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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/8/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/8/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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: data acquisition unit, coordinate calculation unit, deviation amount calculation unit in claim 1, measurement device in claim 3.
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 § 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts of computes an amount of deviation between a rotation center position of a rotary member and a rotation center position in a machine coordinate system of a machine tool that includes: the rotary member on which a workpiece is placed; and a movable member to which a tool machining the workpiece is attached and that is provided so as to be movable with respect to the rotary member, calculate a position coordinate corresponding to the first position with respect to the rotation center position of the rotary member based on the shape data/ a coordinate calculation step of calculating a position coordinate corresponding to the first position with respect to a rotation center position of the rotary member based on the shape data, calculate a difference between the first position and the position coordinate as the amount of deviation/ a deviation amount calculation step of calculating a difference between the first position and the position coordinate as an amount of deviation between the rotation center position in the machine coordinate system and the rotation center position of the rotary member, compensates the rotation center position in the machine coordinate system based on the amount of deviation, in the coordinate calculation step/a compensation step of compensating the rotation center position in the machine coordinate system based on the amount of deviation, measurement values measured in the first measurement step and the second measurement step are used as the shape data (claims 1, 4-5 and 7), these limitations as described in [0043]-[0055] constitutes details of mathematical calculations of the position coordinates and difference between the first position and the position coordinate, it is further noted that compensates the rotation center position in the machine coordinate system based on the amount of deviation can be interpreted as performing coordinate transformation of the rotation center position based on the amount of deviation, which is also mathematical calculations, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a data acquisition unit configured to acquire shape data regarding a shape of a first circular machining groove formed by rotation of the rotary member when the tool is at a first position in the machine coordinate system and regarding a shape of a second circular machining groove formed by the rotation of the rotary member when the tool is at a second position different from the first position/ a data acquisition step of acquiring shape data regarding a shape of a first circular machining groove formed by rotation of the rotary member when the tool is at a first position in the machine coordinate system and regarding a shape of a second circular machining groove formed by the rotation of the rotary member when the tool is at a second position different from the first position, a measurement device configured to measure the first circular machining groove and the second circular machining groove, a pre-processing step of forming the first circular machining groove by rotating the rotary member after controlling the movable member in a manner so that the tool moves to the first position, and forming the second circular machining groove by rotating the rotary member after controlling the movable member in a manner so that the tool moves to the second position, a first measurement step of measuring the shapes by controlling the movable member in a manner so that a measurement device attached to the movable member passes across the first circular machining groove and the second circular machining groove along a first direction; and a second measurement step of measuring the shapes by controlling the movable member in a manner so that the measurement device displaced in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction passes across the first circular machining groove and the second circular machining groove along the first direction (claims 1 and 4-7) represent mere data gathering which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The coordinate calculation unit and the deviation amount calculation unit (claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations “computation device is mounted in a controller configured to control the machine tool”, “the machine tool; a controller configured to control the machine tool” (claims 2-3) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d). The coordinate calculation unit and the deviation amount calculation unit are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5 would be allowable if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US10203682 discloses a position controller for a tilting head in a machining center. The position controller includes an offset attachment having a body combined to the tilting head and a spherical contact secured to the body, an offset detector built in the machining center such that the offset detector move out into a process area of the machining center and automatically detects a tool offset from a contact point with the spherical contact, a storing unit individually storing first and second tool offsets by respective rotation positions of the tilting head, and an operator generating a transform offset of the first tool offset by a rotational transform and a center error vector from the transform offset and the second tool offset. Accordingly, the center error of the tilting head is automatically detected and corrected in the machining center.
US20100207567 discloses a numerically controlled machine tool which has a linear feed axis and a rotational feed axis and which has functions for measuring in advance, errors of a relative position and a relative attitude of a main spindle relative to a work table by positioning the linear feed axis and the rotational feed axis to specified position and attitude, and correcting a movement command based on measured error data, the error data being multi-dimensional data containing a position error and an attitude error. The machine tool includes a error data storage means which store an error map that is prepared by collecting a plurality of the error data corresponding to positions and rotation angles of the linear feed axis and the rotational feed axis, and a correction data computing means which compute correction data for correcting the movement command from a command position for the linear feed axis and the rotational feed axis and the error data stored in the error data storage means.
US4899094 discloses in an automatic lathe, a touch trigger probe is calibrated (datumed) against an item having a known reference dimension, instead of against the lathe chuck or against a surface machined in a workpiece. The calibrated probe is then used to touch two diametrically opposed points of a feature centered with respect to the axis of rotation of the chuck. From the mean of the co-ordinates of the two points touched, there is calculated an offset related to the difference between the assumed axis of rotation and the actual axis of rotation. This calibrates the machine to compensate for any drift between the actual axis of rotation and the machine's measurement origin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR 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 PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117