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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 9/28/2026
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9 are pending
Claims 2-4, and 7 are canceled
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 9/28/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on pages 4-5, applicant argues “ However, Sekine does not teach a driving mode of a driving axis that is ‘at least one of a normal mode, a machine lock mode, a mirror image mode, an axis detach mode, an interlock mode, and a servo off mode … wherein the image display unit changes a display mode of the driving axis information image based on the driving mode determined by the determination unit’ as recited in Applicant’s amended independent claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the present rejection is based on the combined teachings of Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada, rather than Sekine. Kiyota teaches changing the display screen based on the selected operation mode (Fig. 6-11, Par. [0062] – [0065], wherein operation screens corresponding to different operation modes are displayed). Ward teaches displaying driving axis information (Fig. 4, Par. [0014], “an operator interface on which icons are displayed, indicating the various axes of a press, individually selectable”). Kawada teaches a mirror image mode and changing the display appearance of the corresponding driving axis information based on the selected mode (Fig. 2, Par. [0014], “Accordingly, when the mirror image mode or the radius designation mode is set on either the NC program or the NC parameter setting screen, the mode confirmation boxes 22a and 22b for each axis are colored”). Thus, incorporating Kawada’s mirror image mode and corresponding mode-dependent display indication into the touch screen display of Kiyota and Ward teaches the amended limitations of independent claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kawada’s mirror image mode and corresponding display indication into the touch screen display of Kiyota and Ward to improve the ability of an operator to easily confirm whether an axis is set to a special operating mode during machine operation, as suggested by Kawada (Par. [0010]).
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7, Applicant further argues “Hotelling, however, fails to teach the above-recited features of Applicant’s amended independent claim 1 from which claim 6 depends”. Applicant similarly argues “Muscarella, however, fails to teach the above-recited and discussed features of Applicant’s amended independent claim 1, from which claims 8 and 9 depend”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Hotelling and Muscarella are not relied upon to teach the disputed amended limitations of independent claim 1. As explained above, the amended limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combination of Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada. Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claim 5 are similarly not persuasive because the combination of Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada teaches the limitations of independent claim 1, as explained above. Hotelling is relied upon for the additional limitation of claim 6, while Muscarella is relied upon for the additional limitations of claims 8-9. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not address the combined teachings relied upon in the present rejections.
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: “image display unit”, “determination unit”, “control unit”, “detection unit” in claims 1, 5-6, and 9.
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.
The corresponding structure disclosed in Applicant’s specification includes CPU 201 executing a system program stored in ROM 203 using data stored in nonvolatile memory 205, together with input/output device 3 comprising a touch panel, interface 206, axis control circuit 207, and servo amplifier 4 (Figs. 1-2, Par. [0033]-[0041], [0051]). The corresponding algorithms include displaying driving axis information, detecting a touch operation and displaying an operation image, determining a driving mode based on the touch operation, changing the displayed driving axis information based on the determined driving mode, and controlling the driving axis accordingly (Figs. 3-4, Par. [0077]-[0085], [0089]-[0094]). For claim 6, the disclosed algorithm further includes determining to hide and remove the operation image in response to an elimination operation or inactivity (Fig. 3G, Fig. 4, Par. [0086]-[0087], [0095]). These limitations are interpreted to cover the corresponding disclosed structures programmed to perform the identified algorithms and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyota et al. USPGPUB 2015/0082223 A1 (hereinafter Kiyota) in view of Ward et al. USPGPUB 2018/0107374 A1 (hereinafter Ward), and further in view of Kawada et al. JP2005122588A (hereinafter Kawada).
Regarding claim 1, Kiyoto teaches a controller (Fig. 1, Par. [0058] “controller 5”) comprising:
an image display unit (Fig. 1, Par. [0061] “The touch panel 21 includes a display unit 22 on which a screen is displayed”) configured to display an operation image for changing a driving mode of a driving axis on a display screen (Fig. 4-11, Par. [0064] “display area 26 is an area for displaying a mode switching screen in which mode keys for selecting one from a plurality of operation modes are arranged”; Par. [0009], ”manual operation mode is also subdivided into a plurality of modes, such as a jog feed mode, a zero return mode, and the like” – jog feed mode and zero return mode are types of driving axis modes);
a determination unit configured to determine the driving mode based on an operation on the operation image (Par. [0029] “For example, in a case where the operator presses down any one of the mode keys in the mode switching screen displayed in the mode switching screen display area, the input signal processing unit refers to the operation information stored in the operation signal storage unit, recognizes that the corresponding operation mode has been selected, and generates a selection signal for selecting the corresponding operation mode and transmits the generated signal to the operation controller” – the input signal processing unit corresponds to the determination unit determining the selected driving mode based on the touched mode key.);
a control unit (Par. [0059] “operation control unit 6 controlling operations of the machining mechanism 2, etc. as other components thereof.” - interpreted to correspond to controlling the driving axis based on the driving mode command that was determined from the operation image.) configured to control the driving axis based on the driving mode determined by the determination unit (Fig. 1, Par. [0059] “a feed mechanism moving the tool rest in a predetermined axis direction, etc., … feed mechanism moving the table and the spindle relative to each other in predetermined axis directions”; Par. [0087] “in the case where the input signal is a signal corresponding to an operation key, the input signal processing unit 13 recognizes this signal as an operation signal, and generates an operation signal corresponding to the operation key and transmits the generated signal to the operation control unit 6”); and
a detection unit configured to detect a touch operation on the display screen (Par. [0029] “when the operator touches the touch panel, a position signal is input from the input unit of the touch panel and this signal is received by the input signal processing unit.” – detection unit is interpreted to correspond to detecting that when the screen is touched, it triggers the displaying of the operation image.),
wherein, when the detection unit detects the touch operation, the image display unit displays the operation image on the display screen (Par. [0030] “in a case where the received position signal is a signal that requires the display screen to be changed, the input signal processing unit transmits a display screen changing signal to the display control unit and the display control unit displays a display screen corresponding to the received signal on the display unit of the touch panel”),
wherein, when the detection unit detects the touch operation on the driving axis information image, the image display unit displays the operation image on the display screen (Par. [0030] “in a case where the received position signal is a signal that requires the display screen to be changed, the input signal processing unit transmits a display screen changing signal to the display control unit and the display control unit displays a display screen corresponding to the received signal on the display unit of the touch panel”), and
wherein the image display unit changes a display mode of the driving axis information image based on the driving mode determined by the determination unit (Fig. 6-11, Par. [0062] – [0065] “display screen storage unit 15 is a functional unit for storing data relating to display screens to be displayed on the display unit 22 of the touch panel 21, and based on the display screen data stored in the display screen data storage unit 15, the display screens are displayed on the display unit 22 under control by the display control unit 12.” … “display area 26 is an area for displaying a mode switching screen in which mode keys for selecting one from a plurality of operation modes are arranged” … “display areas 27 and 28 are each an area for displaying an operation screen in which operation keys which are set corresponding to each of the operation modes are arranged, and a plurality of operation screens (pages) are prepared for each of the operation modes.”).
Kiyota teaches displaying and accepting driving axis settings through a touch screen display, but does not explicitly teach displaying driving axis information.
However, Ward teaches displaying driving axis information (Fig. 4, Par. [0014] “touch screen operator control panel for industrial machines, in particular for the control of manoeuvring of the axes of injection presses for plastic materials, comprises an operator interface on which icons are displayed, indicating the various axes of a press, individually selectable in order to be dragged into a manoeuvring area, where they are translatable in the two ways of a certain direction to impart corresponding movements to the selected axis, wherein the possibility is provided of simultaneously displaying in said manoeuvring area (2) icons of several press axes correlated one to the other and of actuating sequentially/selectively the movements of these press axes by dragging a central zone (1) of said manoeuvring area (2) in the corresponding different directions wherein the respective icons of the press axes are displayed”).
Kiyota and Ward are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They both relate to touch screen displays for driving axis settings.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above touch screen display, as taught by Kiyota, and incorporate displaying driving axis information, as taught by Ward.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve ease of controlling driving axis settings as suggested by Ward (Par. [0007]).
Kiyota and Ward do not explicitly teach wherein the determined driving mode is at least one of a normal mode, a machine lock mode, a mirror image mode, an axis detach mode, an interlock mode, and a servo off mode.
However, Kawada teaches wherein the determined driving mode is at least one of a normal mode, a machine lock mode, a mirror image mode, an axis detach mode, an interlock mode, and a servo off mode (Fig. 2, Par. [0014], “In the coordinate display area 22, a mode confirmation box 22a indicating whether or not the mirror image mode is set is displayed for each axis (X axis, Z axis, C axis, Y axis)”).
Kawada further teaches wherein the image display unit changes a display mode of the driving axis information image based on the driving mode determined by the determination unit (Fig. 2, Par. [0014], “Accordingly, when the mirror image mode or the radius designation mode is set on either the NC program or the NC parameter setting screen, the mode confirmation boxes 22a and 22b for each axis are colored” – the mode confirmation boxes correspond to axis-specific displayed information, and their color changes according to whether the corresponding driving axis is set to the mirror image mode.).
Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada are analogous art because they contain function similarities. They all relate to displaying information associated with controlling and operating machine axes.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above touch screen display, as taught by Kiyota and Ward, and incorporate the option to select a mirror image mode and display a corresponding mode-dependent indication for each driving axis, as taught by Kawada.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the ability of an operator to easily confirm whether an axis is set to a special operating mode during machine operation, as suggested by Kawada (Par. [0010).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyota further teaches wherein the image display unit displays the operation image adjacent to the driving axis information image (Fig. 6-11, Par. [0065] “display areas 27 and 28 are each an area for displaying an operation screen in which operation keys which are set corresponding to each of the operation modes are arranged, and a plurality of operation screens (pages) are prepared for each of the operation modes.” – In figures 6-11, an image of a display screen shows an axis settings section adjacent to a machine operation section).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyota et al. USPGPUB 2015/0082223 A1 (hereinafter Kiyota) in view of Ward et al. USPGPUB 2018/0107374 A1 (hereinafter Ward) and Kawada et al. JP2005122588A (hereinafter Kawada), and further in view of Hotelling et al. USPGPUB 2006/0026535 A1 (hereinafter Hotelling).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyota does not explicitly teach wherein, when an operation of eliminating the operation image is performed, or when there is no operation on the operation image for a predetermined time, the determination unit determines to hide the operation image.
However, Hotelling teaches wherein, when an operation of eliminating the operation image is performed, or when there is no operation on the operation image for a predetermined time, the determination unit determines to hide the operation image (Par. [0157] – [0158] “At some point after enabling and displaying the GUI element, a determination 812 is made as to whether or not to deactivate the GUI element. The determination 812 can be made in a variety of ways including, for example: 1) the touch is no longer detected, 2) a touch has not been detected for a preset amount of time, 3) a time out occurs (a preset amount of time has gone by since the GUI element was first displayed/enabled), or 4) a user selection (e.g., a user selects a button that closes the GUI element). If the determination indicates deactivation, then the method proceeds to block 814 where the GUI element is disabled and removed from display.”).
Kiyota, Ward, and Hotelling are analogous art because they all contain functional similarities. They all relate to display elements.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above touch screen controller, as taught by Kiyota and Ward, and incorporate determining whether to deactivate or remove a displayed GUI element depending on how long it has been since a touch input has been detected, as taught by Hotelling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve operation of touch screen interface by removing an unused or closed operation image from the display, thereby preventing unnecessary continued display of the GUI element and freeing the display area for other touch screen controls, as suggested by Hotelling (Par. [0157]-[0158]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyota et al. USPGPUB 2015/0082223 A1 (hereinafter Kiyota) in view of Ward et al. USPGPUB 2018/0107374 A1 (hereinafter Ward) and Kawada et al. JP2005122588A (hereinafter Kawada), and further in view of Muscarella et al. US 7,290,316 B2 (hereinafter Muscarella).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyota teaches an image indicating a candidate for the driving mode (Par. [0064] “mode keys corresponding to a memory operation mode (MEMORY), an MDI operation mode (MDI), a DNC operation mode (DNC), an edit mode (EDIT), a JOG feed mode (JOG) and a zero return mode (ZRN) are displayed.”), but does not explicitly teach wherein the operation image includes an axis specification image for specifying the driving axis.
However, Muscarella teaches wherein the operation image includes an axis specification image for specifying the driving axis (Col. 11, “selection of the continuous jog mode is accomplished via "button" 724 on the main menu. One selected, screen 810 is displayed for the continuous jog mode. To select an axis for jogging, the appropriate HMI JOG (AXIS NAME) push "button" 830-836 is selected.”).
Kiyota, Ward, Kawada, and Muscarella are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to axis control devices.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above touch screen display, as taught by Kiyota, Ward, and Kawada, and incorporate the ability to specify an axis, as taught by Muscarella.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve machine efficiency as suggested by Muscarella (Col. 3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kiyota, Ward, Kawada, and Muscarella teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyota further teaches wherein the determination unit determines the driving mode of the driving axis based on an operation on the image indicating the candidate (Fig. 4-11, Par. [0064] “the display areas 26 to 34 are areas for displaying operation keys used by the operator to input operation signals. The display area 26 is an area for displaying a mode switching screen in which mode keys for selecting one from a plurality of operation modes are arranged, and in the following description this area is referred to as "mode switching screen display area".”).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maki USPGPUB 2015/0105900 A1 teaches a numerical controller for controlling a machine tool, with a screen for operation check.
Etou et al. [USPGPUB 2016/0026170 A1] teaches a numerical controller, in which positional deviation is obtained by a positional deviation counter based on a commanded position according to a commanded movement amount output from a position command section and a detected actual position in each movement-command output cycle, and position loop control is carried out based on the determined positional deviation to drive and control a control axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (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 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.
/PETER XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
