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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiyota, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0082223 A1 (hereinafter: ‘223).
As per claim 1, ‘223 discloses a controller comprising:
a decision unit configured to decide whether or not a set operation mode is a manual operation mode (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to checking if the mode is a manual mode; See ‘223; [0080] – [0082]);
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 (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to displaying an operation image corresponding to the manual mode when the system has selected the manual mode; See ‘223; [0064], [0067] – [0068] and [0087]);
a determination unit configured to determine a motion mode of a driving axis based on an operation on the operation image (e.g., 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; See ‘223; [0028] and [0077] – [0079]); and
a control unit configured to control the driving axis based on the motion mode determined by the determination unit (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to controlling the driving axis based on the motion mode command that was determined from the operation image; See ‘223; [0059] – [0060] and [0087]).
As per claim 2, ‘223 further discloses that the detection unit is 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 (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to detecting that then the screen is touched, it triggers the displaying of the operation image; See ‘223; [0029] and [0030]).
As per claim 5, ‘223 further discloses that the manual operation mode includes a jog feed mode, and when the manual operation mode is the jog feed mode, the image display unit displays the operation image including an axis movement button for designating a movement direction of the driving axis and a jog feed override value on the display screen (e.g., Interpreted to correspond to, when in a job feed mode, the screen displays direction buttons and a job feed override value; See ‘223; [0028], [0063] - [0064], [0067] and Figures 6-8).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kioyota et al., as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Ward et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0107374 A1 (hereinafter: ‘374).
As per claim 3, ‘223 teaches a touchscreen-based controller in which a touch input generates a position signal that is processed and, when the received position signal requires a display change, the input signal processing unit transmits a display-screen-changing signal and the display control unit displays a corresponding screen (e.g., an initial operation screen) on the touch panel display (e.g., See ‘223; [0029] – [0030]).
However, ‘223 does not specifically disclose that the touch target used as the trigger is a “driving axis information image indicating driving axis information”.
‘374 discloses this missing feature by disclosing an operator interface in which icons are displayed indicating the various axes, and these axis-indicative icons are individually selectable via touch or gesture operations (e.g., See ‘374; [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify ‘223’s touchscreen interface so that the display includes the axis-indicative icons of ‘374 and to use detection of a touch or gesture on an axis indicative icon as the specific touch event that triggers display of the corresponding manual operation screen or image, because this enables faster, more direct axis selection for jogging and reduces operator error without needing additional hardware.
As per claim 4, ‘223’s combined system (‘223 in view of ‘374) discloses that the image display unit displays the operation image adjacent to the driving axis information image. ‘223 further teaches the screen being divided into multiple display areas, including an operation screen area, such that the operation image is displayed adjacent to other simultaneously displayed content on the same screen (e.g., See ‘223; [0008], [0062] and [0064] – [0065]), wherein the driving axis information image is provided by ‘374’s axis indicative icons (e.g., See ‘374; [0014]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kioyota et al., as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Setsuda, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0229766 A1 (hereinafter: ‘766).
As per claim 6, although ‘223 discloses that the manual operation mode is subdivided into modes including jog feed mode (e.g., See ‘223; [0009]), and that touch operation keys generate operation signals transmitted to the operation control unit (e.g., See ‘223; [0087]), ‘223 does not specifically disclose that the manual operation mode includes an incremental feed mode, nor that, when in the incremental feed mode, the displayed operation image includes an incremental feed magnification.
‘766 discloses the missing features by disclosing stepwise/job (incremental) manual operation in which a teach screen includes an operating-direction designating button and +/- operating buttons, and each press moves the controlled element by a preset amount of motion selectable from discrete step amounts (e.g., 10 mm, 1 mm, 0.1 mm) for each press-down operation (e.g., See ‘766; [0035] - [0036] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate ‘766’s incremental step sized jog control feature into ‘223’s manual operation screen in order to provide more precise manual positioning and thereby improve operability and allow for simple setup by avoiding the need for repeated trial and error jogging operations.
As per claim 7, although ‘223 discloses manual operation modes including JOG feed as a manual operation mode (e.g., See ‘223; [0009]), and ‘223 discloses displaying touch-screen operation screens including operation keys for jog feed for feed axes (e.g., See ‘223; [0028]), where pressing the displayed keys generates or transmits corresponding operation signals for control (e.g., See ‘223; [0087]), ‘223 does not specifically disclose determining an incremental feed magnification based on an operation way for the direction designation region.
‘766 discloses the missing features by disclosing an operation screen having an operating-direction designating button and operating buttons “+/-“ (designation region)(e.g., See ‘766; [0041]), and further teaches determining or recognizing the amount of motion (e.g., 10 mm, 1 mm, 0.1 mm) based on the operation way, specifically, the number of press-down operations (e.g., See ‘766; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate ‘766’s operation-way-based step determination feature into ‘223’s manual operation screen so as to enable incremental movement and reduce overshoot and allow for smoother control without the need for the utilization of additional knobs or switches.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kioyota et al., as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Hotelling et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0026535 A1 (hereinafter: ‘535).
As per claim 8, ‘223 discloses displaying operation screens (operation images) on a touch panel and changing and displaying screens based on user input, including transmitting an initial operation screen display signal to display to corresponding operations screens (e.g., See ‘223; [0030], [0064] – [0065] and [0087]).
However, ‘223 does not specifically teach hiding the operation image based on (i) an elimination or close operation performed, or (ii) inactivity for a predetermined time.
‘535 discloses these missing features by disclosing determining to deactivate a GUI element when (i) a user selection closes the GUI element (elimination operation) and/or (ii) no touch is detected for a preset amount of time / a timeout occurs (no operation for a predetermined time), and then disabling/removing the GUI element from display (hiding)(e.g., See ‘535; [0157] – [0158] and [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate ‘535’s hide or remove function into ‘223’s touch panel operation screens to reduce clutter and accidental inputs by allowing user dismissal or automatic timeout removal, thereby improving the usability and overall screen effectiveness.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) WO 2007074501 A1, which discloses a CNC controller which enables manual control of axes across multiple systems;
(2) US 20150268661 A1, which discloses simulating manual machine tool movements, checking for collisions and generating NC programs;
(3) US 10076839 B2, which discloses a robotic touchscreen pendant for selecting axis or modes, and utilizing dragging gestures for commanding movements; and
(4) US 9436365 B2, which discloses an NC machine touch panel which shows mod screens and allows for auto switching of modes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 January 8, 2026
/RDH/