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 .
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy, for the foreign priority, of European Patent Application No. 2021-081792 (filed on 5/13/2021), was received on 99/99/99.
The present application is the National Stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/JP2022/017525 (filed on 4/11/2022).
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/3/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
each of the devices and units carrying out a function as recited in claims 1-8.
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, claim(s) 8-10 are eligible as per the Step 1 (statutory) analysis.
However, as per the Step 2A Prong One (abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon) analysis, the claimed invention in claim(s) 8 and 9 is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, abstract idea); this is because the claims recite “a calculation unit that calculates a predicted arrival position of a moving unit based on positional information indicating a position of the moving unit detected by using a position detection device that detects the position of the moving unit that moves and distance information indicating a future moving distance of the moving unit based on an operation command for operating a motor that moves the moving unit, and calculates a shift amount between the predicted arrival position and a target position of the moving unit; and an output unit that outputs information indicating the shift amount between the predicted arrival position and the target position calculated by the calculation unit, wherein the calculation unit determines a reference point in time in consideration of at least one of an acquisition time required to acquire the positional information and an acquisition time required to acquire the distance information, acquires or calculates the position and the future moving distance of the moving unit at the reference point in time, and calculates the predicted arrival position based on the acquired or calculated position or future moving distance of the moving unit at the reference point in time. This is merely receiving/acquiring data and making calculations based on the received data, all of which fall under a sub-category(ies) of abstract ideas, namely mathematical concepts and mental processes.
As per the Step 2A Prong Two (practical application) analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim(s) 8 and 9 simply recite data gathering and calculation which are not incorporated into any such practical application which applies the gathered and calculated data. The claims recite outputting data, but this is recited at a high level of generality, where the outputted data is not used in any manner.
As per the Step 2B (significantly more) analysis, claim(s) 8-9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recite functional units where the functions (of gather and manipulating data) are related to one another, without the recitation of any non-generic hardware that incorporates such data gathering and calculation.
Dependent claim(s) 10 recites a program for causing a computer to execute the control method according to claim 9, which does not recite subject matter that cures the 101 deficiency of claim(s) 9.
Note: Claim(s) 1 recite(s) subject matter that cures the 101 deficiency of claim(s) 8-9, by reciting, in addition to the above abstract idea, the actual control of a motor, which, taking along with the rest of claim 1 as a whole, recites a practical application. Thus, reciting the limitations of claim(s) 1 (or any other recitation with practical applications) in claim(s) 8-9 would also cure the 101 deficiency of claim(s) 8-9.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moriya (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0050276) (hereinafter “Moriya”).
Regarding claim 1 and corresponding claims 8 and 9, Moriya teaches a motor control system (Para. 47 - - control system 1 controls motors)
comprising: a position detection device that detects a position of a moving unit that moves; (Fig. 9, Para. 58 - - position of control targets 501-503, which are moving units driven by the motors, are measured)
a command device that outputs an operation command for operating a motor that moves the moving unit; (Fig. 1, 9 Para. 55 - - command value from control system 1 drives the motor that moves the control targets 501-503)
and a control device, (Fig. 1 - - control system comprises PC 10 and PLC 20)
wherein the control device includes a calculation unit that calculates a predicted arrival position of the moving unit from positional information indicating a position of the moving unit and distance information indicating a future moving distance of the moving unit calculated based on the operation command, (Para. 143 - - difference, i.e. shift amount, is calculated between predicted position and command, i.e. target, position; in order to do this, both the predicted position and the target position are calculated so that the difference can then be calculated)
and calculates a shift amount between the predicted arrival position and a target position of the moving unit, (Para. 143 - - difference, i.e. shift amount, is calculated between predicted position and command, i.e. target, position)
and an output unit that outputs information indicating the shift amount between the predicted arrival position and the target position calculated by the calculation unit, (Para. 145 - - error, i.e. difference between predicted position and target position, is displayed, i.e. outputted)
and the calculation unit determines a reference point in time in consideration of at least one of an acquisition time required to acquire the positional information and an acquisition time required to acquire the distance information, acquires or calculates the position and the future moving distance of the moving unit at the reference point in time, and calculates the predicted arrival position based on the acquired or calculated position and future moving distance of the moving unit at the reference point in time. (Para. 143 - - difference, i.e. shift amount, is calculated between predicted position and command, i.e. target, position; in order to do this, both the predicted position and the target position are calculated so that the difference can then be calculated)
Regarding claim 6, Moriya teaches wherein the moving unit includes a head that holds an object, and a motor that is coupled to the head and moves with the head, and the position detection device includes a camera that detects a position of the head, and an encoder that detects a position of the motor. (Fig. 9 - - moving unit moves object, where position is detected)
Regarding claim 7, Moriya teaches wherein the calculation unit calculates a shift amount between the position of the head and the position of the motor based on a torque command based on the operation command. (Para. 143 - - difference, i.e. shift amount, is calculated between predicted position and command, i.e. target, position)
Regarding claim 10, Moriya teaches a program for causing a computer to execute the control method according to Claim 9. (Para. 47 - - control system is a computer)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights