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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 12/21/2023.
Claims 1-7 are pending and presented for examination.
Drawings
Figure 32 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. 1.72 states “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible.”
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
“a G-Code registration unit configured to register…”, “an association information storage unit configured to store…”, “a selected shape receiving unit configured to receive…”, “a data type acquisition unit configured to query…”, “a setting data calculation unit configured to calculate…”, “an item data setting unit configured to set…” in claim 1; and
“a setting order display unit configured to display…” in claim 6.
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.
Paragraphs 0012-0015 of the specification recite “As illustrated in Fig. 1, the numerical control device 10 includes a control unit 11, an input unit 12, a display unit 13, and a storage unit 14. The control unit 11, the input unit12, the display unit 13, and the storage unit 14 are communicably connected via a bus (not illustrated). The control unit 11 includes a G-code registration unit 110, a setting screen control unit 111 as a setting order display unit, a CAD data analysis unit 112, a selected shape receiving unit 113, a data type acquisition unit 114, a setting data calculation unit 115, an item data setting unit 116, a G-code specifying unit 117, a G-code input unit 118, and a program generating unit 119. The input unit 12, for example, is a keyboard, or a touch panel arranged on the display unit 13 described later, and receives inputs from the user, such as an input of a specified G-code used for a machining program of the machine tool (not illustrated). The display unit 13, for example, is a liquid crystal display, and displays a registration screen for registering a custom G-code, based on the control commands of the G-code registration unit 110 described later. The display unit 13 as a CAD data display unit displays CAD data of a workpiece generated using a custom G-code, and displays a setting screen for automatically selecting and setting the setting items of the custom G-code, based on the control commands of the setting screen control unit 111 described later. The registration screen and the setting screen will be described later. The storage unit 34, such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) or an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), includes a shape information storage unit 141, an association information storage unit 142, and an analysis element storage unit 143. The shape information storage unit 141 stores CAD data and the like indicating the shape of a workpiece to be generated by a machining operation of the machine tool (not illustrated).”
Accordingly, the “association information storage unit configured to store” and “a setting order display unit configured to display” are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in paragraphs 0012-0015.
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 § 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 1-7 are rejected as a formality under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph language in these claims does not have sufficient structure in the specification. The rejection matches the below indefiniteness rejection for the same language. Once that rejection is overcome, this one will be as well. MPEP 2181(II)(B).
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Claim limitations “a G-Code registration unit configured to register…”, “a selected shape receiving unit configured to receive…”, “a data type acquisition unit configured to query…”, “a setting data calculation unit configured to calculate…”, “an item data setting unit configured to set…” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Despite reviewing the disclosure, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
If applicant does not wish 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.
Dependent claims 2-7 are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 1
Claim 1 recites “a G-code registration unit configured to register association information that associates a uniquely customized custom G-code, at least one item set in the custom G-code, a type of shape set for each item, and a type of extract data extracted from the shape”. The claim language is indefinite because it is unclear how the claim is registering the association information that associates a uniquely customized G-Code, at least one item set in the custom G-code, a type of shape set for each item, and a type of extracted data extracted from the shape. The claim is silent regarding the registration of association information.
Dependent claims 2-7 are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by JONES (US10466681B1).
Regarding claim 1
JONES teaches a numerical control device, comprising:
a G-code registration unit configured to register association information that associates a uniquely customized custom G-code, at least one item set in the custom G-code, a type of shape set for each item, and a type of extracted data extracted from the shape (Col. 1, ll. 20-58: electronic instructions (i.e., machining code) for a numerical control device typically are in the form of a numerical control (NC) programming language such as the G-codes; Col. 19, ll. 28 – Col. 20, ll. 37: Programming agent (i.e., part of programming system 40/G-code registration unit) is configured to guide and/or to assist fabrication programming, programming agent 46 is configured to interact with a user during fabrication program, search agent 48, machining knowledge database 50, and the archive 52, “programming agent 46 may be configured to perform one or more steps of receiving 12 the input representation of the designated part, searching 14 the machining knowledge database, receiving 20 the user selection of search results, retrieving 16 machining strategy information, deriving 18 the machining strategy for the designated part, and guiding 24 the user to form at least a partial machining strategy for the designated part”. Programming agent analyzes the machining information generated by the user to determine and/or identify one or more machining features of the part, features may be identified by analyzing the 3D model and/or associated machining code. “The user of the programming system 40 may utilize the programming system to create the machining strategy and/or machining code for the designated part”);
an association information storage unit configured to store the association information registered (Col. 10, ll. 10-33: “Machining strategy information describes the machining strategy and generally includes information sufficient to identify and/or to create (and/or to recreate) a corresponding part (e.g., a part whose 3D model and machining strategy information are stored in the machining knowledge database)”);
a selected shape receiving unit configured to receive a shape selected by a user from among shapes indicated by CAD data displayed on a CAD data display unit (Col. 20, ll. 38-32: “programming agent 46 may be configured to associate new machining information into the machining knowledge database 50 responsive to the user of the programming system 40 creating programming information to fabricate the designated part”; Col. 21, ll. 37-39: “search agent 48 may be configured to receive and/or generate a search query, based upon user input (e.g., from the programming agent 46) that described the designated part”);
a data type acquisition unit configured to query the association information storage unit by using the shape selected, and acquire an item and a type of extracted data corresponding to the shape selected (Col. 21, ll. 16-21: “programming agent 46 may search the machining knowledge database 50 with the search agent 49. The search agent 48 is configured to search for and retrieve machining information stored and/or associated within the machining knowledge database 50”);
a setting data calculation unit configured to calculate setting data, based on the item and the type of extracted data acquired, and the shape selected (Col 21, ll. 3-7: “programming agent 46 may analyze the machining information generated by the user of the programming system 40 to determine and/or estimate the designated part, machining features of the designated part and/or characteristics of the designed part”); and
an item data setting unit configured to set the setting data calculated by the setting data calculation unit to the item acquired (Col. 19, ll. 33-41: “programming agent 46 may be configured to performing […] deriving 18 the machining strategy for the designated part”).
Regarding claim 2
JONES teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. JONES also teaches:
when there are a plurality of items of the same type of shape and the same type of extracted data, the G-code registration unit sets a priority order for the plurality of items, and registers the priority order in the associated information (Col. 22, ll. 10-40: “programming system 40 and/or the controller 54 may be configured to present to the user a workflow for fabricating 60 the designated part and/or for fabrication programming 44. The workflow may include steps to fabricate the designated part, steps to program the machining strategy for the designated part, and/or steps to create the machining information to be associated by the programming system 40 […] programming system
40 and/or the controller 54 may be configured to enforce the completion of one or more steps of the workflow, for example, prompting the user to complete the step and/or preventing the user from beginning and/or completing another step”).
Regarding claim 3
JONES teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. JONES also teaches:
when there are a plurality of items set from the same shape selected, the G-code registration unit registers the plurality of items set from the same shape selected in the association information such that the plurality of items set from the same shape selected can be collectively set to a plurality of related items (Col. 21, ll. 46-63: “programming agent may classify and/or group the designated part with similar parts, features, and/or characteristics, optionally associating the designated part with the similar parts, features, and/or characteristics within the machining knowledge database”).
Regarding claim 4
JONES teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. JONES also teaches
when there is one item for the shape selected, the item data setting unit automatically selects the item, and sets the setting data calculated to the item selected, and
when there are a plurality of items of the same type of shape and the same type of extracted data, the item data setting unit automatically selects each item, based on the priority order set, and sets the setting data calculated to each item selected (Col. 19, ll. 63 – Col. 20, ll. 15: “programming agent 46 may act for the user and/or other system modules […] programming agent 46 may include, and/or may be, a programming assistant configured to search for and/or to suggest machining strategy for the designated part and/or machining features of the designated part”, i.e. programming agent suggests machining strategy and acts for user).
Regarding claim 5
JONES teaches the elements of claim 3 as outlined above. JONES also teaches:
when there are a plurality of items set from the same shape selected, the item data setting unit collectively sets the setting data calculated to each of the plurality of related items (Col. 19, ll. 33-41: programming agent derives the machining strategy)
Regarding claim 6
JONES teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. JONES also teaches:
a setting order display unit configured to display the item and the priority order, based on the association information registered by the G-code registration unit (Col. 22, ll. 21-22: “programming system 40 and/or the controller 54 may be configured to present to the user a workflow”; Col. 24, ll. 30-36: input-output devices includes monitors and/or touch screen).
Regarding claim 7
JONES teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above. JONES also teaches:
when there are a plurality of items of the same type of shape and the same type of extracted data, the setting order display unit lists the plurality of items applicable, and
the item data setting unit sets the setting data calculated to an item selected from the plurality of items listed (Col. 19, ll. 33-41: programming agent derives the machining strategy).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones (US20210004369A1) teaches searching a machining knowledge database to identify geometric attributes that correspond to a shape of a 3D model to generate g-code.
Ouchi (US20230004146A1) teaches specifying setting data that can be inherited to produce machining instructions.
Fonte (US20200285081A1) teaches analyzing modeling files to generate g-code.
Suh (US20040083023A1) teaches recognizing features from geometric data to generate machining instructions.
Saitou (US20180259935A1) teaches a numerical control device comprising a shared database storing machining resource information.
Matsuzawa (US20220004158A1) teaches a g-code editor configured to generate machining instructions.
Sultana, N., et al. (“SolidCAM iMachining (2D): A Simulation Study of a Spur Gear Machining and G-code Generation for CNC Machine”, published 1/25/2016, retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304283751_1-IJMEA-E20151203-1, retrieved on 2/11/2026) teaches automatic g-code generation using a CAD model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115