DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claim 8 have overcome each and every objections previously set forth. The objections of the claim 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(f) invocations previously set forth. The 112(f) invocations of the claims have been withdrawn. Accordingly, corresponding 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 3, 7-8 and 10 have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth. The 112(b) rejections of the claims 3, 7-8 and 10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims 3 and 7 have overcome each and every 101 rejections previously set forth. The 101 rejections of the claims 3 and 7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claim 11 have overcome 101 rejection regarding a non-statutory subject matter previously set forth. The 101 rejections regarding the non-statutory subject matter of the claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 101 rejection of the claim 3 (see Amendment Page 8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejections of the claim 3 has been withdrawn. The 101 rejections of the claim 7 has been withdrawn for similar reasons. Examiner respectfully recommends incorporating the limitations of claim 3 into claim 1 and claim 11 to overcome all of the 101 rejections.
With respect to the 102 rejections of the claim 1, Applicant argues that “Bauer does not describe extracting operation items or dynamically evaluating necessity on an operation item by operation item basis during machining, as recited in claim 1” (Amendment Page 10, second paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Bauer teaches extracting operation items. (Bauer: [0004] “One aspect of the invention features a method including switching from a first operating mode to a second operating mode, looking up stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode and related to one or more potential operator interventions, changing operation of the processing machine in accordance of the stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode, and providing feedback to an operator of the machine, indicating whether a switch to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required.”) (Bauer: [0007] “In some implementations, individual elements (e.g. seat or gear) are not combined into a configuration set in response to component-related specifics, but the machine operator is able for the first time to define specific processing parameters or strategies for each operating mode and make them switchable in a simple manner; that is to say, they are operating modes for workpiece processing, in short: workpiece processing operating modes. The operating strategies thereby affect the system as a whole. The operating settings (parameters) of the individual machine components that are required for a particular processing strategy are defined beforehand and stored in tables, for example. On switching to a new workpiece processing operating mode, the machine components are adjusted or reconfigured to the previously stored operating strategy without operator intervention. For changing the operating strategies, corresponding actuator/sensor systems as well as communication interfaces are provided on the machine, and these make the desired adjustments.”) (Bauer: [0008]-[0018] “The processing strategies can include, for example: material handling, maintenance and cleaning cycles, calibration cycles, threshold values for condition monitoring, reactions in the event of alarm limits being exceeded (warnings, fault messages), automatic restarting in fault situations ("retry"), automatic adjustment of the order sequence in the production scheme, process implementation (specific influencing of process safety), communication of the machine when problems are detected, immediate feasibility check when changing to the new operating mode.”) Looking up stored operating settings or strategies specific to the second operating mode, for example, describes looking up specific information from the stored information, which reads on “extracting …”. (emphasis added) The specification as published describes extracting function as extracting information from acquired information, as seen in at least paragraphs [0026] (“The operation item extraction unit 11 extracts an operation item whose necessity changes depending on the operating state of the machine from, for example, machine configuration information 14 indicating the presence or absence of a rotating shaft and the like, and state information 15 of the machine, such as dimensional tolerance, machining information indicating the presence or absence of a long-time operation performed and the like, temperature, operating time, cutting time for each tool, and torque. The machine configuration information 14 is registered on the numerical control device 100 in advance. The machining information may be read from a machining program, or may be input by the operator. The state information 15 is acquired from the machine tool 200 or the sensor, for example.”)
Further, Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 does not recite or suggest “dynamically evaluating necessity on an operation item by operation item basis during machining.” Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant amend the claim to incorporate such limitation or concept. However, Examiner also points out that ITOU (US 2016/0184947 A1), used in combination with Bauer in the prior art rejection of an element of the amended claim, teaches dynamically evaluating necessity during machining for a chip removal process, as illustrated in FIG. 4.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive and the prior art rejections of the claims are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 1 recite the limitation “extracting, based on arithmetic processing using the input information, operation items whose necessity changes depending on the operating state of a machine tool” in lines 7-9. Examiner cannot find in the specification the description of “extracting, based on arithmetic processing.” (emphasis added) In addition, the input information includes the machine state information. Examiner also submits that “the input information” includes “the operating state of a machine tool”, according to the claim limitation in line 3-4. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “extracting operation items whose necessity changes depending on the operating state of a machine tool”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the similar reasons as for claim 1 as discussed above.
Claims 2-10 are dependent claims of claim 1. The claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and therefore, claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-2, 4-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly More.
(Step 2A, Prong One) Independent claim 1 recites, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute: extracting, based on arithmetic processing using the input information, operation items whose necessity changes depending on the operating state of a machine tool, based on a numerical evaluation using at least one of the input information, determining the necessity of each operation item of the extracted operation items, and based on the necessity, determining whether an operation to be executed by an operator is required for said each operation item of the extracted operation items.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components (“at least one processor”), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification as published, such as at least paragraphs [0026]-[0032], for instance, the extracting function is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on an operational state of the machine tool. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as at least paragraphs [0034]-[0039], for instance, the determining function is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on the extracted information. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitation “acquire, as input information, machine configuration information, machining information, and machine state information indicating an operating state of a machine tool, and process the input information”.
The additional limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The additional limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
Accordingly, the additional limitation recited in the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The acquire function represents a function that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, it is demonstrated in Bauer et al. (US 2014/0343712 A1) paragraph [0004] (“One aspect of the invention features a method including switching from a first operating mode to a second operating mode, looking up stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode and related to one or more potential operator interventions, changing operation of the processing machine in accordance of the stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode, and providing feedback to an operator of the machine, indicating whether a switch to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required.”), paragraph [0007] (“In some implementations, individual elements (e.g. seat or gear) are not combined into a configuration set in response to component-related specifics, but the machine operator is able for the first time to define specific processing parameters or strategies for each operating mode and make them switchable in a simple manner; that is to say, they are operating modes for workpiece processing, in short: workpiece processing operating modes. The operating strategies thereby affect the system as a whole. The operating settings (parameters) of the individual machine components that are required for a particular processing strategy are defined beforehand and stored in tables, for example. On switching to a new workpiece processing operating mode, the machine components are adjusted or reconfigured to the previously stored operating strategy without operator intervention. For changing the operating strategies, corresponding actuator/sensor systems as well as communication interfaces are provided on the machine, and these make the desired adjustments.”) and paragraphs [0008]-[0018] (“The processing strategies can include, for example: material handling, maintenance and cleaning cycles, calibration cycles, threshold values for condition monitoring, reactions in the event of alarm limits being exceeded (warnings, fault messages), automatic restarting in fault situations ("retry"), automatic adjustment of the order sequence in the production scheme, process implementation (specific influencing of process safety), communication of the machine when problems are detected, immediate feasibility check when changing to the new operating mode.”), and ITOU (US 2016/0184947 A1) paragraph [0032] (“FIG. 2 is a diagram depicting a flow of processing which is performed by the internal cleaning device of the machine tool, the internal cleaning device using the robot and the detecting device that detects the buildup state of chips in the machine tool. After machining of the work by the machine tool is finished, the robot is inserted into the machine tool and the state of the inside of the machine tool is obtained by the detecting device, and the information thus obtained is processed by the information processing device, whereby a determination of a spot requiring cleaning is made.”) and paragraph [0037] (“A distance sensor is used as the detecting device. The distance sensor is a device which measures a depth to an object, and, as a common method, there is a distance image sensor that irradiates an object with infrared radiation or laser light and calculates the distance based on the time required for the light to reach the object and return from the object. The depth information of the inside of the machine tool without built-up chips is compared with the depth information obtained after machining. A spot in which a change greater than or equal to a threshold value has been observed in the depth is determined to be a spot requiring cleaning.”)
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is not patent eligible for the similar reasons as for claim 1 as discussed above.
Claims 2 and 4-6 recites limitations that add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claim 1. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The generating and outputting data functions represent functions that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, for instance, as demonstrated in Bauer et al. (US 2014/0343712 A1) paragraph [0027] (“Another aspect of the invention features a processing machine suitable for carrying out the method according to the invention, having a memory configured to store respective operating settings relating to potential operator interventions for different operating modes of the workpiece processing machine, the operating modes being different from one another in respect of the operator intervention requirements of an operator of the workpiece processing machine; a control system configured to change an operation of the processing machine in accordance with operating settings stored in the memory, in response to switching from a first operating mode of the processing machine to a second operating mode of the processing machine; and an operator feedback device operable by the control system to provide an indication to an operator of the machine as to whether switching from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required to complete the switching.”) and paragraph [0033] (“The machine tool 1 can be operated in different operating modes which differ from one another in respect of the operator intervention requirements of a machine operator. For each operating mode of the processing machine 1, operating settings and/or parameters that are specific for operator interventions which can be required of the machine operator are stored beforehand in a data memory 6. These stored operating settings and/or parameters of the different operating modes can differ from one another in respect of processing sequence and/or process safety and/or quality of the processing result and/or processing speed and/or degree of automation; they are accordingly operating modes for workpiece processing, in short: workpiece processing operating modes. Thus, for example, a workpiece processing operating mode with a low operator intervention requirement has a higher process safety, a lower processing speed and a higher degree of automation than a workpiece processing operating mode with a higher operator intervention requirement.”), Rodriguez et al. (US 2023/0384752 A1) Abstract (“A method includes acquiring state variables that characterize an operational state of an industrial plant; acquiring interaction events of a plant operator interacting with the distributed control system via a human-machine interface; determining based on the interaction events, and with state variables as input data, whether one or more interaction events are indicative of the plant operator executing a task that is not sufficiently covered by engineering of the distributed control system. When this determination is positive, mapping the input data to an amendment and/or augmentation for the engineering tool that has generated the application code.”), and ABE et al. (US 2016/0243635 A1) paragraph [0050] (“The RAM 13 is used as a temporary storage area for the execution of the system software and a machining program and is loaded with temporary calculation data, temporary record data, display data, and the like.”) and paragraph [0053] (“The PMC (programmable machine controller) 16 outputs a signal to an auxiliary device of the wire electric discharge machine, thereby controlling the auxiliary device, in accordance with a sequence program stored in the control unit 10. Further, the PMC 16 receives and properly processes signals from various switches on a control panel on the main body of the wire electric discharge machine, and then delivers the processed signals to the CPU 11.”)
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the limitation that merely adds the word notifying with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and therefore is not indicative of integration into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the limitation that merely adds the word displaying with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and therefore is not indicative of integration into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2014/0343712 A1) (“Bauer”), in view of ITOU (US 2016/0184947 A1) (“Itou”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bauer teaches:
A machining operation assisting device comprising: (Bauer: Abstract “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for switching between different operating modes on a processing machine. The operating modes are different from one another in respect of operator intervention requirements of an operator of the processing machine, One of the methods includes switching from a first operating mode to a second operating mode, looking up stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode and related to one or more potential operator interventions, changing operation of the processing machine in accordance of the stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode, and providing feedback to the operator of the machine, indicating whether a switch to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required.”) (Bauer: Claim 32 “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a data processing apparatus and configured to, upon such execution, cause a workpiece processing machine to: switch from a first operating mode to a second operating mode; look up stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode and related to one or more potential operator interventions; change operation of the processing machine in accordance of the stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode; and provide feedback to an operator of the machine, indicating whether a switch to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required.”)
at least one processor configured to acquire, as input information, machine configuration information, machining information, and machine state information indicating an operating state of a machine tool, and process the input information, (Bauer: [0004] “One aspect of the invention features a method including switching from a first operating mode to a second operating mode, looking up stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode and related to one or more potential operator interventions, changing operation of the processing machine in accordance of the stored operating settings specific to the second operating mode, and providing feedback to an operator of the machine, indicating whether a switch to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required.”) (Bauer: [0007] “In some implementations, individual elements (e.g. seat or gear) are not combined into a configuration set in response to component-related specifics, but the machine operator is able for the first time to define specific processing parameters or strategies for each operating mode and make them switchable in a simple manner; that is to say, they are operating modes for workpiece processing, in short: workpiece processing operating modes. The operating strategies thereby affect the system as a whole. The operating settings (parameters) of the individual machine components that are required for a particular processing strategy are defined beforehand and stored in tables, for example. On switching to a new workpiece processing operating mode, the machine components are adjusted or reconfigured to the previously stored operating strategy without operator intervention. For changing the operating strategies, corresponding actuator/sensor systems as well as communication interfaces are provided on the machine, and these make the desired adjustments.”) (Bauer: [0008]-[0018] “The processing strategies can include, for example: material handling, maintenance and cleaning cycles, calibration cycles, threshold values for condition monitoring, reactions in the event of alarm limits being exceeded (warnings, fault messages), automatic restarting in fault situations ("retry"), automatic adjustment of the order sequence in the production scheme, process implementation (specific influencing of process safety), communication of the machine when problems are detected, immediate feasibility check when changing to the new operating mode.”) [Looking up operating settings reads on “acquire, as input information”. The individual machine components that are required and their operating settings read on “machine configuration information”. The order sequence in the production scheme reads on “machining information”. The threshold values for the condition monitoring or the actual feedback of operating mode switching status reads on “machine state information indicating an operating state of a machine tool”.]
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute: extracting, based on arithmetic processing using the input information, operation items whose necessity changes depending on the operating state of a machine tool, … using at least one of the input information, determining the necessity of each operation item of the extracted operation items, and (Bauer: [0004] and [0007]-[0018] as discussed above) (Bauer: [0033] “The machine tool 1 can be operated in different operating modes which differ from one another in respect of the operator intervention requirements of a machine operator. For each operating mode of the processing machine 1, operating settings and/or parameters that are specific for operator interventions which can be required of the machine operator are stored beforehand in a data memory 6. These stored operating settings and/or parameters of the different operating modes can differ from one another in respect of processing sequence and/or process safety and/or quality of the processing result and/or processing speed and/or degree of automation; they are accordingly operating modes for workpiece processing, in short: workpiece processing operating modes. Thus, for example, a workpiece processing operating mode with a low operator intervention requirement has a higher process safety, a lower processing speed and a higher degree of automation than a workpiece processing operating mode with a higher operator intervention requirement.”) [The processing or operating strategies read on “operation items”, and obtaining the processing or operating strategies and their requirements by looking up the table reads on “extracting … using the input information …” and “determining the necessity of each operation item …”. The differences in the processing or operating strategies, requiring the processing sequences and the operator intervention, for the different modes reads on “whose necessity changes depending on the operating state …”]
based on the necessity, determining whether an operation to be executed by an operator is required for said each operation item of the extracted operation items. (Bauer: [0033] as discussed above) (Bauer: [0027] “Another aspect of the invention features a processing machine suitable for carrying out the method according to the invention, having a memory configured to store respective operating settings relating to potential operator interventions for different operating modes of the workpiece processing machine, the operating modes being different from one another in respect of the operator intervention requirements of an operator of the workpiece processing machine; a control system configured to change an operation of the processing machine in accordance with operating settings stored in the memory, in response to switching from a first operating mode of the processing machine to a second operating mode of the processing machine; and an operator feedback device operable by the control system to provide an indication to an operator of the machine as to whether switching from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required to complete the switching.”) [Determining the operator intervention requirements for a processing or operating strategy reads on “determining whether an operation to be executed by an operator is required”.]
Bauer does not expressly teach: based on a numerical evaluation using at least one of the input information, determining the necessity of each operation item of the extracted operation items.
Itou teaches:
based on a numerical evaluation using at least one of the input information, determining the necessity of each operation item of the extracted operation items. (Itou: [0041] “FIG. 4 is a diagram depicting another flow of the processing which is performed by the internal cleaning device of the machine tool, the internal cleaning device using the robot and the detecting device that detects the buildup state of chips in the machine tool. After machining of the work performed by the machine tool is finished, the robot is inserted into the machine tool, the state of the inside of the machine tool is obtained by the detecting device, the information thus obtained is processed by the information processing device, and a determination of a spot requiring cleaning is made. Furthermore, if chips have built up and a specified number of operations of internal cleaning have been performed for a specified time, the notifying unit notifies the operator of a buildup of chips.”) (Itou: [0042] “Hereinafter, a description will be given in accordance with each step. [Step sb01] A determination as to whether or not a predetermined number of machining operations have been finished is made. If a predetermined number of machining operations have been finished (YES), the procedure proceeds to Step sb02; if a predetermined number of machining operations have not been finished (NO), it is determined that cleaning is not necessary and internal cleaning is completed. [Step sb02] An image of the inside of the machine tool is taken. [Step sb03] A determination as to whether or not chips have built up in the machine tool is made. If chips have built up in the machine tool (YES), the procedure proceeds to. Step sb04; if chips have not built up in the machine tool (NO), it is determined that cleaning is not necessary and internal cleaning is completed. [Step sb04] A determination as to whether or not the number of operations of internal cleaning is smaller than or equal to a specified number of operations is made. If the number of operations of internal cleaning is smaller than or equal to a specified number of operations (YES), the procedure proceeds to Step sb05; if the number of operations of internal cleaning is greater than a specified number of operations (NO), the procedure proceeds to Step sb09. [Step sb05] If the operation time of internal cleaning is shorter than or equal to a specified time (YES), the procedure proceeds to Step sb06; if the operation time of internal cleaning is longer than a specified time (NO), the procedure proceeds to Step sb09. [Step sb06] Internal cleaning is performed to remove chips from the inside of the machine tool, and the procedure proceeds to Step sb07. [Step sb07] The number of operations of the internal cleaning performed in Step sb06 is counted, and the procedure proceeds to Step sb08. [Step sb08] The operation time of the internal cleaning performed in Step sb06 is counted, and the procedure goes back to Step sb02. [Step sb09] The number of operations of internal cleaning is reset to an initial value. [Step sb10] The operation time of internal cleaning is reset to an initial value. [Step sb11] An operator is notified that the internal cleaning is not completed. That is, the operator is notified of the necessity for a manual removal of chips.”) [The number of machining operations and the predetermined number of machining operations read on “the input information”, and the step sb01, for example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, that checks for the number of machining operations against the predetermined number of machining operations reads on “based on a numerical evaluation”. The question steps after the step sb10 read on “determining the necessity of each operation item”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bauer and Itou before them, to modify looking up operation settings or processing or operating strategies, to incorporate comparisons steps to determine the requirements based on the operating status.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for providing consideration to the operating status in order to proceed to the next stage upon fulfilling a requirement. (Itou: [0008])
Regarding claim 2, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Bauer further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to, in response to determining that the operation is required for at least one of the extracted operation items, determine that the operation to be executed by the operator is present. (Bauer: [0027] and [0033] as discussed in claim 1)
Regarding claim 3, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Itou further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to, in response to determining, among the extracted operation items, an operation item for which execution of an operator operation is determined to be required, execute processing to stop the machine tool before a next machining operation is started or before a next step is started. (Itou: [0033] as discussed in claim 1) (Itou: [0031] The robot 2 checks the chip buildup status by using the detecting device, such as the visual sensor 3, which is attached to the robot 2 by inserting the tip of the arm into the machine tool through the opening 9b during a period in which the machine tool 1 does not perform machining of the work, cleans the chips built up in the machine tool by spraying a cutting fluid which is used to machine the work, that is, a coolant on the built-up chips from the coolant gun 4 attached to the tip of the arm, and discharges the chips to the outside of the machine tool. The information processing device 21 processes the information related to the chip buildup status detected by the detecting device such as the visual sensor 3 and performs processing for determining a spot requiring a removal of chips. Incidentally, the information processing device 21 may be built into the control device 20 of the robot 2 or may be provided independently of the control device 20 of the robot 2.”) [The determining if the number of machining operations have reached the predetermined number of machining operations upon finishing of machining before the steps as illustrated in FIG. 4, and not performing machining of the work during the internal cleaning steps reads on “… to stop the machine tool before a next machining operation is started …”.]
The motivation to combine Bauer and Itou as described in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claims 1-2. Bauer further teaches:
wherein at least one processor is configured to, in response to determining in advance that a further operation will be required for the at least one of the extracted operation items, determine that the operation to be executed by the operator is present. (Bauer: [0007] “In some implementations, individual elements (e.g. seat or gear) are not combined into a configuration set in response to component-related specifics, but the machine operator is able for the first time to define specific processing parameters or strategies for each operating mode and make them switchable in a simple manner; that is to say, they are operating modes for workpiece processing, in short: workpiece processing operating modes. The operating strategies thereby affect the system as a whole. The operating settings (parameters) of the individual machine components that are required for a particular processing strategy are defined beforehand and stored in tables, for example. On switching to a new workpiece processing operating mode, the machine components are adjusted or reconfigured to the previously stored operating strategy without operator intervention. For changing the operating strategies, corresponding actuator/sensor systems as well as communication interfaces are provided on the machine, and these make the desired adjustments.”) (Bauer: [0019] “In some cases, feedback is given to the machine operator as to whether the switch has been successfully completed or whether operator intervention is still required in order to finalise the switch. In the case of the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode, the machine operator in particular receives an indication of how long or until when the machine can operate unmanned and why an operator intervention will then be necessary. In particular after changing to the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode, a message can also be given to the machine operator in respect of the early operator intervention which will enable operation of the processing machine in the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode to be extended.”)
Regarding claim 5, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claims 1-2. Bauer further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the operation to be executed by the operator is present when a time until the operation becomes required for the operation item is calculated. (Bauer: [0019] “In some cases, feedback is given to the machine operator as to whether the switch has been successfully completed or whether operator intervention is still required in order to finalise the switch. In the case of the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode, the machine operator in particular receives an indication of how long or until when the machine can operate unmanned and why an operator intervention will then be necessary. In particular after changing to the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode, a message can also be given to the machine operator in respect of the early operator intervention which will enable operation of the processing machine in the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode to be extended.”) (Bauer: Claim 19 “… determining that the switch to the second operating mode is complete; determining whether a next operator intervention is required; in response to determining that the next operator intervention is required, determining when the next operator intervention is required; and in response to determining that the next operator intervention is required at a specific time point, notifying the operator that the next operator intervention is required at the specific time point.”) [Determining the time at which the indication of how long or until when the machine can operate in unmanned mode and necessitate the operator intervention reads on “a time until the operation becomes required for the operation item is calculated”.]
Regarding claim 6, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Bauer further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute processing to determine the necessity of said each operation item of the extracted operation items, and associate the determined necessity with said each operation item of the extracted operation items. (Bauer: [0040]-[0045] “[0040] The machine control system 2 gives feedback to the machine operator, via the machine display 4, in respect of whether the switch to the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode has been successfully completed or whether operator interventions are still required in order to finalise the switch. In addition, when switching to the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode, the machine control system 2 also performs a "check into the future" in order to anticipate faults which can already be foreseen and ensure that the machine tool 1 is ideally prepared for the unmanned phase. [0041] This "check into the future" can include, for example: [0042] checking the production scheme for implementability (all the machine components, such as, for example, tools, and material required therefor are available and exchangeable; sufficient processing tasks for an expediently lengthy unmanned phase are present); [0043] checking of upcoming maintenance tasks in the unmanned phase; [0044] checking that the level of operating supplies is sufficient. If required, the operator is required to check this. [0045] monitoring of the conditions of machine components and recommendation of preventative replacement.”)
Regarding claim 7, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claims 1 and 6. Itou further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute processing to stop the machine tool until an operator operation corresponding to the operation item determined to require execution is completed.
(Itou: [0033] as discussed in claim 1) (Itou: [0031] The robot 2 checks the chip buildup status by using the detecting device, such as the visual sensor 3, which is attached to the robot 2 by inserting the tip of the arm into the machine tool through the opening 9b during a period in which the machine tool 1 does not perform machining of the work, cleans the chips built up in the machine tool by spraying a cutting fluid which is used to machine the work, that is, a coolant on the built-up chips from the coolant gun 4 attached to the tip of the arm, and discharges the chips to the outside of the machine tool. The information processing device 21 processes the information related to the chip buildup status detected by the detecting device such as the visual sensor 3 and performs processing for determining a spot requiring a removal of chips. Incidentally, the information processing device 21 may be built into the control device 20 of the robot 2 or may be provided independently of the control device 20 of the robot 2.”) [The determining if the number of machining operations have reached the predetermined number of machining operations upon finishing of machining before the steps as illustrated in FIG. 4, and not performing machining of the work during the internal cleaning steps reads on “… to stop the machine tool until an operator operation … is completed”.]
The motivation to combine Bauer and Itou as described in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claims 1 and 6-7. Bauer further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute processing to generate a file in which the operation items are associated with corresponding necessities, and output the file to an external information processing device. (Bauer: [0027] and [0033] as discussed in claim 1) (Bauer: [0033] “The machine tool 1 can be operated in different operating modes which differ from one another in respect of the operator intervention requirements of a machine operator. For each operating mode of the processing machine 1, operating settings and/or parameters that are specific for operator interventions which can be required of the machine operator are stored beforehand in a data memory 6. These stored operating settings and/or parameters of the different operating modes can differ from one another in respect of processing sequence and/or process safety and/or quality of the processing result and/or processing speed and/or degree of automation; they are accordingly operating modes for workpiece processing, in short: workpiece processing operating modes. Thus, for example, a workpiece processing operating mode with a low operator intervention requirement has a higher process safety, a lower processing speed and a higher degree of automation than a workpiece processing operating mode with a higher operator intervention requirement.”) [The stored operating settings of an operating mode reads on “a file … associated with corresponding necessities”. The control system that takes the operating settings from the memory to change the operation of the processing machine, as well as, to provide operator feedback device of the operating status and operator intervention requirements, reads on “an external information processing device”.]
Regarding claim 9, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Bauer further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute processing to notify information relating to the necessity of an operation item of the extracted operation items to at least one of a display of the machining operation assisting device, a terminal device of the operator, and a computer configured to manage the machine tool in a factory. (Bauer: [0027] “… an operator feedback device operable by the control system to provide an indication to an operator of the machine as to whether switching from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is complete or whether at least one of the potential operator interventions is required to complete the switching.”) (Bauer: [0040] “The machine control system 2 gives feedback to the machine operator, via the machine display 4, in respect of whether the switch to the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode has been successfully completed or whether operator interventions are still required in order to finalise the switch. …”)
Regarding claim 10, Bauer and Itou teach all the claimed features of claims 1 and 9. Bauer further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute processing to cause said at least one of the display of the machining operation assisting device, the terminal device of the operator, and the computer configured to manage the machine tool in the factory to perform at least one of displaying of an operation screen, guiding the operator to the operation screen, and displaying operation details corresponding to an operator operation. (Bauer: [0040]-[0045] “[0040] The machine control system 2 gives feedback to the machine operator, via the machine display 4, in respect of whether the switch to the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode has been successfully completed or whether operator interventions are still required in order to finalise the switch. In addition, when switching to the non-operator-attended workpiece processing operating mode, the machine control system 2 also performs a "check into the future" in order to anticipate faults which can already be foreseen and ensure that the machine tool 1 is ideally prepared for the unmanned phase. [0041] This "check into the future" can include, for example: [0042] checking the production scheme for implementability (all the machine components, such as, for example, tools, and material required therefor are available and exchangeable; sufficient processing tasks for an expediently lengthy unmanned phase are present); [0043] checking of upcoming maintenance tasks in the unmanned phase; [0044] checking that the level of operating supplies is sufficient. If required, the operator is required to check this. [0045] monitoring of the conditions of machine components and recommendation of preventative replacement.”)
Regarding independent claim 11:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
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 MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116