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.
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: “Rule-based Screen Creation Device and Computer-Readable Storage Medium”.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “machine information acquisition unit”, “rule storage unit”, and “rule determination unit” in claim 1.
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 § 112(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 1-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “machine information acquisition unit” and “rule determination unit” recited in claims 1-4 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. Additionally, the algorithm for performing the full function recited following each of the above modules could not be found, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite. “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function of a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation in a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or the sixth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, "the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention" as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112].” - MPEP 2161.01(I).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 26 and 29 are rejected for dependency on 25 and 28 respectively.
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.
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 1-4 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations “machine information acquisition unit” and “rule determination unit” recited in claims 1-4 invoke 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. Additionally, the algorithm for performing the full function recited following each of the above modules could not be found. “[T]he algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that the function must be described in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing” - MPEP 2161.01(I).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 5 recites a “computer-readable storage medium”. Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide a definition for the term. It is therefore noted that this can be interpreted to include signals, carrier waves and other transmission media which is non-statutory. It is suggested to amend the “computer readable storage medium" of claim 5 to read “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” to direct the claim to only statutory subject matter.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Strickland et al. (US Patent Number 5,465,215), referred to as Strickland herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strickland.
Regarding claim 1, Strickland discloses a window creation device that supports creation of a user interface window of a numerical controller, the window creation device comprising (Strickland, 2:10-35 – CNC machine control. 3:7-28 and 6:54-7:8 – workstation processor executing windows application stored in hardware memory to generate the displayed interface windows):
a component library that stores at least one component to be arranged in the user interface window and a composite component combining a plurality of components (Strickland, Fig. 3 with 6:56-7:22 and Fig. 4 with 9:9-42 – push button displays and a combined process editing interface with multiple push buttons. Applicant’s specification ¶0018-¶0019 describes components as including buttons, and composite components as including a program editing component);
a machine information acquisition unit that acquires machine information on a machine tool that is a control target of the numerical controller; a rule storage unit that stores the machine information, the composite component, and a rule for the creation of the user interface window in association with each other (Strickland, Figs. 3 and 4 with 6:32-53, 7:44-7:67, 9:9-42 – verification rules for data required for the selected process and corresponding target tool is identified and incorporated into the process definition interface. The user interface is restricted from completing editing of the process until the required data is entered. 3:8-28, 6:12-31 – program disk storage. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware storage devices described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0040);
and a rule determination unit that determines whether or not the user interface window being created conforms to the rule associated with the machine information on the machine tool, wherein the window creation device notifies the user that the user interface window does not conform to the rule (Strickland, Figs. 3 and 4 with 7:44-8:21, 9:9-42 – when the data required has not been input, the interface indicates that the process cannot be modified until the data input conforms to the corresponding rule by preventing the process from being added).
Regarding claim 2, Strickland discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the rule storage unit stores the rule that defines a usable composite component and a dependence relationship of the composite component for each piece of the machine information for the creation of the user interface window (Strickland, Figs. 3 and 4 with 7:23-8:21, 9:9-42 – buttons for adding the selected process are prevented from functioning based on dependency upon the required data. Once the selected process is added, buttons for enabling selection of other processes and operating modes are enabled based on dependency upon adding the selected process. 3:8-28, 6:12-31 – program disk storage).
Regarding claim 3, Strickland discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the rule storage unit stores the rule that defines a usable function in the composite component for each piece of the machine information for the creation of the user interface window (Strickland, Figs. 3 and 4 with 7:23-8:21, 9:9-42 – buttons for adding the selected process are prevented from functioning based on dependency upon the required data. Once the selected process is added, buttons for enabling selection of other processes and operating modes are enabled based on dependency upon adding the selected process. 3:8-28, 6:12-31 – program disk storage).
Regarding claim 4, Strickland discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the rule storage unit stores the rule that defines a function required to be used in the composite component for each piece of the machine information for the creation of the user interface window (Strickland, Figs. 3 and 4 with 7:23-8:21, 9:9-42 – buttons for adding the selected process are prevented from functioning based on dependency upon the required data. Once the selected process is added, buttons for enabling selection of other processes and operating modes are enabled based on dependency upon adding the selected process. 3:8-28, 6:12-31 – program disk storage),
Regarding claim 5, Strickland discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a instruction configured to: when executed by one or a plurality of processors, store (Strickland, 2:10-35 – CNC machine control. 3:7-28 and 6:54-7:8 – workstation processor executing windows application stored in hardware memory to generate the displayed interface windows)
at least one component to be arranged in a user interface window and a composite component combining a plurality of components (Strickland, Fig. 3 with 6:56-7:22 and Fig. 4 with 9:9-42 – push button displays and a combined process editing interface with multiple push buttons. Applicant’s specification ¶0018-¶0019 describes components as including buttons, and composite components as including a program editing component);
acquire machine information on machine tool of the numerical controller that displays the user interface window; store the machine information, the composite component, and a rule for the creation of the user interface window in association with each other ((Strickland, Figs. 3 and 4 with 6:32-53, 7:44-7:67, 9:9-42 – verification rules for data required for the selected process and corresponding target tool is identified and incorporated into the process definition interface. The user interface is restricted from completing editing of the process until the required data is entered. 3:8-28, 6:12-31 – program disk storage);
determine whether or not the user interface window being created conforms to a rule associated with the machine information on the machine tool; and notify a user that the user interface window does not conform to the rule (Strickland, Figs. 3 and 4 with 7:44-8:21, 9:9-42 – when the data required has not been input, the interface indicates that the process cannot be modified until the data input conforms to the corresponding rule by preventing the process from being added).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are at least relevant as indicated in the corresponding summary.
Boswell (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0405611) – CNC controlling interface with function verification and error reporting.
Shirai et al. (US Patent Number 5,282,143) – numerical controller with functional correspondence with tool selection and corresponding rules.
Sato (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0073542) – numerical controller with task verification and error reporting.
Totappanaver et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0228416) – hardware configuration rule error reporting.
Tsujimura et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0269811) – CNC control panel interface with element list and composite element panels and error checking.
Kawai et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0146978) – machine tool interface with elements and composite elements.
Iwamura (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0291582) – numerical controller interface with rule-based verification.
Hewitt et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0049843) – interface for controlling machine tools with component requirements and error reporting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174