DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 9 July 2026. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to claims 1 and 5 claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended to change the phrase "a machining unit configured to support machining processing" to "a machining apparatus configured to perform machining processing for the workpiece". Support to such claim amendments exists in the subject specification, for example, at paragraph [0023]. The amendment renders the interpretation of "a machining unit" under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) moot. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 3)
The examiner respectfully disagree.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0402676 A1 discloses:
The machining unit 7 performs machining processing (wire electrical discharge machining or the like) for a workpiece according to the machining conditions. (pg. 2, par. [0028])
The examiner recognizes the applicant has changed the limitation of “machining unit” to “machining apparatus”. The examiner has applied 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to the claimed limitation since it meets the 3-prong analysis as set forth in MPEP 2181, wherein the generic placeholder of “apparatus” is modified by the functional claim language of “perform machining processing” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to objected claims 1 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments filed on 9 July 2026. The objections of claims 1 and 5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
As discussed in the previous section, claims 1 and 5 have been amended to avoid such interpretation, rendering the written description requirement rejection moot. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 5)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the applicant has changed the limitation of “machining unit” to “machining apparatus”. The examiner has applied 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to the claimed limitation since it meets the 3-prong analysis as set forth in MPEP 2181, wherein the generic placeholder of “apparatus” is modified by the functional claim language of “perform machining processing” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Further, the specification as filed 5 April 2024 does not provide clear structure for the “machining apparatus” in claims 1 and 5 nor an algorithm that a computer uses to perform the claimed function as recited in claim 1 and 5. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 10, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
As discussed in the previous section, claims 1 and 5 have been amended to avoid such interpretation, rendering the indefiniteness rejection moot. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the applicant has changed the limitation of “machining unit” to “machining apparatus”. The examiner has applied 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to the claimed limitation since it meets the 3-prong analysis as set forth in MPEP 2181, wherein the generic placeholder of “apparatus” is modified by the functional claim language of “perform machining processing” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Further, the specification as filed 5 April 2024 does not provide clear structure for the “machining apparatus” in claims 1 and 5 nor an algorithm that a computer uses to perform the claimed function as recited in claim 1 and 5. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-13, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 9 July 2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as follow:
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0117166 A1 (hereinafter Mizuno) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0169514 A1 (hereinafter Eryurek) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication N0. 2011/0016392 (hereinafter Humeniuk).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Eryurek in further view of Humenick and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0265936 A1 (hereinafter Liu).
Claims 1 and 5 stand objected to and claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), 102(b), and 35 U.S.C. 103.
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: “a machining apparatus” in claims 1 and 5 and “an input/output unit” in claims 1 and 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the grammatical and antecedent issues of “… information for supporting an operation of the interface screen by the use …” in lines 21-22. Suggested claim language: “… information for supporting an operation of the interface screen …”; and has been interrupted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue of “… to explain an operation to the object …” in lines 32-33. Suggested claim language: “… to explain an operation of the object …”; and has been interrupted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 5 recites the grammatical and antecedent issues of “… information for supporting an operation of the interface screen by the use …” in lines 22-23. Suggested claim language: “… information for supporting an operation of the interface screen …”; and has been interrupted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 5 recites the grammatical issue of “… to explain an operation to the object …” in lines 33-34. Suggested claim language: “… to explain an operation of the object” …”; and has been interrupted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 5 includes the grammatical issue of the missing conjunction “and” at the end of line 47.
Claim 5 includes the punctuation issue of “screen,” at the end of line 51. Suggested claim language “screen;”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 5 recites “… an instruction to the control unit …”, “… an instruction from the help processing unit …” in lines 48-49, and “… an instruction” in line 53. The claim recites the same term for three disparate limitations. A different term should be used for each claim limitation to avoid any ambiguity in a claim.
Claim 5 recites “A help processing method” in line 1 and “the method” in line 52. The claim recites two different terms for the limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims, the same term should be recited for each reference character. Suggested claim language “the help processing method” in line 52; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 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.
The breath of claims 1, 4, and 5 with respect to the claim interpretation of “machining apparatus” in claims 1,4 and 5 is unknown since the specification as filed neither recites clear structure for the “machining apparatus” in claims 1, 4, and 5 nor an algorithm that a computer uses to perform the claimed function as recited in claim 1, 4, and 5. The Examiner notes the Specification (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0402676 A1) recites the functionalities of the “machining apparatus” (pg. 3, par. [0040] and pg. 4, par. [0059]) however, the Specification does not expressly indicate any particular structure for the “machining apparatus” or algorithms that a computer uses to perform the claim functionality of the “machining apparatus”. 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.
Claims 2-4, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 6-8, dependent from claim 5, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0402676 A1 discloses:
The machining unit 7 performs machining processing (wire electrical discharge machining or the like) for a workpiece according to the machining conditions. (pg. 2, par. [0028])
Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite:
“machining apparatus” in claim 1 (lines 7, 42, and 43), claim 4 (line 15), and claim 5 (lines 8, 43, and 44).
In summary, the specification does not disclose “a machining apparatus”. Hence, the only support for the “machining apparatus” is found in claims 1, 4, and 5 of the claims as filed on 9 July 2026.
Claims 2-4, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 6-8, dependent from claim 5, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
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 1-8 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 “a machining unit” in claims 1, 4, and 5 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. The breath of claims 1, 4, and 5 with respect to the claim interpretation of “a machining unit” in claims 1, 4, and 5 is unknown since the specification as filed neither recites clear structure for the “machining unit” in claims 1, 4, and 5 nor an algorithm that a computer uses to perform the claimed function as recited in claim 1, 4, and 5. The Examiner notes the Specification (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0402676 A1) recites the functionalities of the “machining unit” (pg. 3, par. [0040] and pg. 4, par. [0059]) however, the Specification does not expressly indicate any particular structure for the “machining unit” or algorithms that a computer uses to perform the claim functionality of the “machining unit”. 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.
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.
Claims 2-4, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 6-8, dependent from claim 5, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 1 recites “… allows the user to input an instruction for changing a setting or a status of the machining processing” in the alternative in lines 17-19 and “… to change the setting and the status of the machining processing …” in combination in lines 39-40. The claim is rendered indefinite by use of the combination of changing both “the setting and the statue of the machining processing” in light of an instruction that changes the setting or the status of the machining processing in the alternative.
Claims 2-4, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “allows the user to input an instruction for changing a setting or a status of the machining processing” in the alternative in lines 18-20 and “… to change the setting and the status of the machining processing …” in combination in lines 40-41. The claim is rendered indefinite by use of the combination of changing both “the setting and the statue of the machining processing” in light of an instruction that changes the setting or the status of the machining processing in the alternative.
Claims 6-8, dependent from claim 5, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0117166 A1 (hereinafter Mizuno) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0169514 A1 (hereinafter Eryurek) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication N0. 2011/0016392 (hereinafter Humeniuk).
As per claim 1, Mizuno substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Mizuno teaches the missing limitations of a machining processing system provided with a machining processing apparatus configured to support machining processing for a workpiece according to a plurality of setting processes made by a user, wherein the machining processing apparatus comprises:
a processing unit (pg. 4, par. [0042] and Fig. 1, element 11; i.e. a machining information recording device);
a machining apparatus (i.e. a numerical controller of a CNC machine tool) configured to perform machining processing for the workpeice (pgs. 3-4, par. [0040]; i.e. “The CNC machine tool 4 includes a numerical controller which uses numerical control so as to control an operation, and performs, according to the control of the numerical controller, the machining such as cutting or polishing on a material that is to become the product.”); and
an input/output unit (Fig. 4, elements 14 and 15) configured to support input/output processing (pg. 5, par. [0054] and [0055]; i.e. [0054]: “The input unit 14 is formed with an input device such as a keyboard or a mouse, and receives inputs of various types of information to the machining information recording device 1 by the user.” and [0055]: “The display unit 15 is formed with a display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), and displays the results of various types of processing of the machining information recording device 1.”),
wherein the processing unit (Fig. 1, element 11; i.e. a machining information recording device) comprises a control unit, an interface processing unit, and a help processing unit (pg. 4, par. [0042] and pg. 5, par. [0055]; [0042]: “The CPU 11 executes various types of programs stored in the storage unit 16 so as to control the entire machining information recording device 1. For example, the CPU 11 executes a program for processing (hereinafter referred to as “machining performance processing”) which performs the machining on the product.” and [0055]: “In the storage unit 16, the machining information DB 1A is also stored. The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”),
wherein the interface processing unit operates according to control of the control unit, displays an interface screen via the input/output unit, and makes an instruction to the control unit according to an operation by the user (pg. 5, par. [0055]; i.e. “The display unit 15 is formed with a display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), and displays the results of various types of processing of the machining information recording device 1. The storage unit 16 is formed with a nonvolatile storage device such as a hard disk or a flash memory, and stores a program for the machining performance processing and the like. … The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”),
wherein the help processing unit provides a help display including a first display region, a second display region, and a third display region (pg. 3, par. [0033] and pg. 5, par. [0055]; i.e. [0033]: “… the machining command data and the machining performance data, and specific details (such as the form of a hierarchy and the items of data) of the machining command data and the machining performance data differ according to the details of the actual machining.” and [0055]: “The display unit 15 is formed with a display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), and displays the results of various types of processing of the machining information recording device 1. The storage unit 16 is formed with a nonvolatile storage device such as a hard disk or a flash memory, and stores a program for the machining performance processing and the like. … The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”),
wherein the first display region displays each step of a setting process for machining processing (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… the machining command data includes: data of a workpiece indicating a target to be machined; and data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.”),
wherein the second display region displays items included in each step (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.” and [0038]: “… the machined shape, “pocket_1” indicating the shape of “pocket 1” is described. As the data of the operation indicating the machining method, “Pocket_rough_milling” indicating “roughing” is described. As the data of the strategy indicating the machining strategy (the pattern of the machining path), “Bidirectional” indicating that the machining path is a round-trip path is described. ”),
wherein the third display region displays an explanation for each item (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.” and [0038]: “As the data of the strategy indicating the machining strategy (the pattern of the machining path), “Bidirectional” indicating that the machining path is a round-trip path is described. As the data of the cutting tool indicating the tool used in the machining, “R2_ball_endmill” indicating a predetermined type of endmill is described. ”),
wherein, when the third display region includes an object displayed on an interface screen to explain an operation to the object, the help processing unit instructs the control unit to display an interface screen including the object (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.” and [0038]: “As the data of the strategy indicating the machining strategy (the pattern of the machining path), “Bidirectional” indicating that the machining path is a round-trip path is described. As the data of the cutting tool indicating the tool used in the machining, “R2_ball_endmill” indicating a predetermined type of endmill is described.”); and
wherein the control unit controls the machining apparatus of the machining processing apparatus (pg. 4, par. [0042] and pg. 5, par. [0055]; [0042]: “The CPU 11 executes various types of programs stored in the storage unit 16 so as to control the entire machining information recording device 1. For example, the CPU 11 executes a program for processing (hereinafter referred to as “machining performance processing”) which performs the machining on the product.” and [0055]: “In the storage unit 16, the machining information DB 1A is also stored. The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”).
Not explicitly taught are wherein the interface screen allows the user to input an instruction for changing a setting or a status of the machining processing;
wherein the help processing unit provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of the interface screen by the use;
wherein the control unit links an operation by the user on the help display to a display process of the interface processing unit, and does not link the operation by the user on the help display to change the setting and the status of the machining processing;
wherein the help processing unit does not instruct the machining apparatus to perform machining processing;
wherein the control unit controls the machining apparatus of the machining processing apparatus according to an instruction input through the interface screen displayed by the interface processing unit, and
wherein, upon receiving an instruction from the help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitations of an interface screen allows a user to input an instruction for changing a setting of a plant (pg. 4, par. [0043] and pg. 7, par. [0063]; i.e. [0043]: “The process plant 10 also includes various rotating equipment 20, such as turbines, motors, etc. which are connected to a maintenance computer 22 via some permanent or temporary communication link (such as a bus, a wireless communication system or hand held devices which are connected to the equipment 20 to take readings and are then removed).” and [0063]: “The operators and other users may use the coordinated user interface routines 58 to perform or to implement predictive control, change settings of the plant 10, view help within the plant 10, or perform any other activities related to the information provided by the asset utilization expert 50. As discussed above, the user interface routines 58 may include an operator guidance tool that receives information from the predictive controller 65 as well as information related to the indices, which can be used by an operator or other user to help perform many functions such as viewing the status of a process or devices within the process, to guide the predictive controller 65 or to perform predictive or optimized control.”);
a help processing unit does not instruct a production unit to perform processing (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]; i.e. [0123]: “ Thus, for example, a user may look at a view of the plant and see a particular set of indices for the plant. The user may then focus on one area, such as by clicking on one of the areas within the plant view, and see the indices associated with that area. Similarly, by clicking on units within the displayed area, the indices for different units may be viewed. Likewise indices for loops, sub units, devices etc. may then be viewed by focusing in on these different entities from a view of an entity in which these entities are located. In this manner, a user can quickly find the cause of a lower than (or higher than) expected index at any point or level of the plant.”);
wherein a control unit controls the production unit of a processing apparatus according to an instruction input through an interface screen displayed by an interface processing unit (pg. 6, par. [0054] and pg. 7, par. [0063]; i.e. [0054]: “For example, one of the user interface routines 58 may provide a screen or set of screens to a control operator or to a business person to enable that person to set constraints or to choose optimization variables for use in a standard control routine or in a control optimizer routine.” and [0063]:“The operators and other users may use the coordinated user interface routines 58 to perform or to implement predictive control, change settings of the plant 10, view help within the plant 10, or perform any other activities related to the information provided by the asset utilization expert 50.”); and
wherein, upon receiving the instruction from the help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]; i.e. [0123]: “ Thus, for example, a user may look at a view of the plant and see a particular set of indices for the plant. The user may then focus on one area, such as by clicking on one of the areas within the plant view, and see the indices associated with that area. Similarly, by clicking on units within the displayed area, the indices for different units may be viewed. Likewise indices for loops, sub units, devices etc. may then be viewed by focusing in on these different entities from a view of an entity in which these entities are located. In this manner, a user can quickly find the cause of a lower than (or higher than) expected index at any point or level of the plant.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno to include the addition of the limitations of an interface screen allows a user to input an instruction for changing a setting of a plant; a help processing unit does not instruct a production unit to perform processing; wherein a control unit controls the production unit of a processing apparatus according to an instruction input through an interface screen displayed by an interface processing unit; and wherein, upon receiving the instruction from the help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen to enable a user to quickly analyze a performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Mizuno in view of Eryurek does not expressly teach wherein the help processing unit provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of the interface screen by the use; and
wherein the control unit links an operation by the user on the help display to a display process of the interface processing unit, and does not link the operation by the user on the help display to change the setting and the status of the machining processing.
However Humerniuk, in an analogous art of a help functionality in an operation of a device (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of a help processing provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of an interface screen by a use (pg. 2, par. [0016], pg. 3, par. [0026], pg. 8, par. [0070], pgs. 9-10, par. [0081], and pg. 13, par. [0108] and [0109]; i.e. [0016]: “For instance, a user may be able to scroll through the various system screens, and may be able to retrieve help information on the various parameters, data, designations, and buttons or keys included on the system screen.”, [0026]: “The help logic may be configured such that when the help button is selected in any appropriate manner, the power injector is temporarily disposed in a help mode (e.g., operation of the power injector may be temporarily suspended while the help functionality is enabled). Thereafter, selecting an object of the screen that is currently being presented on the first graphical user interface (e.g., a certain button; a certain parameter; a certain symbol; a certain graphical representation) will result in the presentation of help information on the first graphical user interface that pertains to the selected object.”, [0070]: “Help information on the selected help topic of step 114 (e.g., a help output) may be presented or displayed on a graphical user interface 11 of the power injector 10 through execution of step 116 of the help protocol 110.”, [0081]: “Thereafter, help information could be displayed on the next portion of the setup screen 130 that is "selected" in any appropriate manner. In the case of the setup screen 130 being in the form of a touch screen display, a user could "touch" that part of the setup screen 130 on which the user desires to acquire help information (again, after having first selected the help button 160), and corresponding help information would then be displayed on the graphical user interface 11 (e.g., steps 114 and 116 of the help protocol 110 could be executed by simply touching the setup screen 130).”, [0108]: “The power injector control logic 250 may be of any appropriate form and/or configuration, for instance software, may be implemented or integrated in any appropriate manner, or both (e.g., for instance in the power injector software; implemented by software, hardware, firmware, and any combination thereof). In one embodiment, the functionality of the control logic 250 is provided by one or more processors of any appropriate size, shape, configuration, and/or type.”, and [0109]: “The power injector control logic 250 includes fluid delivery logic 252, help logic 254, and help mode logic 256.”); and
wherein a control unit links an operation by a user on the help display to a display process of an interface processing unit, and does not link an operation by the user on the help display to change a setting and a status of a control operation (abstract pgs. 9-10, par. [0079]-[0081], pg. 10-11, par. [0089]-[0092] and [0096], and pg. 12, par. [0099]; i.e. abstract: “The help functionality may be in the form of having the power injector (10) incorporate help mode logic (256) that is configured to allow a user to view and obtain information on the various system screens that would be presented when using the power injector (10) to deliver a fluid, but without actually operating the power injector (10) to deliver fluid.” And [0091]: “Multiple help outputs may be presented on a power injector graphical user interface 11 through the help protocol 190 of FIG. 5. Stated another way, one or more cross-references may be provided in relation to the help information that is presented through execution of step 196.”) for the purpose of providing assistance on one or more aspects of a device (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno in view of Eryurek to include the addition of the limitations of a help processing provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of an interface screen by a use; and wherein a control unit links an operation by a user on the help display to a display process of an interface processing unit, and does not link an operation by the user on the help display to change a setting and a status of a control operation to advantageously reduce a potential for operating a device in an un-safe manner and create a potential that various features incorporated into the design of the device are being fully utilized (Humerniuk: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 2, Mizuno teaches wherein, when the interface screen that is being displayed in a current stage includes all of one or a plurality of objects to be explained, the control unit continues to display the interface screen that is being displayed in the current stage (pg. 3, par. [0033] and Fig. 2; i.e. [0033]: FIG. 2 is a schematic view showing the data structure of the machining command data and the machining performance data.”), and
wherein, when the interface screen that is being displayed in a current stage does not include all of one or a plurality of objects to be explained, the control unit switches the interface screen that is being displayed in the current stage to an interface screen including all the objects to be explained (pg. 3, par. [0037] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0037]: “FIG. 3 is a schematic view showing an example of data of the working step in the machining command data.”).
As per claim 3, Mizuno does not expressly teach wherein, when the instruction from the help processing unit is not an instruction relating to a display of an interface screen, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitations of when the instruction from the help processing unit is not an instruction relating to a display of an interface screen, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction (pg. 7, par. [0063]: “The operators and other users may use the coordinated user interface routines 58 to perform or to implement predictive control, change settings of the plant 10, view help within the plant 10, or perform any other activities related to the information provided by the asset utilization expert 50.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno to include the addition of the limitations of when the instruction from the help processing unit is not an instruction relating to a display of an interface screen, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction to enable a user to quickly analyze a performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
As per claim 5, Mizuno substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Mizuno teaches the missing limitations of a help processing method employed in a machining processing system provided with a machining processing apparatus configured to support machining processing for a workpiece according to a plurality of setting processes made by a user, wherein the machining processing apparatus comprises:
a processing unit (pg. 4, par. [0042] and Fig. 1, element 11; i.e. a machining information recording device);
a machining apparatus (i.e. a numerical controller of a CNC machine tool) configured to perform machining processing for the workpeice (pgs. 3-4, par. [0040]; i.e. “The CNC machine tool 4 includes a numerical controller which uses numerical control so as to control an operation, and performs, according to the control of the numerical controller, the machining such as cutting or polishing on a material that is to become the product.”); and
an input/output unit (Fig. 4, elements 14 and 15) configured to support input/output processing (pg. 5, par. [0054] and [0055]; i.e. [0054]: “The input unit 14 is formed with an input device such as a keyboard or a mouse, and receives inputs of various types of information to the machining information recording device 1 by the user.” and [0055]: “The display unit 15 is formed with a display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), and displays the results of various types of processing of the machining information recording device 1.”),
wherein the processing unit (Fig. 1, element 11; i.e. a machining information recording device) comprises a control unit, an interface processing unit, and a help processing unit (pg. 4, par. [0042] and pg. 5, par. [0055]; [0042]: “The CPU 11 executes various types of programs stored in the storage unit 16 so as to control the entire machining information recording device 1. For example, the CPU 11 executes a program for processing (hereinafter referred to as “machining performance processing”) which performs the machining on the product.” and [0055]: “In the storage unit 16, the machining information DB 1A is also stored. The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”),
wherein the interface processing unit operates according to control of the control unit, displays an interface screen via the input/output unit, and makes an instruction to the control unit according to an operation by the user (pg. 5, par. [0055]; i.e. “The display unit 15 is formed with a display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), and displays the results of various types of processing of the machining information recording device 1. The storage unit 16 is formed with a nonvolatile storage device such as a hard disk or a flash memory, and stores a program for the machining performance processing and the like. … The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”),
wherein the help processing unit provides a help display including a first display region, a second display region, and a third display region (pg. 3, par. [0033] and pg. 5, par. [0055]; i.e. [0033]: “… the machining command data and the machining performance data, and specific details (such as the form of a hierarchy and the items of data) of the machining command data and the machining performance data differ according to the details of the actual machining.” and [0055]: “The display unit 15 is formed with a display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), and displays the results of various types of processing of the machining information recording device 1. The storage unit 16 is formed with a nonvolatile storage device such as a hard disk or a flash memory, and stores a program for the machining performance processing and the like. … The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”),
wherein the first display region displays each step of a setting process for machining processing (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… the machining command data includes: data of a workpiece indicating a target to be machined; and data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.”),
wherein the second display region displays items included in each step (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.” and [0038]: “… the machined shape, “pocket_1” indicating the shape of “pocket 1” is described. As the data of the operation indicating the machining method, “Pocket_rough_milling” indicating “roughing” is described. As the data of the strategy indicating the machining strategy (the pattern of the machining path), “Bidirectional” indicating that the machining path is a round-trip path is described. ”),
wherein the third display region displays an explanation for each item (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.” and [0038]: “As the data of the strategy indicating the machining strategy (the pattern of the machining path), “Bidirectional” indicating that the machining path is a round-trip path is described. As the data of the cutting tool indicating the tool used in the machining, “R2_ball_endmill” indicating a predetermined type of endmill is described. ”),
wherein, when the third display region includes an object displayed on an interface screen to explain an operation to the object, the help processing unit instructs the control unit to display an interface screen including the object (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0038] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0034]: “… data of the working steps (WS) indicating the basic patterns (machining units) of the first to nth (n is a natural number) machining operations in order of the machining. An ID for identifying the machining command data is provided to the machining command data. The data of each of the working steps includes: data of a feature indicating a machined shape such as a pocket; and data of an operation indicating a machining method.” and [0038]: “As the data of the strategy indicating the machining strategy (the pattern of the machining path), “Bidirectional” indicating that the machining path is a round-trip path is described. As the data of the cutting tool indicating the tool used in the machining, “R2_ball_endmill” indicating a predetermined type of endmill is described.”); and
wherein the control unit controls the machining apparatus of the machining processing apparatus (pg. 4, par. [0042] and pg. 5, par. [0055]; [0042]: “The CPU 11 executes various types of programs stored in the storage unit 16 so as to control the entire machining information recording device 1. For example, the CPU 11 executes a program for processing (hereinafter referred to as “machining performance processing”) which performs the machining on the product.” and [0055]: “In the storage unit 16, the machining information DB 1A is also stored. The communication unit 17 includes a communication interface which performs signal processing based on predetermined communication standards, such as wired or wireless LAN or USB, and controls communication between the machining information recording device 1 and other devices.”).
Not explicitly taught are wherein the interface screen allows the user to input an instruction for changing a setting or a status of the machining processing;
wherein the help processing unit provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of the interface screen by the use;
wherein the control unit links an operation by the user on the help display to a display process of the interface processing unit, and does not link the operation by the user on the help display to change the setting and the status of the machining processing;
wherein the help processing unit does not instruct the machining apparatus to perform machining processing;
wherein the control unit controls the machining apparatus of the machining processing apparatus according to an instruction input through the interface screen displayed by the interface processing unit,
wherein, upon receiving an instruction from the help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen, and
the method comprises:
judging whether an instruction has been made via the help processing unit or the interface processing unit;
changing a setting or a status of the machining processing according to the instruction when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the interface processing unit; and
