DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims presented in the Office Action dated 04/28/2026 (hereafter referred to as the previous of prior Office Action) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments filed 07/27/2026, though two issues appear to remain with respect to Claim 6.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amending of the claims to recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The only limitation which may be considered as not being disclosed by Sagasaki is that of “the variable … is a custom macro variable”, and even then, the rejection is only modified to a rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the interest of compact prosecution, as while the term appears undefined in the specification and open to broad interpretation, it is likewise commonly disclosed, well understood, and routine in the prior art. See the updated rejections under 35 USC § 103 below.
With respect to Applicant’s first argument, it is unclear how “Sagasaki does not disclose "a variable of the numerical control device" and "to convert the variable of the numerical control device to a signal of the robot control device or a variable of the robot control device" in amended claim 1” as argued by Applicant. As explicitly recited by Applicant, “The program converting unit 414, which is a conversion unit, generates a robot program to be used for controlling the robot 60 by converting a command (a second command) defined in the coordinate system of the machine tool 70 into a command (a third command) defined in the coordinate system of the robot 60”. Applicant’s statements do not provide any logic, basis, or similar for how this does not read on the limitations, and especially how “Sagasaki at most describes the machine tool and the robot controlled by the numerical control device” when Sagasaki explicitly recites the verb “converts” which directly refutes this statement. Applicant’s statements thus appear to be wholly conclusory.
With respect to Applicant’s second argument, Applicant states “that the artisan of ordinary skill would not, however, have understood "the variable of the numerical control device is a custom macro variable of the numerical control device, and the signal of the robot control device is a conditional branch signal of the robot and the variable of the robot control device is a conditional branch variable of the robot" recited in amended claim 2 to have been analogous to the movement condition in paragraph 66 of Sagasaki”. Again, Applicant’s statements do not provide any logic, basis, or similar to support this statement. In the previous rejection Examiner clearly stated that “Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to define the term with any particularity and is thus interpreted under the plain English definition of the terms for the broadest reasonable interpretation”. Applicant has not shown why the plain meaning of the term(s) is exclusive of a movement condition of Sagasaki, let alone set forth what Applicant considers to be the plain meaning of the term(s). MPEP 2111.01 relates. Therefore again, Applicant’s arguments appear wholly conclusory.
As discussed above Applicant does not appear to clearly set forth their reasoning for the provided statements. Thus, Examiner may only guess as to the reasons behind Applicant’s statements. Examiner’s best guess is that Applicant is interpreting the terms and limitations of the claims significantly narrower than their broadest reasonable interpretation, and generally improperly importing limitations related thereto from the specification. Examiner refers Applicant to the Claim Interpretation section which currently and previously pointed out the very broad nature of Applicant’s claim terms.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites in the final two clauses “the variable” and “the signal”. These clauses should begin with “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 and 3 – 7 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3 – 7, the claims have been amended to repeatedly recite “a” or “the” “variable of the numerical control device” instead of “a” or “the” “value of a/the variable of the numerical control device” (emphasis added). The only pointing out of support in all of Applicant’s Remarks for any of the statements or amendments made appears to be [0112]. [0112] of Applicant’s specification recites twice “the value of the custom macro variable” not “the custom macro variable”. Examiner was unable to readily identify any location where “variable of the numerical control device” is recited alone rather than in combination with a “value”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “variable” is not limited to a singular value; thus, Applicant’s amendments appear to be a significant broadening of the claims not having apparent support within the specification.
Examiner notes that support may be present within Applicant’s specification, however given the number of times the terms are used and the length of the specification, Examiner was unable to readily identify support for these limitations.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Examiner furthermore notes that Applicant does not explicitly indicate [0112], or any portion of the specification in general, as providing support for any of the amendments made beyond the final two clauses. In the interest of compact prosecution and timely examination, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant point out the support for any claim amendments which are considered to have changed the scope of a claim in accordance with the guidance of MPEP 2163. Lack thereof may be considered as an indication that Applicant does not find the claim scope to have changed or may establish a prima facie case for a rejection under 35 USC § 112(a). MPEP 2163 relates.
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 6 – 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 6, the claim recites “a robot control device that controls”. This is improper form for a system claim limitation, being neither a structural or functional limitation, however it is unclear if it is merely descriptive or an attempt at a limitation. MPEP 2114 relates. The limitation has been interpreted as reading “a robot control device for controlling”.
Relatedly, the claim also recites “a numerical control device that controls”. This limitation has been interpreted as reading “a numerical control device for controlling”.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim depends from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected under the same logic presented above.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes
Applicant does not appear to clearly define or describe many of the terms within the claims or even the specification, some of which while often used may have no clear agreed upon delineation between other terms when used in the same context.
For example, Applicant claims various devices or components, which are disclosed as being implemented by a computer system. Without further definition within the claims such that clear structural distinctions are required, these terms appear to be mere arbitrary labelling for particular functions of a computing system.
As another example, Applicant refers to robots and numerical control devices, but does not indicate within the specification, and especially not in the claims, the distinction therebetween. An examination of the prior art indicates that while these terms are used frequently to refer to different things, there is no clear commonly understood/agreed upon definitions distinguishing the two terms, especially not ones which require incorporation of very narrowing limitations not present within the claims. Under the plain English dictionary definitions of the terms which would be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms there is little to no distinction. Numerical control is defined as “automatic control (as of a machine tool) by a digital computer” and appropriate definitions of “robot” includes “a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks (as in an industrial assembly line)” and “a mechanism guided by automatic controls” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 4/10/2026).
As another example, the adjectives “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. have been interpreted as indicating that two items might, but are not required to be, different. It is common claim construction practice to use these adjectives for ease of referring to items while maintaining a potential distinction which might be further claimed in further limitations and dependent claims. The adjectives, under the broadest reasonable interpretation do not require a particular chronological order, difference, etc. except where Applicant’s specification sets for such an explicit definition or the claim otherwise specifies as such. Furthermore, the context of their present use appears to be with respect to computer implemented functionality, wherein such titles/adjectives without clear claim limitation otherwise, are arbitrary labels of convenience and do not inherently render a physical distinction and separation. For example, most modern processors comprise more than a single “core” or processor, and cloud and/or distributed computing is commonplace and inherently involves the use of a plurality of a given computer component.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagasaki (US 20220011754 A1) and further in view of Miyazaki (US 20190317474 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sagasaki teaches:
A numerical control system (See at least control system 100A which includes CNC unit 6) configured to control operation of a machine tool (machine tool 70) and operation of a robot (robot 60) in conjunction with each other (See at least [0145] “cooperative operation of the machine tool 70 and the robot 60”), the numerical control system comprising:
a numerical control device comprising:
a first processor (See at least [0289] “The control computation unit 2X can be implemented by a processor 301 and a memory 302 illustrated in FIG. 28”) configured to control the operation of the machine tool based on a numerical control program (See at least Claim 1, “control computation circuitry to control a machine tool and a robot by using a numerical control program defined in a first coordinate system”); and
a first memory (See again above); and
a robot control device comprising:
a second processor (See again above. Examiner notes that the first and second processors are not recited as physically separate and distinct processors) configured to control the operation of the robot based on a robot control program (See at least Claim 1, “control computation circuitry to control a machine tool and a robot by using a numerical control program defined in a first coordinate system”);
wherein the first memory is configured to store a variable of the control device (See at least [0047] “The CNC unit 6 includes a control computation unit 2X” and [0058] “The storage unit 34 includes a parameter storage area 341, an NC program storage area 343, a display data storage area 344, and a shared area 345. The parameter storage area 341 stores parameters to be used for processing performed by the control computation unit 2X, or the like. Specifically, the parameter storage area 341 stores control parameters, servo parameters, and tool data for making the numerical control device 1X operate”),
the second processor is configured to convert the variable of the robot control device to a signal of the robot control device or a variable of the robot control device (See at least [0073] “The program converting unit 414, which is a conversion unit, generates a robot program to be used for controlling the robot 60 by converting a command (a second command) defined in the coordinate system of the machine tool 70 into a command (a third command) defined in the coordinate system of the robot 60”. Examiner furthermore notes that conversion to a signal would appear to inherently require conversion to a variable),
the second processor is configured to read the variable of the numerical control device stored in the variable storage unit (See at least [0063] “In the control computation unit 2X, the control signal processing unit 35X, the analysis processing unit 37, the interpolation processing unit 38, and the robot control unit 41X are connected with each other via the storage unit 34, to write and read information via the storage unit 34” and Figure 2), and
the second processor is configured to convert the variable of the numerical control device read from the first memory to the signal of the robot control device or the variable of the robot control device (The only difference between this limitation and the preceding “configured to convert” limitation appears to be the addition of “read from the first memory”. See again preceding, in particular Figure 2 wherein program converting unit 414 is connected to the storage unit 34),
the second processor is configured to control the operation of the robot based on the signal or the variable of the robot control device converted by the second processor (See at least Claim 1, “the control computation circuitry controls the machine tool by using the first command and controls the robot by using the third command”),
the variable of the numerical control device is a … variable of the numerical control device (See again preceding), and
the signal of the robot control device is a conditional branch signal of the robot and the variable of the robot control device is a conditional branch variable of the robot (Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to define the term with any particularity and is thus interpreted under the plain English definition of the terms for the broadest reasonable interpretation. In other words, something that may vary per a condition (as a “branch” means at least two option, and conditional means in accordance with a condition). See at least [0066] “Specifically, the analysis processing unit 37 generates a movement condition associated with the G code, and sends the movement condition to the interpolation processing unit 38”. In other words, the movement depends or varies based on the condition which meets the plain meaning of the term).
While again Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to define the term with any particularity and any variable which is part of a larger program, set of instructions, or similar may be considered as being a “macro variable”, and furthermore wherein the term “custom” is not defined in any manner and thus appears inherent to the term “variable”, as all variables are not fixed and thus particular or specialized in some manner, Sagasaki may be considered as teaching this limitation.
However, as Sagasaki does not presently appear to explicitly use the term “macro”, in the interest of compact prosecution see at least Miyazaki which explicitly teaches the use of so-called “macro variables”:
…
custom macro [variable of the numerical control device] (See at least [0007] “an operation control information storage unit (for example, a macro variable value table storage unit 12 or a signal storage unit 12B to be described later) that stores operation control information necessary when controlling operations of the machine”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use custom macro variables as taught by Miyazaki in the system of Sagasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. Sagasaki already discloses the use of variables, and as demonstrated by Miyazaki the use of macro variables are likewise well known. Furthermore, the use of “macros” in general are well understood, routine, and conventional in computer science, let alone robotics, for the purpose of improved automation. In particular, macros make programming tasks less tedious and error-prone.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Sagasaki and Miyazaki teaches:
The numerical control system according to claim 1, wherein the second memory is configured to store the variable in association with (The nature of the association is not claimed. Mere existence in the same system inherently holds association) the conditional branch signal or the conditional branch variable of the robot (See at least [0063] “In the control computation unit 2X, the control signal processing unit 35X, the analysis processing unit 37, the interpolation processing unit 38, and the robot control unit 41X are connected with each other via the storage unit 34, to write and read information via the storage unit 34”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Sagasaki and Miyazaki teaches:
The numerical control system according to claim 1, wherein the robot control program includes the conditional branch signal of the robot or the conditional branch variable of the robot (The nature of “includes” is not claimed with any particularity. See at least [0063] “In the control computation unit 2X, the control signal processing unit 35X, the analysis processing unit 37, the interpolation processing unit 38, and the robot control unit 41X are connected with each other via the storage unit 34, to write and read information via the storage unit 34”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Sagasaki and Miyazaki teaches:
The numerical control system according to claim 1, wherein
the second processor is configured to convert the signal of the robot control device or the variable of the robot control device to the variable of the numerical control device (This appears inherent as the nature of “convert” is not claimed. If the system converts data to data, converting the same converted data is inherently already performed as the original exists. In other words, the claim does not present how this is achieved, and as the processor can access the storage it therefore has said function),
the second processor is configured to transmit the variable of the numerical control device to the first memory (See at least [0132] “As a result, the program converting unit 414 refers to, for each robot command, the information stored in the shared area 345 to check whether the absolute command is being executed or the incremental command is being executed”. Alternatively and additionally, see “Data Setting Unit” in Figure 2 and [0064] “The NC program number is written into the shared area 345 via the input control unit 32 and the data setting unit 33”), and
the first processor is configured to update the first memory using the variable of the numerical control device transmitted by the second processor (See again [0064]).
Regarding Claim 6, Sagasaki teaches:
A robot control device (See at least control system 100A which includes robot control unit 41X) that controls operation of a machine tool (machine tool 70) and operation of a robot (robot 60) in conjunction with each other based on a robot control program (Not presently positively claimed. However, see at least [0145] “cooperative operation of the machine tool 70 and the robot 60”), the robot control device comprising:
a processor (See at least [0289] “The control computation unit 2X can be implemented by a processor 301 and a memory 302 illustrated in FIG. 28”); and
a memory (See again above)
wherein the processor is configured to convert a variable of a numerical control device that controls the operation of the machine tool based on a numerical control program into a signal or a variable of the robot control device (See at least [0073] “The program converting unit 414, which is a conversion unit, generates a robot program to be used for controlling the robot 60 by converting a command (a second command) defined in the coordinate system of the machine tool 70 into a command (a third command) defined in the coordinate system of the robot 60” and Claim 1, “control computation circuitry to control a machine tool and a robot by using a numerical control program defined in a first coordinate system”),
the processor is configured to read the variable of the numerical control device from the numerical control device read from the memory of the numerical control device or the variable of the robot control device (See at least [0063] “In the control computation unit 2X, the control signal processing unit 35X, the analysis processing unit 37, the interpolation processing unit 38, and the robot control unit 41X are connected with each other via the storage unit 34, to write and read information via the storage unit 34”),
the processor is configured to convert the variable of the numerical control device read from the memory of the numerical control device into the signal of the robot control device or the variable of the robot control device (See at least [0073] “The program converting unit 414, which is a conversion unit, generates a robot program to be used for controlling the robot 60 by converting a command (a second command) defined in the coordinate system of the machine tool 70 into a command (a third command) defined in the coordinate system of the robot 60”),
the processor is configured to control the operation of the robot based on the signal of the robot control device or the variable of the robot control device converted by the processor (See at least Claim 1, “the control computation circuitry controls the machine tool by using the first command and controls the robot by using the third command”),
the variable of the numerical control device is a … variable of the numerical control device (See again preceding), and
the signal of the robot control device is a conditional branch signal of the robot and the variable of the robot control device is a conditional branch variable of the robot (Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to define the term with any particularity and is thus interpreted under the plain English definition of the terms for the broadest reasonable interpretation. In other words, something that may vary per a condition (as a “branch” means at least two option, and conditional means in accordance with a condition). See at least [0066] “Specifically, the analysis processing unit 37 generates a movement condition associated with the G code, and sends the movement condition to the interpolation processing unit 38”. In other words, the movement depends or varies based on the condition which meets the plain meaning of the term).
While again Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to define the term with any particularity and any variable which is part of a larger program, set of instructions, or similar may be considered as being a “macro variable”, and furthermore wherein the term “custom” is not defined in any manner and thus appears inherent to the term “variable”, as all variables are not fixed and thus particular or specialized in some manner, Sagasaki may be considered as teaching this limitation.
However, as Sagasaki does not presently appear to explicitly use the term “macro”, in the interest of compact prosecution see at least Miyazaki which explicitly teaches the use of so-called “macro variables”:
…
custom macro [variable of the numerical control device] (See at least [0007] “an operation control information storage unit (for example, a macro variable value table storage unit 12 or a signal storage unit 12B to be described later) that stores operation control information necessary when controlling operations of the machine”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Sagasaki and Miyazaki teaches:
The robot control device according to claim 6, wherein
the processor is configured to convert the signal or the variable of the robot control device or the variable of the robot control device into the variable of the numerical control device (This appears inherent as the nature of “convert” is not claimed. If the system converts data to data, converting the same converted data is inherently already performed as the original exists. In other words, the claim does not present how this is achieved, and as the processor can access the storage it therefore has said function),
the processor is configured to transmit the variable of the numerical control device converted by the processor to the numerical control device (See at least [0132] “As a result, the program converting unit 414 refers to, for each robot command, the information stored in the shared area 345 to check whether the absolute command is being executed or the incremental command is being executed”), and
the numerical control device is configured to update the memory of the numerical control device transmitted by the processor (See again [0064]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizuno et al. (US 20210181723 A1) which discloses conversion of data including commands, instructions, and similar between a plurality of coordinating industrial machines.
Tarui et al. (US 20180333846 A1) which discloses “conditional branch processing” in the context of coordinated control of a machine tool and distinct and separate robotic arm.
Ojima et al. (US 20180264651 A1) which discloses conversion programs in the context of robots and numerical control.
Yanagita et al. (US 20130166068 A1) which discloses “A system and a method for converting a machine tool program in NC programming language to permit a robot controller to execute the program” (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights