical control devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Sagasaki with the aspects of Miyazaki to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a variable memory that stores values of variables that are not commands themselves in the numerical control program and the robot control program but are designated by numbers or character strings, and are readable and writable by the numerical control processor and the robot control processor. The motivation for modification would have been to increase the number of macro variables by increasing the size of a region that can be used as the macro variable value table storage unit, which means the number of design table setting values is rarely limited, so it is easy to cope with an increase in the number of macro variables and expandability is high. Additionally, this decreases overall processing time (Miyazaki, [0086], [0119]).
Regarding claim 2: Sagasaki-Miyazaki further teach: The numerical control system according to claim 1, wherein the robot control processor acquires an operation completion time of the numerical control processor or an operation completion time of the robot control processor (Sagasaki: see at least [0069], [0072], [0159]-[0160]), and
according to the read-write permission/prohibition request based on a lapse of these operation completion times, determines execution or prohibition of read-write of the variables by the robot control processor (Sagasaki: see at least [0159]-[0160]), and
the robot control processor determines that the robot control processor executes read-write of the variables after a lapse of the operation completion time of the numerical control processor or the operation completion time of the robot control processor (Sagasaki: see at least [0069], [0072], [0159]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 3: Sagasaki-Miyazaki further teach: The numerical control system according to claim 2, wherein the robot control processor acquires the operation completion time of the numerical control processor or the operation completion time of the robot control processor via a variable in the numerical control program or the robot control program (Sagasaki: see at least [0069], [0072], [0159]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 4: Sagasaki-Miyazaki further teach: The numerical control system according to claim 1, wherein the numerical control processor outputs a read-write prohibition signal, which is an I/O signal that prohibits read- write of the variables by the robot control processor during execution of the operation of the numerical control processor or during execution of the operation of the robot control processor (Sagasaki: see at least [0069], [0072], [0159]-[0160]), and
outputs a read-write permission signal, which is an I/O signal that permits read-write of the variables by the robot control processor after completion of the operation of the numerical control processor or after completion of the operation of the robot control processor (Sagasaki: see at least [0072], [0159]-[0160]),
the robot control processor receives a read-write permission signal and the read-write prohibition signal outputted from the numerical control processor (Sagasaki: see at least [0069], [0072], [0119]-[0120], [0159]-[0160]), and
the robot control processor determines execution or prohibition of read-write of the variables by the robot control processor according to the read-write permission/prohibition request based on the read-write permission/prohibition signal (Sagasaki: see at least [0069], [0072], [0119]-[0120], [0159]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 5: Sagasaki-Miyazaki further teach: The numerical control system according to claim 1, the numerical control processor device performs read-write of the values of the variables stored in the variable memory storage unit based on the numerical control program (Sagasaki: see at least [0042], [0058], [0061], [0063]), and
the robot control processor performs read-write of the values of the variables stored in the variable memory based on the robot control program (Sagasaki: see at least [0159]-[0160], [0042], [0058], [0061], [0063], [0045]).
Regarding claim 7: Sagasaki-Miyazaki further teach: The numerical control system according to claim 1, wherein the variables are macro variables (Miyazaki: see at least [0056]-[0058] writes a macro variable value in a macro variable value table of the macro variable value table storage unit. stores the setting values necessary for controlling the operation of a machine tool as the values of macro variables. the macro variable values can be read and written by the NC program). The motivation for modification is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON B EMMETT whose telephone number is (303)297-4231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 ET.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/MADISON B EMMETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658