DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 (filed 12/11/2023) have been considered in this action. Claims 1-2 are filed in the same format as originally filed. Claim 3 has been amended.
Specification
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 following title is suggested: NUMERICAL CONTROL DEVICE THAT ANALYZES FIRST SECOND AND THIRD COMMANDS IN A SINGLE BLOCK TO GENERATE A COMMAND
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: “command analysis unit” and “command information generation unit” in claim 1-3.
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. Accordingly, paragraph [0025] provides the necessary structure in the form of processor and memory programmed to perform the claimed functionality.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to the statutory category of invention of a machine in the form of a numerical controller.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 is an apparatus claims directed to (A) Mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. The acts of analyzing a machine program and generating command information from claim 1 are directed to abstract ideas in the form of mental processing steps capable of being performed in the human mind. The claim is formulated in such a way that the analyzing must include analyzing three commands, with no other limits on how the analysis is performed. The analysis could for example include the mental processing steps of observing and evaluating a machining program to see if first, second and third command data is present in a machining program. The generating of command information is recited in such a manner that it only requires the generated commands to be “based” on the first through third command without any other description of how the generating is performed. It is considered that in the field of numerical controllers, a person could mentally think about the commands that would be formulated in a machining program (i.e. G-code commands) and with the aid of pen and paper generate a command from three pieces of command data. Machine programs are capable of being hand written and thus analyzed only with the aid of pen and paper. The scope of the claims are broad enough that they include no steps which are incapable of practically being performed in the human mind (i.e. examiner considers the acts of analyzing and generating as capable of being human thought mental processing steps).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination because the additional elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “the first command including a numerical value defining an axis operation, the second command including any of a preparation function command, a feedrate command, a spindle rotation command, a tool exchange command, and an auxiliary command, and the third command defining an execution timing of the second command;”. This limitations describe the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to offer an inventive concept but merely links the invention to the field of use of numerical control, as it only requires that the source of analysis contains particular types of information, but fails to afford any details towards how the analysis uses these common technological environment type limitations in a novel way because there is nothing in the claim that signifies what is actually done as a part of the analysis.
For example: limitation described above is extra solution activity and amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”, (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “..vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group”). The claim contains another additional element when reciting “generates command information for the second command based on the first command and the third command analyzed by the command analysis unit”, however this amounts to limit more than appending the word “apply it” because it fails to recite how the generation is performed or what is being generated aside from data which is “based on” the first and third commands but fails to limit in any way how this generation occurs. In other words, this additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception without significantly more, which amounts to little more than a recitation of the words “apply it”. The identified limitations only recite the idea of a solution or outcome without claiming details of how a solution is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f): “…The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Claim 1 in its current form utilizes 112(f) style claim interpretation such that a processor and memory are considered a part of the claimed machine. However, the inclusion of computer parts are in a generic form without any specialized hardware. Accordingly, the inclusion of a computer is generic such that it can be considered a form of appending the words “apply it” towards a computer, and these elements fail to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The abstract idea described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those abstract ideas found by the courts, therefor the claim is considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of the use of particular types of data that are common in numerical control (first command is axis, second command is preparation, feedrate, spindle or tool change, and third is timing) and the generic generation of information from those types of data. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementations and functions.
Dependent claims 2-3 are drawn to additional elements that recite further concepts that relate the types of first and third command, but merely indicate the technological environment without any improvement to how these data types are specifically utilized to afford an improvement. These limitations are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Claims 1-3 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “execution timing” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a position, an operation distance, an operation time, a ratio of operation distance or a ratio of operation times in the axis operation,” while the accepted meaning is “the time at which execution occurs.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Effectively, execution timing would have a specific and known meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, which would not include any of a position, distance or ratio of distances. The breadth of what the applicant has described as “execution timing” in the specification is much greater than what PHOSITA would consider. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner shall consider an “execution timing” to relate to any of a position, timing, distance, ratio of timing or ration of distances.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 in its first limitation makes reference to “a first command, a second command and a third command in a signal block”. There is no description or definition provided as towards what a “signal block” is nor how it relates to the described invention and the first, second and third commands. Accordingly, the examiner considers this new matter. While this may be a typographical error (signal block as opposed to single block), the examiner is bound to examine the claims as presented, and finds a lack of support from the original disclosure towards any discussion of a “signal block”.
Claims 2-3 are dependent upon claim 1, and thus inherit the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen (US 20020091460, hereinafter Allen).
In regards to Claim 1, Allen discloses “A numerical controller comprising: a command analysis unit that analyzes a machining program including a first command, a second command, and a third command in a signal block” (Fig. 1 shows machine control 10 (cnc); Fig. 9 shows block 1 with x and y coordinate numbers (first command) a programmed feedrate and feedrate override (second command) and the time in block that triggers when the override is executed in the single block (third command) [0013] The subject invention optimizes by implementing any manually activated CNC function into the automated process at exactly the correct time not only within the program, but also, within the block. [0023] It is desirable to provide an automated, computer controlled system permitting computerized analysis of the feed-rate and spindle speed over-ride controls and permitting optimization of the feed-rate of a CNC machine responsive to manual adjustment of the feed-rate and spindle speed over-ride controls to thereby establish an event file or an optimized machine control computer file which may be subsequently utilized to produce like parts in efficient and productive manner; [0042] The present invention, utilizes an "HASP mapping" software program to read the status of the CNC control during the machining process and send over-ride and function data to the PMC at the appropriate time. This phase requires accurate analysis of the specific block being processed and also the point in time that the block became active. Because the over-ride and function data file accurately captured the active block number, the number of milliseconds into the block that an over-ride or operator enacted function occurred and also the percentage of the over-ride, the present invention is capable of developing a plurality of feed-rate over-rides and a plurality of spindle speed over-rides and a plurality of operator initiated functions for any active block of data thereby duplicating the operators input during the data acquisition process) “the first command including a numerical value defining an axis operation, the second command including any of a preparation function command, a feedrate command, a spindle rotation command, a tool exchange command, and an auxiliary command, and the third command defining an execution timing of the second command;” (Fig. 9 shows block 1 with x and y coordinate (first command) a programmed feedrate and feedrate override (second command) and the time in block that triggers when the override is executed in the single block (third command); [0009] It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a method of establishing and re-playing on command, a plurality of feed-rates and spindle speeds within one block of information on a CNC machine tool. It is another object of the present invention to implement into production, any manually activated device or function monitored and detected by the PMC or PLC controller. These functions include but are not limited to feed-rate over-ride, spindle speed over-ride, coolant type selector, work light on/off, chip conveyor on/off, table rotation, door open/close, spin window on/off, jog select, manual positioning of the axis of the machine tool) “and a command information generation unit that generates command information for the second command based on the first command and the third command analyzed by the command analysis unit” ([0117] When machining the remaining parts, the CNC control will be controlled and influenced (as noted earlier) by two sources of permanently stored data. The main controlling source of information is the N/C program. This program contains the information normally found in a standard N/C program such as G-codes, M-codes, block numbers (if desired), and coordinates used to control the positioning along with the F-words and S-words (feed and speed commands). The secondary source of information is the human activity storage program (HASP) file. This file will contain data that reflects the actions taken by the skilled machinist when machining the initial part.[0118] To machine the production part, the operator selects the "Run" function on the P/C and the message "Press Cycle Start" is displayed. The operator presses cycle start and the CNC control 104 initializes and reads the first block of information. The P/C 103 queries the CNC control for the active block and if an over-ride array with a matching block number is contained within the over-ride and function file, that associated over-ride value is sent to the CNC control variable assigned to handle the appropriate over-ride function (feed or speed). Note that the over-ride data being sent is the percentage derived from the teaching process. It is sent at the relative point in time (within the block) that was established during the teaching process. Human activity storage program data will continually be sent by P/C 103 to the CNC unit 104 at the appropriate time throughout the machining of the part. [0122] As soon as a block becomes active, the internal timer 208 is set to 0.000 and a check is made to see if the current array contains the block number that is active 210. If the array contains the active block, the over-ride array containing the percent over-ride value will be sent to the CNC (at the time matching the array) to over-ride the programmed feed 211. It should be noted that the over-ride switches are not disabled during this process but they remain in effect and are simply multiplied by the value contained within the array. [0123] After the array has been sent, the next array is queued 212 and a check is made to determine if this array is also contained in the active block 213. If the array again matches the current block, then the next feed-rate over-ride value will be sent to the PMC at the matching time also contained within the array. The processes 211, 212, 213 will continue on being repeated until all over-ride data within the specific block has been sent. It is this routine that provides the ability to develop multiple feeds within a single block of information. [0127] The "Over-Ride Mapping" process shown in the chart of FIG. 9 indicates the results of the optimization process. It should be noted that if a series of over-rides or manually activated functions occurs in one block of information, an array of over-ride and/or function data would follow. Each array will be sent to the CNC at the time contained in the array and each successive array will be sent until all arrays for that block of information have been sent. Then the next active block number will be analyzed and if it also contains over-ride data, then the next appropriate array shall be sent to the CNC at the appropriate time. For the purpose of simplicity, the example shown in the chart of FIG. 9 demonstrates manual control intervention mapping for feed-rate over-rides only).
In regards to Claim 2, Allen further discloses “The numerical controller according to claim 1, wherein the numerical value defining the axis operation includes any of a coordinate value, a motion amount, and an execution time” ([0117] The main controlling source of information is the N/C program. This program contains the information normally found in a standard N/C program such as G-codes, M-codes, block numbers (if desired), and coordinates used to control the positioning along with the F-words and S-words (feed and speed commands). The secondary source of information is the human activity storage program (HASP) file. This file will contain data that reflects the actions taken by the skilled machinist when machining the initial part).
In regards to Claim 3, Allen further discloses “The numerical controller according to claim 1, wherein the third command includes any of a numerical value indicating a position, a numerical value indicating an operation distance, a numerical value indicating an operation time, a numerical value indicating a ratio of operation distances, and a numerical value indicating a ratio of operation times in the axis operation” (Fig. 9 shows that the change in feedrate during block 1 includes a time in block that is an operation time at which point the feedrate change is executed during the execution of block 1 [0013] The subject invention optimizes by implementing any manually activated CNC function into the automated process at exactly the correct time not only within the program, but also, within the block. [0118] Note that the over-ride data being sent is the percentage derived from the teaching process. It is sent at the relative point in time (within the block) that was established during the teaching process. Human activity storage program data will continually be sent by P/C 103 to the CNC unit 104 at the appropriate time throughout the machining of the part).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abe (US 20200192334) teaches arrays of values being defined for variables so that a single command can have multiple coordinate references
Ikeda (US 5428547) – teaches that when one block is read and analyzed, a travel mode, travel distance, travel speed and function code are output
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2116