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 .
Claim Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f)
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: “simulation unit”, “calculation model update unit”, “machining state calculation unit”, “machining condition prediction unit”, and “machining condition update unit” in claim 1.
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 intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 2 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.
Claims 1 limitations that include “unit that performs”, “unit that updates”, “unit that calculates”, “unit that predicts”, and “unit that adjusts” invoke 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirai (US 20170151618 A1.).
As per claim 1, Shirai teaches
A machining condition adjustment device (abstract, Fig. 4, para 23) that adjusts a machining condition in a wire electric discharge machine, the machining condition adjustment device comprising (abstract, para 13, calculating evaluation value of the core based on the position and the length of the welding part and balance of position):
a machining information storage unit that stores data related to
a machining content and data related to required specifications (para 14, storage section stores a result learning by welding -part adjustment, also see Fig. 6. #22, State data storage section, 26, learning result storage section, also see Fig. 4, the first box on the left side includes the data about machine preconditions shape of workpiece, thickness of workpiece, density of workpiece, etc. teaches content and data related to required specifications);
a reference value storage unit that stores, as a reference value, a machining state corresponding to the machining content and the required specification stored in the machining information storage unit and a reference condition that is a predetermined machining condition (para 31, a value of a shape of a workpiece(core) is used as a machining target teaches the reference value, also various machining content such as thickness, density, minimum distance between welding parts etc. are given as machining precondition, Para 31 also refers the position and the length of each welding part as the “data on machining states”. These data are then given to machine learning as the machining precondition to adjust the optimum position and length of each welding part);
a simulation unit that performs a simulation of the wire electric discharge machine based on the machining content and the required specification stored in the machining information storage unit and the predetermined machining condition (para 31, a simulation process is performed by the simulation apparatus based on predefined machining conditions, also see Fig 4, the box on the left side pointing an arrow to the simulation apparatus 1, The box includes the machining preconditioning content, para 31 also states that calculation section 10 calculates position and length of the each welding part based on the information from machine learning device 20( see content of device 20 in Fig. 4) and stored in storage 13 );
a calculation model update unit that updates a calculation model of the simulation unit by inputting a machining state when predetermined machining is performed as a parameter (para 85, the adjustment of position and length of each welding part refers to calculating and updating calculation model, Calculation section 10 calculates position and length of the each welding part based on the information from machine learning device 20 (see content of device 20 in Fig. 4) and stored in storage 13, later it corrects the position and length if there is any overlapping or correction needed, also see Fig. 4 for the whole calculation process in the simulation apparatus 1);
a machining state calculation unit that calculates a machining state in the simulation based on a result of the simulation by the simulation unit (Fig. 4, #20, machine learning device performing simulation , providing adjustment data to welding part calculation device 10 , based on the information received from device 20, device 10 calculating the welding position and length and providing the output to operation evaluation section 11 and machine learning device 20 so the simulation can carry on);
a model storage unit that stores a model obtained by learning, by machine learning, an adjustment action of a predetermined machining state suitable for bringing the machining state close to the reference value in the machining state (para 31, a simulation process is performed by the simulation apparatus based on predefined machining conditions, also see Fig 4, the box on the left side (machining precondition) pointing an arrow to the simulation apparatus 1, The box includes the machining preconditioning content, and outputs the optimum results such as optimum welding position and length The optimum values teaches close to the reference value. Also see Fig. 6., the machine learning device #20 includes the state data storage section #22 and that provides data to #25 welding part adjusting learning section and the section #25 exchanges data with learning result storage section #26, and the last step is #27 welding part adjustment output section that also teaches the reference value);
a machining condition prediction unit that predicts an adjustment action of a machining state using the model stored in the model storage unit based on the machining state calculated by the machining state calculation unit (para 31,“data on machining states”; machining precondition is defined based on the states of the machining and the states are defined by the machine learning device 20, see Fig. 4, #20, an arrow pointing to the adjustment of welding positions and length of the welding parts, the preconditions are already determined by the machine learning device 20, also see Fig. 6);and
a machining condition update unit that adjusts the machining condition to be used for simulation processing by the simulation unit based on the adjustment action of the machining state predicted by the machining condition prediction unit (Fig. 4, adjustment of welding positions).
As per claim 2, Shirai teaches
The machining condition adjustment device according to claim 1, wherein the machine learning is reinforcement learning (paras 33-34, supervised learning. Also see para 36 for reinforcement learning, para 37 states the present invention applies the principle learning algorithm of reinforcement learning by which the machine learning device is given rewards to automatically learn action and achieve goal, also see Fig. 6, Reward conditions and reward calculation section).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)270-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights