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 .
Contingent Limitations
Claims 8 and 9 comprise contingent limitations recited in phrases “when …”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The conditions followed the phrase “if” may not be met, hence the corresponding steps may not be required to be conducted. Therefore, these limitations have no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) for details.
To make the limitations to have patentable weight in the claims, the phrase “when it is determined that the jig and the tool are respectively positioned” in claim 8 should be amended to “in response to [[when]] it is determined that the jig and the tool are respectively positioned”; the phrase “when it is determined that the tool comes into contact with the workpiece” in claim 8 should be amended to “in response to [[when]] it is determined that the tool comes into contact with the workpiece”; the phrase “when it is determined that the tool comes into contact with the workpiece” in claim 9 should be amended to “in response to [[when]] it is determined that the tool comes into contact with the workpiece”.
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 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:
“relative displacement-specifying unit”, “position determination unit”, “displacement correction unit”, “contact determination unit”, “tool data correction unit” and “control unit” in claim 1;
“relative displacement-specifying unit”, “contact determination unit”, “tool data correction unit” and “control unit” in claim 2;
“model unit” and “error-specifying unit” in claim 3;
“model generation unit” and “error-specifying unit” in claim 5;
“finished shape generation unit” and “map generation unit” in claim 6;
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.
The claimed “relative displacement-specifying unit”, “position determination unit”, “displacement correction unit”, “contact determination unit”, “tool data correction unit” and “control unit” in claim 1; “relative displacement-specifying unit”, “contact determination unit”, “tool data correction unit” and “control unit” in claim 2; “model unit” and “error-specifying unit” in claim 3; “model generation unit” and “error-specifying unit” in claim 5; and “finished shape generation unit” and “map generation unit” in claim 6, are construed as the computer 100 described in [0039-0040, [0090] and FIG. 4 and 13.
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 Objections
In claim 5, the phrase “, the generate the state model,” should be amended to “, [[the]] to generate the state model,”, to correct the typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. 12,377,507B (hereinafter as “Pat_507”) in view of Fukushima (US 20210162609 A1, hereinafter as “Fukushima”).
Table has been created below to compare claims 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the Pat_507.
Instant application
Pat_507
1. A control device of a machine, the machine including a jig and a main shaft, the jig being configured to support a workpiece, the main shaft including a tool that machines the workpiece, the control device comprising:
a relative displacement-specifying unit configured to specify a relative displacement between the jig and the tool based on measurement values of displacements of the jig and the tool;
a position determination unit configured to determine whether the jig and the tool are respectively positioned at a jig calibration point and a tool calibration point based on the measurement values of the displacements of the jig and the tool;
a displacement correction unit configured to correct the measurement values of the displacements of the jig and the tool based on a captured image of the jig calibration point and a captured image of the tool calibration point imaged by a camera supported by a support that does not come into contact with the machine when it is determined that the jig and the tool are respectively positioned at the jig calibration point and the tool calibration point;
a contact determination unit configured to determine whether the tool comes into contact with the workpiece based on a measurement value related to flexure of the main shaft;
a tool data correction unit configured to correct tool data indicating a length of the tool based on the relative displacement when it is determined that the tool comes into contact with the workpiece; and
a control unit configured to generate a control command useable to control the jig or the tool based on the relative displacement, a shape of the workpiece, and the tool data.
1. A control device of a machine having a jig which supports a workpiece and a tool which machines the workpiece, the control device comprising:
a relative displacement specification unit configured to specify a relative displacement between the jig and the tool based on measurement values of displacements of the jig and the tool;
a position determination unit configured to determine whether the jig and the tool are respectively positioned at a jig calibration point and a tool calibration point based on the measurement values of the displacements of the jig and the tool;
a displacement correction unit configured to correct the measurement values of the displacements of the jig and the tool based on a captured image of the jig calibration point and a captured image of the tool calibration point when the jig and the tool are determined as being respectively positioned at the jig calibration point and the tool calibration point;
a contact determination unit configured to determine whether the tool has come into contact with the workpiece based on a measurement value related to a deflection of the tool;
a tool length correction unit configured to correct tool length data indicating a length of the tool based on the relative displacement when the tool is determined to have come into contact with the workpiece; and
a control unit configured to generate a control command for controlling the jig or the tool based on the relative displacement, a shape of the workpiece, and the tool length data.
In the table above, all matching elements of the claim limitations are underlined.
As illustrated in the table above, claim 1 of Pat_507 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except to determine whether the tool comes into contact with the workpiece based on a measurement value related to flexure of the main shaft. However, Fukushima teaches to determine whether the tool comes into contact with the workpiece based on a measurement value related to flexure of the main shaft (FIG. 2 and [0026, 0037]: “It can be detected that the shaft is in contact with the workpiece, based on the strain detected by the strain gauge”. Fukushima teaches to use stain sensors 37/37A to measure the flexure of the output shaft 21 to determine if the tip 10A contacts the workpiece). Since contacting of the tool and object will cause force/strain/flexure on the tool and the shaft holding the tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the contact determination unit of claim 1 of the instant application based on the teaching of Fukushima, to make the contact determination unit configured to determine whether the tool comes into contact with the workpiece based on a measurement value related to flexure of the main shaft. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better control the force/load applied, as Fukushima suggests in [0007].
Similarly, claim 8 of the instant application is also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Pat_507 in view of Fukushima.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are allowable. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection for contingent limitations set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights