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 . Claims 1-10 filed on 3/4/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 3/4/2024 and 2/20/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 3/4/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 3/4/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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: “recording condition storage unit” in claim 1; “processing data specifying information storage unit”, in claim 1; “recording processing unit”, in claim 1; “recording condition setting interface unit”, in claim 3; “processing data specifying information setting interface unit”, in claim 4; “examination program storage unit”, in claim 5; “program execution unit”, in claim 5; and “interrupt processing unit”, in claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim limitation “recording condition storage unit” in claim 1; “processing data specifying information storage unit”, in claim 1; “recording processing unit”, in claim 1; “recording condition setting interface unit”, in claim 3; “processing data specifying information setting interface unit”, in claim 4; “examination program storage unit”, in claim 5; “program execution unit”, in claim 5; and “interrupt processing unit”, in claim 10, 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.
In particular, review of the specification failed to provide sufficient written description of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The only mention was in paragraph [0081] of the filed specification which states: “Note that each function of the numerical control device 10 according to one embodiment may be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Here, implementation by the software means implementation by reading and execution of a program by a computer.” Here, it is unclear first if the “functions” described above are analogous to the units identified as there is no nexus to form that connection and second, the paragraph states that only in “one embodiment”, leaving room for confusion for additional embodiments, and third, the paragraph states “may be”, which implies that the embodiment does not have to take on this potential structure/software implementation. As such, it is unclear what actually constitutes the structure for the disclosed limitations.
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.
Dependent claims 2-10 each depend upon claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-10 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.
In particular, claim limitations, “recording condition storage unit” in claim 1; “processing data specifying information storage unit”, in claim 1; “recording processing unit”, in claim 1; “recording condition setting interface unit”, in claim 3; “processing data specifying information setting interface unit”, in claim 4; “examination program storage unit”, in claim 5; “program execution unit”, in claim 5; and “interrupt processing unit”, in claim 10; each as identified above fail to provide sufficient written description 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as discussed above in the 112b section.
Dependent claims 2-10 each depend upon claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitsuya (JP2009237798A).
Regarding Claim 1; Mitsuya teaches; A control device that includes one or more processors and one or more memories for storing an instruction to be executed by the one or more processors and/or data to be processed by the one or more processors, and controls an industrial machine, comprising: (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0044], [0083] and [0107]; disclose a control unit for controlling a target device (i.e. industrial device as taught in [0107]) which further includes a defect recording device for storing defect data associated with a device)
a recording condition storage unit configured to store one or more recording conditions regarding recording of the instruction and/or the data; (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0044]; disclose a defect data recording device for storing defect data associated with a device)
a processing data specifying information storage unit configured to store, for each of the one or more recording conditions, processing data specifying information for specifying processing data to be stored in a processing data storage unit from the instruction and/or the data; and (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0054]; disclose an attention specifying unit for specifying specific recording conditions for monitored data)
a recording processing unit configured to record, when the one or more recording conditions are satisfied, the processing data specified by the processing data specifying information corresponding to the one or more recording conditions in the processing data storage unit. (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0058]; disclose a defect recording processing unit (11) configured to record defect data when a recording trigger is detected in monitored defect data).
Regarding Claim 2; Mitsuya teaches; The control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing data includes at least one of internal information on the one or more processors, the data stored in the one or more memories, the instruction, or an instruction saving area of the instruction. (Mitsuya; at least paragraphs [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding Claim 3; Mitsuya teaches; The control device according to claim 1, further comprising a recording condition setting interface unit configured to set the one or more recording conditions. (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 4; Mitsuya teaches; The control device according to any one of claim 1, further comprising a processing data specifying information setting interface unit configured to set the processing data specifying information. (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 5; Mitsuya teaches; The control device according to any one of claim 1, further comprising: an examination program storage unit configured to store an executable examination program to be executed when the one or more recording conditions are satisfied; and a program execution unit configured to execute the examination program when the one or more recording conditions are satisfied. (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya (JP2009237798A) in view of Biner et al. (US PGPUB 20180351401).
Regarding Claim 8; Mitsuya teaches; The control device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the one or more recording conditions and/or the processing data specifying information are settable and/or referable from external equipment. (Mitsuya; at least paragraph [0058]).
Mitsuya appears to be silent on; The control device according to any one of claims claim 1, wherein the one or more recording conditions and/or the processing data specifying information are settable and/or referable from external equipment.
However, Binder teaches; The control device according to any one of claims claim 1, wherein the one or more recording conditions and/or the processing data specifying information are settable and/or referable from external equipment. (Binder; at least Figs. 1E and 5; paragraph [0006]; disclose a portable device capable of interfacing with equipment, wherein the device can access information regarding the monitoring (i.e. setting conditions as taught by Mitsuya) of the connected device).
Mitsuya and Binder are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, monitoring and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of externally accessing data regarding a monitored device as taught by Binder with the known system of a data specifying monitoring and control system as taught by Matsuya in order to provide a method in which inefficiencies within a system could be targeted and readily identified remotely as taught by Binder (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Mitsuya and Binder teach; The control device according to claim 5, wherein at least any one of the one or more recording conditions, the processing data specifying information, or the examination program is settable and/or referable from external equipment. (Binder; at least Figs. 1E and 5; paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 8; the combination of Mitsuya and Binder teach; The control device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the processing data is referable from external equipment. (Binder; at least Figs. 1E and 5; paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 9; the combination of Mitsuya and Binder teach; The control device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the processing data is output to external equipment. (Binder; at least Figs. 1E and 5; paragraph [0006]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuya (JP2009237798A) in view of Kubota (US PGPUB 20200117165).
Regarding Claim 10; Mitsuya appears to be silent on; The control device according to any one of claim 1, further comprising: an interrupt processing unit configured to execute interrupt processing when the one or more recording conditions are satisfied and resumes, after completion of the interrupt processing, original processing executed before execution of the interrupt processing.
However, Kubota teaches; The control device according to any one of claim 1, further comprising: an interrupt processing unit configured to execute interrupt processing when the one or more recording conditions are satisfied and resumes, after completion of the interrupt processing, original processing executed before execution of the interrupt processing. (Kubota; at least paragraphs [0005] and [0035]; disclose a system and method for executing an interrupt process when interrupt conditions are met (i.e. settable conditions of Mitsuya) and after completion of the interrupt, executing the original processing).
Mitsuya and Kubota are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, monitoring and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of resuming execution of an original process after processing an interrupt as taught by Kubota with the known system of a data specifying monitoring and control system as taught by Matsuya in order to provide a method in which accurate system data can be recorded as taught by Kubota (paragraph [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US PGPUB 20190384692): disclose a diagnosis tool for monitoring a plurality of data and diagnosing faults within a system by applying user defined context analysis to identify root cause of failures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights