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 § 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts without significantly more. Claim 1 is discussed below as exemplary. Claim 1 recites:
“a speed command generation unit that generates a speed command for controlling a speed of relative movement based on a machining program”, the generation of which is a mental process or mathematical concept that can be applied via a computer.
a laser command generation unit that generates, according to the speed command, a laser output command value including at least frequency and duty ratio of the pulsed laser the generation of which is a mental process or mathematical concept that can be applied via a computer.
a change rate computation unit that calculates a cycle command for the pulsed laser based on the frequency and calculates a change rate for a changed cycle command changed from the cycle command due to a limitation on performance of the laser machining device, the generation of which is a mental process or mathematical concept that can be applied via a computer. (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process and/or mathematical concept)
a speed adjustment unit that adjusts, using the change rate, the speed command generated by the speed command generation unit the generation of which is a mental process or mathematical concept that can be applied via a computer. The fact that the speed command rather than the speed is adjusted further supports the interpretation of this limitation of the claim as a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because (See MPEP 2106.04(d):
The specification purports to provide an improvement in controlling the operation of laser at high frequencies. However, the end result is the generation of “a speed command” which, by broadest reasonable interpretation, is encompassed by the sending of a signal which is not an improvement upon the prior art because the actual speed of the laser is not adjusted. Furthermore, the changing of the laser speed as implemented by the laser is not required by the claim. A signal is merely sent and need not be acted upon. As such, the changing of the speed command cannot meet the requirements of 101 because it relates only to the issuing of a command to perform a judicial exception.
No medical condition is involved.
No particular machined or manufacture is integral to the claims. Rather the claims are directed to particular calculations performed by a general-purpose controller.
No article is reduced to a different state or thing.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the various units (as set forth above) and the preamble which sets forth “numerical control device for controlling a laser machining device,” describe an intended use of the method and recite a field of use. However, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they merely recite instructions to implement the functions of the respective units on a computer/controller.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 due to their dependence on Claim 1. Furthermore, claims 2 and 3 are directed to limitations that further define the abstract idea (“change cycle command is calculated by simulation” from Claim 2 and “limitation of performance is a limitation of resolution” from Claim 3), but do not make the abstract idea, as set forth in Claim 1 any less abstract. Claim 4 presents limitations such as “an actual pulsed laser cycle measurement value actually measured” which constitutes mere data gathering and thus represents insignificant extra-solution activity. Generally, the limitations of Claims 2-4 amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable over prior art if the above rejection of Claim 1 in view of USC 101 were overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Matsumoto (US 20180056441 A1): discloses a numerical control device (“Numerical Controller” Figure 1) for controlling a laser machining device (“Laser oscillator” Figure 1) that machines a workpiece (“workpiece” [0012]) with a pulsed laser emitted from a laser machining head while moving the laser machining head (“laser machining head” [0012]) and the workpiece relative to each other (“relative movement” between [0012]), comprising:
a speed command generation unit (Figure 1 Element 13 “Interpolation Processing Unit”) that generates a speed command (via the “movement command output unit” Figure 1 Element 13) for controlling a speed of relative movement based on a machining program;
a laser command generation unit (Figure 11 Element 16 “Laser Beam Command Calculation Unit”) that generates, according to the speed command,
a laser output command value including at least frequency (“command frequency” Figure 1) and duty ratio (“command duty” Figure 1) of the pulsed laser;
Matsumoto does not teach a change rate computation unit that calculates a cycle command for the pulsed laser based on the frequency and calculates a change rate for a changed cycle command changed from the cycle command due to a limitation on performance of the laser machining device; and a speed adjustment unit that adjusts, using the change rate, the speed command generated by the speed command generation unit as required by Claim 1. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Matsumoto with the aforementioned limitations.
Luo (CN104816084): discloses a known relationship between the speed of the progress of the laser and the speed of movement of the substrate/ workpiece being processed (“oscillating pulse generating component configured to…from the relative motion module driving component…generate an oscillating pulse having a period corresponding to the moving speed of the platform or the laser irradiator, thereby providing the generated oscillating pulse to the laser oscillator” [0015]). The known nature of this relationship suggests that the opposite application, of adjusting the speed based on the frequency (1/period) may be appropriate. However, it would not be obvious to modify Matsumoto with these limitations. And, even if the modification were attempted, it would not fully remedy the deficiencies of Matsumoto in view of the limitations of Claim 1 as written.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights