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 Interpretation
Claim terminology: “likely”
Applicant’s specification provides a standard of measurement for “likely” in terms of quantifying the distance in which interference is likely to occur.
0055 e.g. “Next, the prohibited motion amount calculation unit 210 calculates a distance by which the motion part may be moved from the check position during a predetermined check time width TW defined in advance for each axis. For example, it is assumed that the motion part is pre-set to be movable at a tolerated velocity vymax in the Y-axis direction. In such a case, the motion part may move by a distance of vymax×TW during the check time width TW in the Y-axis direction….”
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:
command analysis unit -> 0044, The control device 1 of the present embodiment includes a command analysis unit 110, a distribution processing unit 115, a motion command output unit 120, an acceleration/deceleration processing unit 125, a servo control unit 130, and an interference determination unit 135. Further, the interference check device 2 includes a prohibited motion amount calculation unit 210. Furthermore, the RAM 13 or the nonvolatile memory 14 of the control device 1 stores in advance a machining program 180 used for control of the industrial machine 3.
a distribution processing unit -> 0044
an interference determination unit ->0044
As interpreted, the control device-1 comprising each unit provides sufficient structure for each of the claimed units. 0031 e.g. “A CPU 11 of the control device 1 according to the present embodiment is a processor that entirely controls the control device 1. The CPU 11 reads a system program stored in a ROM 12 via a bus 22 and controls the overall control device 1 in accordance with the system program. A RAM 13 temporarily stores temporary calculation data or display data, various data input from outside, and the like.”
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IDE et al. (PG/PUB 20090062955).
Claim 1.
IDE et al. teaches a control device that controls motion of a motion part of an industrial machine along an axis based on a machining program, wherein the control device performs interference check in cooperation with an interference check device that checks interference between the motion part and an obstacle (Figure 1), the control device comprising:
a command analysis unit that analyzes a block of the machining program (Figure 1-2 e.g. see command analysis)
a distribution processing unit that creates a distributed motion amount for each distribution cycle based on an analysis result from the command analysis unit, calculates a position of the motion part updated by the distributed motion amount, and notifies the interference check device of the calculated position (Figure 1-3a/4, 0021-22, 0026-31,0046 Figure 1-7, see also 0016-17 e.g. as interpreted, a unit configured to share data such that either 3a/4 determining a distributed motion amount per command cycle and distributing result to the interference checking unit, the interference checking unit sharing result data with the interference determining unit)
an interference determination unit determines whether or not interference between the motion part and the obstacle is expected based on a prohibited motion amount calculated by the interference check device based on the notified position, the prohibited motion amount being such a distance that is likely to cause interference when the motion part moves by the distance from the position of the motion part (Figure 2-74, 0026-30, see also 0016-17 e.g. see determining interference based on region analysis for determining likelihood of collision between moving parts based on command analysis)
wherein when it is determined by the interference determination unit that interference between the motion part and the obstacle is expected to occur, motion of the motion part is stopped (Figure 2-8, 0029 e.g. see selectively controlling acceleration and deceleration based on the interference determination result).
Claim 2. The control device according to claim 1 further comprising an acceleration/deceleration processing unit that performs a predetermined acceleration/deceleration process on a distributed motion amount for each distribution cycle created by the distribution processing unit (Figure 1-8)
wherein the interference determination unit determines whether or not interference between the motion part and the obstacle is expected by comparing the prohibited motion amount with a motion amount forward from the position calculated based on the distributed motion amount on which the predetermined acceleration/deceleration process was performed by the acceleration/deceleration processing unit (0029-30)
Claim 3. The control device according to claim 1, wherein the distribution processing unit further notifies the interference check device of information that is useful to identify a range where the motion part is able to move in addition to the position of the motion part (Figure 1-7, 0017, Figure 2)
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) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDE et al. (PG/PUB 20090062955) in view over NISHI et al. (PG/PUB 20170028558).
Claim 4.
IDE et al. teaches an interference check device (Figure 1-7) that checks interference between a motion part moving along an axis of an industrial machine and an obstacle but does not expressly teach the model limitations described below. NISHI teaches the model limitations described below, the interference check device comprising:
a model data storage unit that stores models of the motion part and the obstacle (NISHI, ABSTRACT, 0018, 0033, 0046 e.g. see storing multiple models for interference processing)
a prohibited motion amount calculation unit (NISHI, Figure 2-24, 0046, see also IDE, Figure 1-74 e.g. see identifying interfering regions based upon at least models) that, based on a position of the motion part notified from a control device that controls the industrial machine and on the models of the motion part and the obstacle stored in the model data storage unit (e.g. see the application of models in light of identifying regions of collision based upon command analysis), calculates a prohibited motion amount that is likely to cause interference when the motion part moves by the prohibited motion amount from the position of the motion part (NISHI, 0046, Figure 8, see also IDE, Figure 2 e.g. see part model applied for collision analysis in light of identifying regions of collision, as per IDE)
wherein the calculated prohibited motion amount is transmitted to the control device (IDE, Figure 1-8, 0028-29, see also NISHI, 0037 e.g. see controlling machine tool based on results of interference results)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of NISHI, namely preventing interference based on multiple models embodied within the interference checking device, to the teachings of IDE, namely providing an interference checking device for identifying regions of interference, would achieve an expected and predictable result of employing multiple models for identifying interference for minimizing machine damage as described. NISHI is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of identifying collisions, as described, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 5. The interference check device according to claim 4, wherein a motion range of the motion part in the interference check is set so as to partially overlap a motion range of the motion part in interference check in a next cycle (NISHI, 0046, 0053)
Claim 6.
IDE teaches a control system in which a control device and an interference check device cooperate to perform interference check, wherein the control device controls motion of a motion part of an industrial machine along an axis based on a machining program, and the interference check device checks interference between the motion part and an obstacle; however, IDE does not teach the model limitations described below. NISHI teaches the model limitations described below.
wherein the interference check device comprises
a model data storage unit that stores models of the motion part and the obstacle, NISHI, ABSTRACT, 0018, 0033, 0046) and
a prohibited motion amount calculation unit that, based on a position of the motion part notified from the control device and on the models of the motion part and the obstacle stored in the model data storage unit, calculates a prohibited motion amount that is likely to cause interference when the motion part moves by the prohibited motion amount from the position of the motion part (NISHI, 0046, Figure 8, see also IDE, Figure 2 e.g. see part model)
wherein the control device comprises
a command analysis unit that analyzes a block of the machining program (Figure 1)
a distribution processing unit that creates a distributed motion amount for each distribution cycle based on an analysis result from the command analysis unit, calculates a position of the motion part updated by the distributed motion amount, and notifies the interference check device of the calculated position, Figure 1-3a, 0029-31,0046 Figure 1-7
an interference determination unit that determines whether or not interference between the motion part and the obstacle is expected based on a prohibited motion amount calculated by the prohibited motion amount calculation unit, Figure 2-74, 0029-30)
wherein when it is determined by the interference determination unit that interference between the motion part and the obstacle is expected to occur, motion of the motion part is stopped (0029-30)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of NISHI, namely preventing interference based on multiple models embodied within the interference checking device, to the teachings of IDE, namely providing an interference checking device for identifying regions of interference, would achieve an expected and predictable result of employing multiple models for identifying interference for minimizing machine damage as described. NISH is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of identifying collisions, as described, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20150045941 e.g. “An interference checking device 1 checks, during machining using an NC machine tool 20, interference between structures of the NC machine tool 20, a tool and a workpiece, and includes an interference check processing unit 2 virtually moving models and checking the occurrence of interference based on a position control signal from a numerical controller 30, and an operation effect degree evaluating unit 6 evaluating the degree of an effect of an operation on a possibility of the occurrence of interference. When a predetermined operation is performed during machining of a workpiece following a first workpiece, the interference check processing unit 2 moves the models at intervals determined based on the degree of the effect evaluated by the operation effect degree evaluating unit 6.”
2080024083 e.g. “Disclosed is a numerical controller capable of foreseeing the occurrence of interference during operation of a machine and securely preventing the interference. An advanced position calculating section determines advanced time for the next interference check, based on an end time point of an interference check by an interference checking device and the sum of a time required for the interference check, a time required for communication, a time required for decelerating and stopping a movable part, and a predetermined float. Further, an advanced position of the movable part at the advanced time is calculated based on pre-read program data and is outputted to the interference checking device. The interference checking device performs the interference check at the advanced position. If it detects interference, the interference checking device delivers an axis stop signal to a motion command output section, thereby stopping a motion command and decelerating and stopping the movable part. Since interference check timing is settled in accordance with the time required for the interference check, the occurrence of interference can be securely prevented without delay or advance”
10048675 e.g. “An object of the present invention is to provide a numerical controller that performs interference check based on a look-ahead position before a feedrate varies by taking the variation in the feedrate into consideration and controls the change of an override safely. To achieve this object, the numerical controller is configured such that, when calculating a coordinate value of a look-ahead position which a movable part subjected to interference check reaches after a look-ahead period elapses from a current position at a current time, the numerical controller calculates the look-ahead position assuming that the movable part moves at a predetermined feedrate of which the upper limit is the maximum feedrat”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) 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 Fennema can be reached at 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 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117