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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1 and 4-5 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claim
5 under 35 USC 102 as set forth in the office action of 07/03/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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:
“program execution unit” in claims 1 and 5
“interlock setting unit” in claim 1
“a signal processing unit” in claim 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With to claims 1 and 4 recite “regarding setting/switching” it is unclear if the applicant means “setting or switching” or “setting and switching” hence this limitation renders claim to be indefinite.
With regards to claim 4 recites “ the controller” there is a lack of antecedent basis.
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.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao et al. JPH0325509A in view of Ito et al. US6285921.
Regarding claim 5, Takao discloses a controller for processing a signal transmitted between a plurality of industrial machines including at least one industrial robot (control device for controlling multi-head machine/ robot, where the control device execute program that avoid interference see at least last section page 2 and first section page 3), the controller comprising:
a program execution unit configured to perform forward execution and backward execution of a program including at least one motion command and at least one signal output command (memory stores program includes plurality of commands, operation command and M123 meet command and meet time see at least last section in pg. 2-4 and 6); and
a signal processing unit configured to, during the backward execution of the program, perform an inverting process regarding a pre-registered signal, regardless whether or not the inverting process of the pre-registered signal has been executed during the forward execution (see et least [abstract] “the time of forward movement of heads, heads A and B simultaneously start the execution of programs in blocks N101a and N101b at a time t1. The head A terminates the block N101a at a time t2, and a processor stores a waiting command M123 and the block name following this movement data in the memory. After the head B terminates the block N101b at a time t4, respective heads simultaneously start the execution of blocks N102a and N102b at a time t5, and the processor stores a waiting time Ta till then in the memory. At the time of the waiting command for backward movement, backward movement is started when the waiting time elapses after temporary stop. Thus, the multihead machine tool is operated backward without interference between heads.” Furthermore, Takao discloses M123 interlock signal command/meet command and meet time/signal output command and the controller controls robot/automatic multihead machine, the backward execution that process opposite to forward execution with the M123 meeting command and meeting time is performed, where the memory stores all the movement data including pre-resisted commands (see at least pg. 4 and 6-8 & Fig. 1A-B). The limitation of “inverting process” is it well know is robotic technology for the robot controller to invert the process during backward execution to avoid any collision and enhancing the safety.
Takao does not explicitly disclose an inverting process regarding a pre-registered signal. However, Ito is directed to robot control apparatus with function for robot backward operation. Ito discloses ignore at least one logic statement which is included in the robot program and associated with the interlock signal (“Data in the execution history table is read (B41), and the process of (*3) command type-dependent execution flow (B42) is performed on the read data. Then, in accordance with the result of command type discrimination (B43), the backward process is performed (B44).(83) In this case, the data read from the execution history table are the data in columns 1, 2 and 5 at the ninth row. Thus, the result of command type discrimination (B43) is Type 4 (computation command). In the backward process (B44), therefore, the process for restoring the register value of REG[1] to "5" described in column 5 is carried out.” That means in the backward operation where the command type discrimination is made here Examiner is interpreting discriminating/ignoring during backward as inverting process during backward execution hence system avoids collision (see at least abstract and col. 12, lines 20-56). Therefore, from the teaching of Ito, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Takao to use the technique of inverting process during backward execution similar to that of the teaching of Ito in order to enhance the safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4 they would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHID BENDIDI whose telephone number is (571)272-4896. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-4PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights