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 11/16/2023
Claims 1-9 are pending
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 8 of copending Application No. 18/561,417 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and the currently patented claims expressly recite the same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ both device and methods, as recited in both sets of claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following table is exemplary:
Instant Application No. 18/561,409
Co-Pending Application No. 18/561,417
A controller comprising:
an image display unit configured to display an operation image for changing a driving mode of a driving axis on a display screen;
a determination unit configured to determine the driving mode based on an operation on the operation image; and
a control unit configured to control the driving axis based on the driving mode determined by the determination unit.
A controller comprising: a decision unit configured to decide whether or not a set operation mode is a manual operation mode;
an image display unit configured to display an operation image corresponding to the manual operation mode on a display screen when the decision unit decides that the operation mode is the manual operation mode;
a determination unit configured to determine a motion mode of a driving axis based on an operation on the operation image; and
a control unit configured to control the driving axis based on the motion mode determined by the determination unit.
2. The controller according to claim 1, further comprising a detection unit configured to detect a touch operation on the display screen, wherein, when the detection unit detects the touch operation, the image display unit displays the operation image on the display screen.
2. The controller according to claim 1, further comprising a detection unit configured to detect a touch operation on the display screen, wherein, when the detection unit detects the touch operation, the image display unit displays the operation image on the display screen.
3. The controller according to claim 2, wherein: the image display unit further displays a driving axis information image indicating driving axis information of the driving axis; and 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.
3. The controller according to claim 2, wherein: the image display unit further displays a driving axis information image indicating driving axis information of the driving axis; and 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.
5. The controller according to claim 3, wherein the image display unit displays the operation image adjacent to the driving axis information image.
4. The controller according to claim 3, wherein the image display unit displays the operation image adjacent to the driving axis information image.
6. The controller according to claim 1, 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.
8. The controller according to claim 1, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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) 1-2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiyota et al. USPGPUB 2015/0082223 A1 (hereinafter Kiyota).
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 (Fig. 1, Par. [0061] “an input unit 23 which is disposed in a state of being overlapped on the display unit 22 for inputting data relating to a position touched by an operator's finger or the like” – interpreted to correspond to determining which axis motion mode is commanded based on the user’s interaction with what is touched on the operation image.) configured to determine the driving mode based on an operation on the operation image (Par. [0028] “screen in which mode keys corresponding to the operation modes are arranged can be given as an example, and as for the operation screen, a screen in which operation keys corresponding to operations such as forward rotation and reverse rotation of a spindle, override of rotational speed, jog feed for a plurality of feed axes, override of feed rate, and the like are arranged can be given as an example.”); and
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”).
Regarding claim 2, Kiyota teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyoto further teaches a detection unit (- interpreted to correspond to detecting that when the screen is touched, it triggers the displaying of the operation image) 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.”), 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”).
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) 3-5 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).
Regarding claim 3, Kiyota teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyota further teaches wherein:
the image display unit further displays a driving axis settings image indicating settings options for the driving axis (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.” – Figures 6-11 display area 28 show driving axis settings options); and
when the detection unit detects the touch operation on the driving axis settings image, the image display unit displays the operation image on the display screen (Par. [0029] – [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”).
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]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kiyota and Ward teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyota 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. 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.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kiyota and Ward 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 Hotelling et al. USPGPUB 2006/0026535 A1 (hereinafter Hotelling).
Regarding claim 6, Kiyota 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.”).
Claim(s) 7 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 Sekine USPGPUB 2015/0168944 A1 (hereinafter Sekine).
Regarding claim 7, Kiyota teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kiyota teaches a determination unit determining a driving mode based on an operation on the operation image, but does not explicitly teach the driving mode to be 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, Sekine teaches a driving mode to be a servo off mode (Fig. 17, Par. [0006] “servo driving apparatus 40 is connected to a numerical controller 20”; Par. [0084] “Although the control signal 17 is set to "torque limit signal" in either axis of this control table 10, it may be set to "servo off signal". The servo off signal has the function of passing no current through the servo motor when turned on and performing no control and this signal is used not to move an axis.”).
Kiyota and Sekine are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to controllers for controlling 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 display screen, as taught by Kiyota, and incorporate the option to select a servo off mode, as taught by Sekine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve axis control when you have multiple servo motors as suggested by Sekine (Par. [0091]).
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 Muscarella et al. US 7,290,316 B2 (hereinafter Muscarella).
Regarding claim 8, Kiyota 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 and Muscarella are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both 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, 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 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 is provided 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