instructing the interface processing unit to display the interface screen in cooperation with the help display via the help processing unit when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the help processing unit.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitations of an interface screen allows a user to input an instruction for changing a setting of a plant (pg. 4, par. [0043] and pg. 7, par. [0063]; i.e. [0043]: “The process plant 10 also includes various rotating equipment 20, such as turbines, motors, etc. which are connected to a maintenance computer 22 via some permanent or temporary communication link (such as a bus, a wireless communication system or hand held devices which are connected to the equipment 20 to take readings and are then removed).” and [0063]: “The operators and other users may use the coordinated user interface routines 58 to perform or to implement predictive control, change settings of the plant 10, view help within the plant 10, or perform any other activities related to the information provided by the asset utilization expert 50. As discussed above, the user interface routines 58 may include an operator guidance tool that receives information from the predictive controller 65 as well as information related to the indices, which can be used by an operator or other user to help perform many functions such as viewing the status of a process or devices within the process, to guide the predictive controller 65 or to perform predictive or optimized control.”);
a help processing unit does not instruct a production unit to perform processing (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]; i.e. [0123]: “ Thus, for example, a user may look at a view of the plant and see a particular set of indices for the plant. The user may then focus on one area, such as by clicking on one of the areas within the plant view, and see the indices associated with that area. Similarly, by clicking on units within the displayed area, the indices for different units may be viewed. Likewise indices for loops, sub units, devices etc. may then be viewed by focusing in on these different entities from a view of an entity in which these entities are located. In this manner, a user can quickly find the cause of a lower than (or higher than) expected index at any point or level of the plant.”);
wherein a control unit controls the production unit of a processing apparatus according to an instruction input through an interface screen displayed by an interface processing unit (pg. 6, par. [0054] and pg. 7, par. [0063]; i.e. [0054]: “For example, one of the user interface routines 58 may provide a screen or set of screens to a control operator or to a business person to enable that person to set constraints or to choose optimization variables for use in a standard control routine or in a control optimizer routine.” and [0063]:“The operators and other users may use the coordinated user interface routines 58 to perform or to implement predictive control, change settings of the plant 10, view help within the plant 10, or perform any other activities related to the information provided by the asset utilization expert 50.”); and
wherein, upon receiving the instruction from the help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]; i.e. [0123]: “ Thus, for example, a user may look at a view of the plant and see a particular set of indices for the plant. The user may then focus on one area, such as by clicking on one of the areas within the plant view, and see the indices associated with that area. Similarly, by clicking on units within the displayed area, the indices for different units may be viewed. Likewise indices for loops, sub units, devices etc. may then be viewed by focusing in on these different entities from a view of an entity in which these entities are located. In this manner, a user can quickly find the cause of a lower than (or higher than) expected index at any point or level of the plant.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno to include the addition of the limitations of an interface screen allows a user to input an instruction for changing a setting of a plant; a help processing unit does not instruct a production unit to perform processing; wherein a control unit controls the production unit of a processing apparatus according to an instruction input through an interface screen displayed by an interface processing unit; and wherein, upon receiving the instruction from the help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen to enable a user to quickly analyze a performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Mizuno in view of Eryurek does not expressly teach wherein the help processing unit provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of the interface screen by the use;
wherein the control unit links an operation by the user on the help display to a display process of the interface processing unit, and does not link the operation by the user on the help display to change the setting and the status of the machining processing; and
the method comprises:
judging whether an instruction has been made via the help processing unit or the interface processing unit;
changing a setting or a status of the machining processing according to the instruction when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the interface processing unit; and
instructing the interface processing unit to display the interface screen in cooperation with the help display via the help processing unit when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the help processing unit.
However Humerniuk, in an analogous art of a help functionality in an operation of a device (abstract and pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of a help processing provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of an interface screen by a use (pg. 2, par. [0016], pg. 3, par. [0026], pg. 8, par. [0070], pgs. 9-10, par. [0081], and pg. 13, par. [0108] and [0109]; i.e. [0016]: “For instance, a user may be able to scroll through the various system screens, and may be able to retrieve help information on the various parameters, data, designations, and buttons or keys included on the system screen.”, [0026]: “The help logic may be configured such that when the help button is selected in any appropriate manner, the power injector is temporarily disposed in a help mode (e.g., operation of the power injector may be temporarily suspended while the help functionality is enabled). Thereafter, selecting an object of the screen that is currently being presented on the first graphical user interface (e.g., a certain button; a certain parameter; a certain symbol; a certain graphical representation) will result in the presentation of help information on the first graphical user interface that pertains to the selected object.”, [0070]: “Help information on the selected help topic of step 114 (e.g., a help output) may be presented or displayed on a graphical user interface 11 of the power injector 10 through execution of step 116 of the help protocol 110.”, [0081]: “Thereafter, help information could be displayed on the next portion of the setup screen 130 that is "selected" in any appropriate manner. In the case of the setup screen 130 being in the form of a touch screen display, a user could "touch" that part of the setup screen 130 on which the user desires to acquire help information (again, after having first selected the help button 160), and corresponding help information would then be displayed on the graphical user interface 11 (e.g., steps 114 and 116 of the help protocol 110 could be executed by simply touching the setup screen 130).”, [0108]: “The power injector control logic 250 may be of any appropriate form and/or configuration, for instance software, may be implemented or integrated in any appropriate manner, or both (e.g., for instance in the power injector software; implemented by software, hardware, firmware, and any combination thereof). In one embodiment, the functionality of the control logic 250 is provided by one or more processors of any appropriate size, shape, configuration, and/or type.”, and [0109]: “The power injector control logic 250 includes fluid delivery logic 252, help logic 254, and help mode logic 256.”);
wherein a control unit links an operation by a user on the help display to a display process of an interface processing unit, and does not link an operation by the user on the help display to change a setting and a status of a control operation (abstract pgs. 9-10, par. [0079]-[0081], pg. 10-11, par. [0089]-[0092] and [0096], and pg. 12, par. [0099]; i.e. abstract: “The help functionality may be in the form of having the power injector (10) incorporate help mode logic (256) that is configured to allow a user to view and obtain information on the various system screens that would be presented when using the power injector (10) to deliver a fluid, but without actually operating the power injector (10) to deliver fluid.” And [0091]: “Multiple help outputs may be presented on a power injector graphical user interface 11 through the help protocol 190 of FIG. 5. Stated another way, one or more cross-references may be provided in relation to the help information that is presented through execution of step 196.”);
judging whether an instruction has been made via a help processing unit or the interface processing unit (pg. 6, par. [0056]; pg. 9, par. [0076], [0079], [0080], pg. 10, par. [0084], i.e. [0079]: “The setup screen 130 of FIG. 4A may include various buttons to access various other system screens on the power injector graphical user interface 11, including a memory button 154 (e.g., for accessing an injection protocol that is stored), an injection mode button 156 (e.g., for selecting from a plurality of injection modes, where each injection mode has at least one phase for the A side and at least one phase for the B side), a results button 158 (e.g., for displaying results on an injection procedure), a help button 160 (e.g., for initiating the help protocol 110 of FIG. 3; for initiating the help protocol 190 of FIG. 5, discussed below), and a help mode button 162 (e.g., for operating the power injector 10 in a help mode, discussed below in relation to FIG. 7).”; [0080]: “The setup screen 130 of FIG. 4A also includes the following: 1) a slide bar 132 for displaying/changing a value for a selected parameter presented on the setup screen 130; 2) adjustment arrows 134 for providing a more refined adjustment of a value for a selected parameter presented on the setup screen 130; …”, [0081]: “Step 112 of the help protocol 110 of FIG. 3 may be executed by selecting the help button or key 160 on the setup screen 130 of FIG. 4A. Selecting the help button 160 may temporarily dispose the power injector 10 into what may be characterized as a help mode (e.g., operation of the power injector 10 may be suspended at this time).”, and [0084]: “FIG. 4B presents one embodiment of a help screen 170 that may be presented on a power injector graphical user interface 11. This type of the help screen 170 may be generated in response to an execution of step 112 of the help protocol 110 of FIG. 3, may be generated in response to selecting/activating the help button 160 on the setup screen 130 of FIG. 4A, or both.”);
changing a setting or a status of the machining processing according to the instruction when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the interface processing unit (pg. 8, par. [0080]; i.e. “The setup screen 130 of FIG. 4A also includes the following: 1) a slide bar 132 for displaying/changing a value for a selected parameter presented on the setup screen 130; 2) adjustment arrows 134 for providing a more refined adjustment of a value for a selected parameter presented on the setup screen 130; …”); and
instructing the interface processing unit to display the interface screen in cooperation with the help display via the help processing unit when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the help processing unit (pg. 9, par. [0081]; i.e. “Step 112 of the help protocol 110 of FIG. 3 may be executed by selecting the help button or key 160 on the setup screen 130 of FIG. 4A. Selecting the help button 160 may temporarily dispose the power injector 10 into what may be characterized as a help mode (e.g., operation of the power injector 10 may be suspended at this time).”) for the purpose of providing assistance on one or more aspects of a device (pg. 1, par. [0002])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno in view of Eryurek to include the addition of the limitations of a help processing provides a help display including information for supporting an operation of an interface screen by a use; wherein a control unit links an operation by a user on the help display to a display process of an interface processing unit, and does not link an operation by the user on the help display to change a setting and a status of a control operation; judging whether an instruction has been made via a help processing unit or the interface processing unit; changing a setting or a status of the machining processing according to the instruction when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the interface processing unit; and instructing the interface processing unit to display the interface screen in cooperation with the help display via the help processing unit when it is judged that the instruction has been made via the help processing unit to advantageously reduce a potential for operating a device in an un-safe manner and create a potential that various features incorporated into the design of the device are being fully utilized (Humerniuk: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 6, Mizuno teaches wherein, when the interface screen that is being displayed in a current stage includes all of one or a plurality of objects to be explained, the control unit continues to display the interface screen that is being displayed in the current stage (pg. 3, par. [0033] and Fig. 2; i.e. [0033]: FIG. 2 is a schematic view showing the data structure of the machining command data and the machining performance data.”), and
wherein, when the interface screen that is being displayed in a current stage does not include all of one or a plurality of objects to be explained, the control unit switches the interface screen that is being displayed in the current stage to an interface screen including all the objects to be explained (pg. 3, par. [0037] and Fig. 3; i.e. [0037]: “FIG. 3 is a schematic view showing an example of data of the working step in the machining command data.”).
As per claim 7, Mizuno does not expressly teach wherein, when the instruction from the help processing unit is not an instruction relating to a display of an interface screen, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitations of when the instruction from the help processing unit is not an instruction relating to a display of an interface screen, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction (pg. 7, par. [0063]: “The operators and other users may use the coordinated user interface routines 58 to perform or to implement predictive control, change settings of the plant 10, view help within the plant 10, or perform any other activities related to the information provided by the asset utilization expert 50.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno to include the addition of the limitations of when the instruction from the help processing unit is not an instruction relating to a display of an interface screen, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction to enable a user to quickly analyze a performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Eryurek in further view of Humenick and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0265936 A1 (hereinafter Liu).
As per claim 4, Mizuno in view of Eryurek in further view of Humenick does not expressly teach a terminal device that differs from the machining processing apparatus,
wherein the terminal device is configured to communicate with the machining processing apparatus, and comprises a terminal processing unit and a terminal input/output unit,
wherein the terminal processing unit comprises a terminal help processing unit, wherein the terminal help processing unit displays an explanation with respect to an operation by the user via the terminal input/output unit and makes an instruction to the control unit, according to an instruction by the user,
wherein the terminal help processing unit does not instruct the machining apparatus to perform machining processing,
wherein, upon receiving an instruction from the terminal help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen, and
wherein, upon receiving an instruction that is not related to a display of the interface screen from the terminal help processing unit, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction.
However Liu, in an analogous art of a display system that uses an external terminal (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of a terminal device (Fig. 6, element 4; i.e. an external terminal) that differs from a machining processing apparatus (pg. 3, par. [0043]; i.e.” The external terminal 4 is a mobile terminal represented by a tablet terminal or a smartphone, for example. The external terminal 4 outputs related information corresponding to the display on the touch panel 18 of the numerical controller 1 connected by pairing.”),
wherein the terminal device is capable of communicating with the machining processing apparatus, and comprises a terminal processing unit and a terminal input/output unit (pg. 3, par. [0043]: “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the external terminal 4 includes a control unit 40, a storage unit 45, a touch panel 48, and a communication unit 49.)”, and
wherein the terminal processing unit comprises a terminal help processing unit, wherein the terminal help processing unit operates with respect to the machining processing apparatus (pg. 3, par. [0043]; i.e. “The external terminal 4 outputs related information corresponding to the display on the touch panel 18 of the numerical controller 1 connected by pairing.”) for the purpose of outputting related information corresponding to a display on a touch panel of a numerical controller (pg. 3, par. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno in view of Eryurek in further view Humeniuk to include the addition of the limitations of a terminal device that differs from a machining processing apparatus, wherein the terminal device is capable of communicating with the machining processing apparatus, and comprises a terminal processing unit and a terminal input/output unit, and wherein the terminal processing unit comprises a terminal help processing unit, wherein the terminal help processing unit operates with respect to the machining processing apparatus to advantageously display appropriate information on a controller that performs control on an industrial machine (Liu: pg. 2, par. [0015]).
As per claim 8, Mizuno in view of Eryurek in further view of Humenick does not expressly teach a terminal device that differs from the machining processing apparatus is provided,
wherein the terminal device is capable of communicating with the machining processing apparatus, and comprises a terminal processing unit and a terminal input/output unit,
wherein the terminal processing unit comprises a terminal help processing unit, wherein the terminal help processing unit displays an explanation with respect to an operation by the user via the terminal input/output unit and makes an instruction to the control unit, according to an instruction by the user,
wherein the terminal help processing unit does not instruct the machining apparatus to perform machining processing,
wherein, upon receiving an instruction from the terminal help processing unit to change the interface screen, the control unit controls the interface processing unit to change the interface screen, and
wherein, upon receiving an instruction that is not related to a display of the interface screen from the terminal help processing unit, the control unit does not perform processing according to the instruction.
However Liu, in an analogous art of a display system that uses an external terminal (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of a terminal device (Fig. 6, element 4; i.e. an external terminal) that differs from a machining processing apparatus is provided (pg. 3, par. [0043]; i.e.” The external terminal 4 is a mobile terminal represented by a tablet terminal or a smartphone, for example. The external terminal 4 outputs related information corresponding to the display on the touch panel 18 of the numerical controller 1 connected by pairing.”),
wherein the terminal device is capable of communicating with the machining processing apparatus, and comprises a terminal processing unit and a terminal input/output unit (pg. 3, par. [0043]: “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the external terminal 4 includes a control unit 40, a storage unit 45, a touch panel 48, and a communication unit 49.)”, and
wherein the terminal processing unit comprises a terminal help processing unit, wherein the terminal help processing unit operates with respect to the machining processing apparatus (pg. 3, par. [0043]; i.e. “The external terminal 4 outputs related information corresponding to the display on the touch panel 18 of the numerical controller 1 connected by pairing.”) for the purpose of outputting related information corresponding to a display on a touch panel of a numerical controller (pg. 3, par. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Mizuno in view of Eryurek in further view Humeniuk to include the addition of the limitations of a terminal device that differs from a machining processing apparatus is provided, wherein the terminal device is capable of communicating with the machining processing apparatus, and comprises a terminal processing unit and a terminal input/output unit, and wherein the terminal processing unit comprises a terminal help processing unit, wherein the terminal help processing unit operates with respect to the machining processing apparatus to advantageously display appropriate information on a controller that performs control on an industrial machine (Liu: pg. 2, par. [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to machining systems/methods, configurations systems/methods, control systems/methods, and display systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0038163 A1 discloses an apparatus prepares data for manufacturing a product or a part with a pre-determined shape by using a bending press provided with detachable tools.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0102682 A1 discloses a power tool control system allows a user to operate a power tool through a graphical user interface communicatively coupled with a non-contact measurement and alignment device.
* U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0209002 A1 discloses an electronic device having a help function with which contents such as explanations and the like about functions and operations of the electronic device can be displayed on a display according to an operation by a user. (Note: pg. 10, par. [0190]).
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0401108 A1 discloses a machine tool includes a machining apparatus and a machining control device for controlling the machining apparatus .
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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights