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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are currently pending in this application.
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.
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:
an evaluation formula calculation unit configured to calculate an evaluation formula for determining the movement route (recited in Claims 1-3),
a constraint condition calculation unit configured to calculate, as a constraint condition for determining the movement route, a relational expression of the axes (recited in Claims 1, 4-6;), and
a route search unit configured to search for the movement route based on the evaluation formula and the constraint condition (recited in Claims 1 and 5).
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.
Note: The specification discloses that the movement route determination device 1 includes a computer that entails each of the units as listed above (See Specification at [0016]). Furthermore, the disclosure teaches a detailed algorithm (step-by-step) plan for each of the claimed units and functions that invoked 112f (See flowcharts of fig.2 and Specification at [0016]). Thus, the claimed units and functions that invoked 112f are supported by the written description and are in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 1 and 7:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to a movement route determination device and claim 7 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program for a computer, therefore each of claims 1 and 7 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Nonetheless, claims 1 and 7 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Each of claims 1 and 7 recites a function of “calculate an evaluation formula for determining the movement route”, “calculate…a relational expression of the axes”, and “search for the movement route based on the evaluation formula and the constraint condition” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerate a mathematical and mental concept. Other than reciting a generic “computer” (recited only in the preamble of claim 7 but as disclosed by Applicant, the computer includes the means to perform the functions as recited in claim 1, See 112f claim interpretation above), nothing in the claims preclude the steps from the mathematical concept and/or mental process and evaluation. The calculation steps to calculate the evaluation formula and to calculate a relational expression based on the various functions are interpreted as mathematical concept based on various formulas as disclosed in the Specification (i.e., equations 1-10 at [0041-0059]) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The final step to search for the movement route based on the evaluation formula and the constraint condition can visually or mentally be evaluated by a human (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental and mathematical abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2-Step 2B:
Each of claims 1 and 13 as a whole does not recite any additional elements or functions that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicially recognized exceptions.
Dependent claims 2-6:
Step 1:
Claims 2-6 are drawn to the movement route determination device, therefore each of these claims falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-6 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-6 recites further the abstract mathematical concept of “calculates, as the evaluation formula, a function having at least one of a position, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk for the axes” (claim 2), “calculates, as the evaluation formula, a function that multiplies weights for the respective axes” (claim 3), “calculates a constraint condition specified by a velocity control parameter” (claim 4), “calculates a constraint condition related to positions for the axes, and calculation of the constraint condition by the constraint condition calculation unit” (claim 5), and “calculates a constraint condition related to a contour machining route specified by the machining program” (claim 6) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). And lastly, claim 5 also recites the abstract mental concept of “search for the movement route by the route search unit are repeated a plurality of times” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2-Step 2B:
Each of claims 2-6 as a whole does not recite any additional elements or functions that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicially recognized exceptions.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (JP-2004220435-A).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Sato teaches a movement route determination device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program for a computer that determines, in a case where a degree of freedom of axes of a machine tool is higher than a degree of freedom determined by a machining program and a parameter, a movement route for the axes based on the machining program and the parameter, the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing the computer program causing the computer to perform operations (a numerical control device that performs trajectory control of a machine having a rotational degree of freedom, [0001, 0010]; 5-axis machine 1 with tool 4 and workpiece 5, fig.1 and [0012]; different embodiments of a numerical control device 10/20/30/50, figs.2/9/12/20) that comprise:
an evaluation formula calculation unit1 configured to calculate an evaluation formula for determining the movement route (evaluation equations or formulas 1-43, [0015-0073] for determining the path or movement of the tool 4 at start point (p0, q0) and the position and orientation of the work[piece] coordinates at the end point (p1, q1), [0030]);
a constraint condition calculation unit2 configured to calculate, as a constraint condition for determining the movement route, a relational expression of the axes, the relational expression being based on machine configuration data of the machine tool (relationship between the work[piece] coordinate values p and q of the tool 4 and the joint coordinate values of the X, Y, Z, A and C axes is based on formulas/equations 1-6, [0015]; the joint coordinate value の of the linear axis (the X, Y, and Z axes in the first embodiment) is the joint position value p of the tool and the joint coordinates of the rotation axis (the A and C axes in the first embodiment)…determined from the value according to Equation 10, [0036]); and
a route search unit3 configured to search for the movement route based on the evaluation formula and the constraint condition, the movement route being such that the evaluation formula is minimized or maximized within a searchable range (movement route is obtained by Equation 14, [0023]; obtain the range (tx0, tx1) in which the joint interpolation is performed, [0026]; the joint coordinate value の of the linear axis (the X, Y, and Z axes in the first embodiment) is the joint position value p of the tool and the joint coordinates of the rotation axis (the A and C axes in the first embodiment)…determined from the value according to Equation 10, [0036]; determines the joint interpolation range so that the posture error is equal to or less than the posture error allowable value, and uses the rotation spindle method in other ranges, [0037]; when the range in which the joint interpolation is performed is given as tx0 <t <tx1 as the range of the parameter t, Ax0 and Cx0 are obtained from q (tx0) according to Expressions 8 and 9. Similarly, Ax1 and Cx1 are obtained from q (tx1). The amount of change in each joint coordinate in the range in which joint interpolation is performed is obtained, [0041]).
With respect to claim 2, Sato teaches wherein the evaluation formula calculation unit calculates, as the evaluation formula, a function having at least one of a position (interpolating joint coordinate values of each axis based on a position vector and a posture vector at a start point and an end point given to the tool 4, [0020]; work[piece] coordinates at the start point of the commanded movement path of the tool 4 are (p0, q0), and the position and orientation of the work coordinates at the end point are (p1, q1), [0030]; the joint coordinate value の of the linear axis (the X, Y, and Z axes in the first embodiment) is the joint position value p of the tool and the joint coordinates of the rotation axis (the A and C axes in the first embodiment)…determined from the value according to Equation 10, [0036]), a velocity (a change in the angular velocity of the A-axis and the C axis during movement from the start point to the end point, [0031] and fig.7; changes in the angular velocities of the A axis and the C axis while the tool 4 moves from the start point to the end point, fig.11 and [0045]), an acceleration (a change in the angular velocity of the A-axis and the C axis during movement from the start point to the end point, [0031] and fig.7; changes in the angular velocities of the A axis and the C axis while the tool 4 moves from the start point to the end point, fig.11 and [0045]), or a jerk for the axes (a very large change in the speed of the C-axis is caused near the singular point, and the value reaches about -3000 degrees/second, fig.7 and [0033]).
With respect to claim 4, Sato teaches wherein the constraint condition calculation unit calculates a constraint condition specified by a velocity control parameter (a change in the angular velocity of the A-axis and the C axis during movement from the start point to the end point, fig.7 and [0031]; the velocities Va and Vc of the respective axes are obtained from the maximum time Tmax and the change amounts (dA and dC) of the respective joint coordinates, [0043]; changes in the angular velocities of the A axis and the C axis while the tool 4 moves from the start point to the end point, figs.11/14 and [0045,0054]).
With respect to claim 5, Sato teaches wherein the constraint condition calculation unit calculates a constraint condition related to positions for the axes (interpolating joint coordinate values of each axis based on a position vector and a posture vector at a start point and an end point given to the tool 4, [0020]; the joint coordinate value の of the linear axis (the X, Y, and Z axes in the first embodiment) is the joint position value p of the tool and the joint coordinates of the rotation axis (the A and C axes in the first embodiment)…determined from the value according to Equation 10, [0036]), and calculation of the constraint condition by the constraint condition calculation unit and search for the movement route by the route search unit are repeated a plurality of times (in order to more accurately obtain the range (tx0, tx1) in which the joint interpolation is performed, it is preferable to repeatedly perform the calculation. Therefore, in the first embodiment, the posture error ε1 is obtained again in step ST2 using the section (tx0, tx1) changed in step ST4. By repeating this procedure, an accurate value of (tx0, tx1) can be obtained, [0026]).
With respect to claim 6, Sato teaches wherein the constraint condition calculation unit calculates a constraint condition related to a contour machining route specified by the machining program (commands a position p and a posture q of the tool 4 according to a work program, [0019]; an original posture vector qh at the center of the movement route is obtained by the following equation [equation 14]…the original posture vector is a vector located in a plane formed by the posture vector of the start point and the posture vector of the end point, and located on a bisector of an angle formed by the posture vector of the start point and the posture vector of the end point, [0023]; the plane formed by q0 and q1 is closest to the singular posture qs at the center of the movement path of the tool 4, [0029]; L and Vn are set in a machining program or a parameter according to a machining method or a command path…δ1max, δ2max, δ1maxm, δ1maxp, δ2maxm, δ2maxp are set in a processing program or parameters according to the required accuracy of the processing surface, [0065]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3/1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP-2004220435-A) in view of ODA et al. (US 2017/0300029-A1).
With respect to claim 3/1, Sato does not appear to teach wherein the evaluation formula calculation unit calculates, as the evaluation formula, a function that multiplies weights for the respective axes.
However, it is known by ODA to teach a movement route determination device that determines, in a case where a degree of freedom of axes of a machine tool is higher than a degree of freedom determined by a machining program and a parameter, a movement route for the axes based on the machining program and the parameter, the movement route determination device (ODA: control device 70, fig.19; a tool path generation method and a machine tool 90 to cut and machine a workpiece 91 where a plurality of the movement points P are set in accordance with the machining program and a path connecting the movement points P corresponds to the tool path, [0043]) comprising: an evaluation formula calculation unit configured to calculate an evaluation formula for determining the movement route (ODA: coordinate value of the moving average of the movement points Pn is expressed by equation (1) and equation (2), where the coordinate value of the movement points Pn is expressed as (xn, yn), [0048]) and wherein the evaluation formula calculation unit calculates, as the evaluation formula, a function that multiplies weights for the respective axes (ODA: Weights by which an X-coordinate value and a Y-coordinate value of each of the movement points are multiplied can be set to be larger for the coordinate value of the movement point to be corrected and set to be small for the coordinate value as away from the movement point to be corrected, [0058], fig.4 illustrates a graph of the weights by which the respective coordinate values are multiplied. A lateral axis indicates the movement points on the tool path. The weight of the coordinate value of the movement point P, to be corrected is set to be the highest, and is set to decrease linearly as away from the movement point Pn, [0059]; the moving average is calculated by multiplying the coordinate values of the respective movement points by the weight, figs.2-3 and [0060]).
Because ODA’s teaching is also directed to a movement route determination device (ODA: control device 70; Sato: a numerical control device that performs trajectory control of a machine having a rotational degree of freedom, [0001, 0010]; 5-axis machine 1 with tool 4 and workpiece 5, fig.1 and [0012]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of a function that multiplies weights for the respective axes as taught by ODA with the movement route determination device as taught by Sato for the purpose of reducing the inboard turning phenomenon of the tool path (ODA: [0056,0060]).
Conclusion
The additional prior arts made of record and have not been relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows: US-20150268658-A1 and JP-2006155559-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 February 5, 2026
1 The NC control device 10/20/30/50 includes at least a joint interpolation range determination unit and an interpolation unit that calculates information [0011].
2 The NC control device 10/20/30/50 includes at least a joint interpolation range determination unit and an interpolation unit that calculates information [0011].
3 The NC control device 10/20/30/50 includes at least a joint interpolation range determination unit and an interpolation unit that calculates information [0011].