DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 03/28/2024.
Claim(s) 1-12 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-12 are pending.
- Claim(s) 3, and 6-9 has/have been indicated to include allowable subject matter over prior art(s) (However, other rejection(s) apply).
- Claim(s) 1-12 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges the entry of following Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) document(s) from applicant:
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 03/28/2024 has/have been considered by examiner.
Note, one of the references has not been considered due to lack of English translation or a concise explanation of relevance.
Also note, reference(s) mentioned in the IDS has/have been utilized by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/037434 filed 10/08/2021.
Specification
The disclosure filed 03/28/2024 is objected to due to having below minor informalities:
The title of the disclosure is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings filed 03/28/2024 are acknowledged and accepted by examiner for examination.
Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)
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 in Claim(s) 1 – a low-pass filter unit that generates; an inward turning amount calculation unit that calculates; obtained by the low-pass filter unit; a smoothing processing unit that … outputs;
Claim(s) 2 – a pullback correction unit that performs; generated by the low-pass filter unit; calculated by the inward turning amount calculation unit;
Claim(s) 3 – a pre-pullback correction unit that performs; calculated by the inward turning amount calculation unit; the smoothing processing unit … outputs a smoothing path …; corrected by the pre-pullback correction unit;
Claim(s) 4 – the inward turning amount calculation unit defines;
Claim(s) 5 – the inward turning amount calculation unit calculates;
Claim(s) 6 – the inward turning amount calculation unit calculates;
Claim(s) 10 – the smoothing processing unit … performs;
Claim(s) 11 – a tolerance check unit that checks; the smoothing processing unit … performs; tolerance check unit determines.
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.
A low-pass filter unit has/have been interpreted in light of the examples such as “perform smoothing using a low-pass filter such as a moving average filter”, as in specification, [0004].
An inward turning amount calculation unit has/have been interpreted in light of the description/examples such as “Each function of the analysis unit 100, the low-pass filter unit 112, the inward turning amount calculation unit 114, and the motor control unit 120 is the same as each function of the controller 1 according to the first embodiment.”, as in specification, [0054].
Note, for the term(s) “a smoothing processing unit”, “a pullback correction unit”, “a pre-pullback correction unit”, and “a tolerance check unit”, no examples or specific definitions have been found based on a review of the specification and drawings. See below in “35 U.S.C. 112” sections(s) for the details of examiner’s interpretations of the abovementioned claim limitations in light of applicant’s specification.
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(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 1-11 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) contain(s) 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.
As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below 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.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 1 –a smoothing processing unit that … outputs;
Claim(s) 2 – a pullback correction unit that performs;
Claim(s) 3 – a pre-pullback correction unit that performs; the smoothing processing unit … outputs a smoothing path …; corrected by the pre-pullback correction unit;
Claim(s) 10 – the smoothing processing unit … performs;
Claim(s) 11 – a tolerance check unit that checks; the smoothing processing unit … performs; tolerance check unit determines.
Based on examiner’s review of the drawings and applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that the claimed subject matter in the abovementioned claims is/are not properly described in the application as filed, because the specification merely uses the same verbiage as the claimed subject matter without any further details to define or provide any specific examples or detailed flowcharts to identify the structure for any of the above terms/phrases. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
The abovementioned features, based on the way they are written, consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Note, while claim(s) 4-9 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency (of independent claim 1).
If applicant believes there is sufficient written description in the disclosure, applicant is advised to point to the portion of the disclosure that describes the structure(s) that perform the abovementioned claimed functionalities.
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 1-11 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.
As mentioned above in the “Claim Interpretation – 35. USC § 112(f)” section, claim limitation(s) below 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.
Claim limitation(s):
Claim(s) 1 –a smoothing processing unit that … outputs;
Claim(s) 2 – a pullback correction unit that performs;
Claim(s) 3 – a pre-pullback correction unit that performs; the smoothing processing unit … outputs a smoothing path …; corrected by the pre-pullback correction unit;
Claim(s) 10 – the smoothing processing unit … performs;
Claim(s) 11 – a tolerance check unit that checks; the smoothing processing unit … performs; tolerance check unit determines.
Based on examiner’s review of the drawings and applicant’s specification and the drawings, it has been identified that the claimed subject matter in the abovementioned claims is/are not properly described in the application as filed, because the specification merely uses the same verbiage as the claimed subject matter without any further details to define or provide any specific examples or detailed flowcharts to identify the structure for any of the above terms/phrases. Thus, nowhere in the disclosure have the above terms/phrases been broken down with details to the person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how the terms/phrases achieve the individual functionalities mentioned above. Meaning, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t particularly provide a description or an algorithm in a manner that provides sufficient structure(s) for these claimed terms/phrases to perform each of the claimed functions. Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient details to specify which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function(s).
Therefore, claim(s) 1-11 is/are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purpose of compact prosecution to apply prior art, examiner would interpret these units to be any hardware and/or software that is/are able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Note, while claim(s) 4-9 does/do not directly include any of the above language, it/they is/are rejected based on the dependency (of independent claim 1) and so this/these inherit(s) the above interpretations as well.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 § 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(s) 12 is/are 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 because claim(s) 12 recite(s), "A computer readable storage medium storing a program that causes the controller to operate ….". Thus, the claim(s) is/are believed to be directed to non-statutory subject matter as it/they does/do not exclude “transitory” medium. A review of applicant’s specification has been performed and that has not revealed any specific definition of the “computer readable medium” used in the claim language towards indicating an exclusion of transitory medium. For example, while applicant specification 0014-15 describe(s) the control program or data being stored in the nonvolatile memory may be loaded into the RAM during execution/during use and also provides further examples of storage aside from above. However, it does not definitively describe the computer-readable media to exclude transitory form of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), which is described to be part of non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories in MPEP 2106.03(I).
The Examiner suggests the following language to overcome the rejection: " A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program that causes the controller to operate ….".
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4-5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda (JP 2001117617 A – Translation provided in IDS by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Okuda discloses:
A controller that, based on a control program, controls machining performed by an industrial machine on a workpiece, the controller comprising: (Abstract, 0008-0020, Fig. 1-8. See 0009 teaches the flowchart of Fig. 8 is executed by the processing of the numerical control device when it is realized as a program processed by the CPU.)
a low-pass filter unit that generates a smoothing path by applying smoothing using a low-pass filter to an instruction path instructed by the control program; (Among many paras, see 0008, 0012-14 teach "smoothing point group S" and more specifically, 0008 teaches “a smooth point group generating means 3 generates a smooth point group S from the point group D …”; Also see 0011-13 teach "averaging of position vectors" (i.e., smoothing) is applied to "division point group D" (i.e., an instruction path). See 0009 teaches the flowchart of Fig. 8 is executed by the processing of the numerical control device when it is realized as a program processed by the CPU. Note, averaging the positions between the selected points as in 0007 is aligned with the description/example for the low pass filter (e.g., perform smoothing using a low-pass filter such as a moving average filter) in applicant specification, 0004)
an inward turning amount calculation unit that calculates an inward turning amount by which the smoothing path obtained by the low-pass filter unit turns to an inward direction relative to the instruction path; and (0007-08, 0017-18 teach determining an "average restoration vector Wi" (i.e., the inward turning amount by which it turns to an inward direction relative to the programmed path.) and see Fig. 5-6 illustrating the direction for the inward turn calculation for the points. See 0014 teaches since the shape determined by the smooth point group S thus obtained is shifted toward the center of curvature of the desired processed curved surface, it is necessary to bring it closer to the desired processed curved surface.)
a smoothing processing unit that, based on the inward turning amount, outputs a path pulled back from the smoothing path in an opposite direction to the inward direction in which the smoothing path inwardly turns. (See Fig. 7 and 0018-19 teach "restoration point group R". More specifically, 0018 teaches, the restoration point group R shown in FIG. 7 is generated while shifting the target of the restoration vector that is the source for sequentially obtaining the restoration points Ri. 0019 then teaches, in the restoration point group R obtained, the distance between adjacent restoration points Ri is shorter than the distance between the original command points Ii, and the shape is smoother than the command shape of the machining program. Thus, the shape is close to the desired processed shape M. Interpolation is performed using this restoration point Ri as a new command point, the tool is moved along the shape obtained by the interpolation, and shape machining is performed.)
Regarding claim 2, Okuda teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Okuda further discloses wherein the smoothing processing unit comprises a pullback correction unit that performs correction to pull back the smoothing path generated by the low-pass filter unit in the opposite direction to the inwardly turning direction by the inward turning amount calculated by the inward turning amount calculation unit, and outputs a path corrected by the pullback correction unit. (See 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejection above; Okuda, 0017-19 teach the average restoration vector Wi is added to the smoothing point Si to determine a restoration point Ri. 0017 teaches, the starting point of the obtained average restoration vector Wi is moved in parallel with the smoothing point Si, and is aligned, and the restoration point Ri is obtained as the end point of the average restoration vector Wi. 0018 teaches, then, the restoration vector to be the basis for obtaining the next average restoration vector W is shifted by one (i→i+1) in the processing direction and selected, and two on each side with the next restoration vector SDi+1 as the center. Based on the restoration vectors SDi−1, SDi, SDi+1, SDi+2, SDi+3 of, the restoration point Ri+1 for the smoothed point Si+1 is obtained. Similarly, the restoration point group R shown in FIG. 7 is generated while shifting the target of the restoration vector that is the source for sequentially obtaining the restoration points Ri.).
Regarding claim 4, Okuda teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Okuda further discloses wherein the inward turning amount calculation unit defines a difference between the instruction path and the smoothing path as an inward turning amount. (Besides above, see 0015 teaches that a vector having a specific smoothing point Si as a starting point and a division point Di corresponding to Si as an ending point is set as a restoration vector SDi.)
Regarding claim 5, Okuda teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Okuda further discloses wherein the inward turning amount calculation unit calculates an inward turning amount based on a difference between each of a plurality of instruction points instructed by the control program and the smoothing path. (As above, see 0007-08, 0017-18 teach determining the average restoration vector Wi using a plurality of restoration vectors SDi, and therefore it is considered to have taught a process in which the inward turning amount is calculated based on a difference between a plurality of command/instruction points and the smoothed path.)
Regarding claim 12, Okuda discloses:
A computer readable storage medium storing a program that causes a controller to operate, the controller being configured to, based on a control program, control machining performed by an industrial machine on a workpiece, the program causes the controller to operate as: (Abstract, 0008-0020, Fig. 1-8. See 0009 teaches the flowchart of Fig. 8 is executed by the processing of the numerical control device when it is realized as a program processed by the CPU.)
a low-pass filter unit that generates a smoothing path by applying smoothing using a low-pass filter to an instruction path instructed by the control program; (Among many paras, see 0008, 0012-14 teach "smoothing point group S" and more specifically, 0008 teaches “a smooth point group generating means 3 generates a smooth point group S from the point group D …”; Also see 0011-13 teach "averaging of position vectors" (i.e., smoothing) is applied to "division point group D" (i.e., an instruction path). See 0009 teaches the flowchart of Fig. 8 is executed by the processing of the numerical control device when it is realized as a program processed by the CPU. Note, averaging the positions between the selected points as in 0007 is aligned with the description/example for the low pass filter (e.g., perform smoothing using a low-pass filter such as a moving average filter) in applicant specification, 0004)
an inward turning amount calculation unit that calculates an inward turning amount by which the smoothing path obtained by the low-pass filter unit turns to an inward direction relative to the instruction path; and (0007-08, 0017-18 teach determining an "average restoration vector Wi" (i.e., the inward turning amount by which it turns to an inward direction relative to the programmed path.) and see Fig. 5-6 illustrating the direction for the inward turn calculation for the points. See 0014 teaches since the shape determined by the smooth point group S thus obtained is shifted toward the center of curvature of the desired processed curved surface, it is necessary to bring it closer to the desired processed curved surface.)
a smoothing processing unit that, based on the inward turning amount, outputs a path pulled back from the smoothing path in an opposite direction to the inward direction in which the smoothing path inwardly turns. (See Fig. 7 and 0018-19 teach "restoration point group R". More specifically, 0018 teaches, the restoration point group R shown in FIG. 7 is generated while shifting the target of the restoration vector that is the source for sequentially obtaining the restoration points Ri. 0019 then teaches, in the restoration point group R obtained, the distance between adjacent restoration points Ri is shorter than the distance between the original command points Ii, and the shape is smoother than the command shape of the machining program. Thus, the shape is close to the desired processed shape M. Interpolation is performed using this restoration point Ri as a new command point, the tool is moved along the shape obtained by the interpolation, and shape machining is performed.)
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda (JP 2001117617 A – Translation provided in IDS by applicant) in view of Kato (JP H09160623 A – Translation provided in IDS by applicant).
Regarding claim 10, Okuda teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Okuda does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the smoothing processing unit repeatedly performs a smoothing process using the inward turning amount calculation unit and the low-pass filter unit on an output path.
Kato explicitly teaches:
wherein the smoothing processing unit repeatedly performs a smoothing process using the inward turning amount calculation unit and the low-pass filter unit on an output path. (See Fig. 7, 0027-28 teach a feature of repeatedly implementing a smoothing process until a route change amount ("deviation") is within a specified tolerance ("allowable error"). More specifically, see 0028 teaches, “… The curve is repeatedly calculated using the regression polynomial. If it is determined in step 211 that the error is within the allowable error, the process moves to step 220.”)
Accordingly, as Okuda and Kato are directed to numerical controller technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of repeatedly implementing a smoothing process, as taught by Kato to the system and method with the numerical control device which utilizes inward turning amount calculation and a low-pass filter for a smoothing process as taught by Okuda. One would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled the system to meet the requirements such as keeping the corrected data within the selected range for allowable error, which then achieves the objectives of reducing shape errors, improving service quality in cam grinding, and shortening calculation time, as evident in Kato, Fig. 7, 0004, 0027-28, etc.
Regarding claim 11, Okuda and Kato teach all the elements of claim 10.
Kato further teaches:
further comprising a tolerance check unit that checks whether or not a path change amount is within a specified tolerance, wherein the smoothing processing unit repeatedly performs a smoothing process until the tolerance check unit determines that the path change amount is within the specified tolerance. (See Fig. 7, 0027-28 teach a feature of repeatedly implementing a smoothing process until a route change amount ("deviation") is within a specified tolerance ("allowable error"). More specifically, see 0028 teaches, “… The curve is repeatedly calculated using the regression polynomial. If it is determined in step 211 that the error is within the allowable error, the process moves to step 220.”)
Accordingly, as Okuda and Kato are directed to numerical controller technology, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further added the feature of utilizing the well-known technology of repeatedly implementing a smoothing process based on required conditions including checking the data in a specific way, as taught by Kato to the system and method with the numerical control device which utilizes inward turning amount calculation and a low-pass filter for a condition-based smoothing process as taught by Okuda and Kato. Similar to above, one would have been motivated to combine these features because such a combined system/method would have enabled the system to meet the requirements such as keeping the corrected data within the selected range for allowable error, which then achieves the objectives of reducing shape errors, improving service quality in cam grinding, and shortening calculation time, as evident in Kato, Fig. 7, 0004, 0027-28, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 and 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
3. The controller according to claim 1,
wherein the smoothing processing unit
comprises a pre-pullback correction unit that performs correction to pull back the instruction path in advance in the opposite direction to the inwardly turning direction by the inward turning amount calculated by the inward turning amount calculation unit, and
outputs a smoothing path obtained by applying smoothing by using the low-pass filter unit to an instruction path corrected by the pre-pullback correction unit.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
6. The controller according to claim 1, wherein the inward turning amount calculation unit calculates an inward turning amount based on a curvature of the instruction path and a filter length of the low-pass filter.
Note, claims 7-9 depend from claim 6:
7. The controller according to claim 6, wherein a curvature of the instruction path is calculated by using a curvature of the smoothing path.
8. The controller according to claim 6, wherein a curvature of the instruction path is specified as information accompanying the control program.
9. The controller according to claim 6, wherein the filter length is calculated based on at least one of a moving speed along the instruction path and a time constant of the low-pass filter.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vogt et al. (US 20030168614 A1) is related to an apparatus and method for inspecting pre-fastened articles. In a method and apparatus for making and inspecting pre-fastened articles, such as disposable training pants, having at least two generally flexible elements capable of connection with each other during initial assembly of the article, the elements are arranged in overlapping relationship with each other and connected together to define an engagement seam of the article. The article is arranged to define an interior space thereof whereby the interior space is bounded in part by the engagement seam. The elements are irradiated at the engagement seam by a radiation source within the interior space of the article and an image of the irradiated engagement seam is captured by an image capturing device. In one embodiment, the image capturing device is positioned within the interior space of the article and the radiation source is either within the interior space or exterior of the article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F: 11am -5pm (approximately). 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 on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
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.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights