DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 13 November 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishibashi (US Pub. No. 2014/0172153).
As per Claim 1, Nishibashi discloses a program creation device (as per numerical control device 2 in Fig. 2) comprising;
a processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) configured to adjust (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) an operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) in an operation program (as per “machining program” in S1 in Fig. 3) of a machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1), based on an orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of a control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) in a movement path (as per “path derivation unit 12” in Fig. 2) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119),
wherein
the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by executing an operation form change function (as per S36, S38; as per determining dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) for changing an operation form (as per corner portion at t[3] in Fig. 9) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119), and
the operation form (as per “corner portion” in ¶69) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) includes at least one of a linear movement (as per path sections p2(s) and p(3)s in Fig. 9) of the control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1), {an arc movement of the control objective part} or {each axis movement of the control objective part}.
As per Claim 2, Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to detect a section (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73) in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than a threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
As per Claim 6, Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to detect the section (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73) in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than the threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73), by evaluating sequentially (as per “the posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 tracks variations in the posture of the tool 106” in ¶74) the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) during execution of the operation program (as per “machining program” in S1 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
As per Claim 7, Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) of a section in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than a threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
As per Claim 8, Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by further executing an operating speed change function (as per “so that the velocity becomes continuous” in ¶178) for changing an operating speed (as per “a point at which velocity is discontinuous” in ¶178) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 24-31; ¶2-5, 40-119, 137-153, 178).
As per Claim 9, Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to change, by the operating speed change function (as per “so that the velocity becomes continuous” in ¶178), a speed form (as per “the intervening variable time function derivation unit 18 obtains an acceleration/deceleration curve … which continuously varies so as to not exceed the stepped velocity curve represented by the intervening variable velocity upper limit function based on an allowable velocity” in ¶146) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) and a speed parameter (as per “allowable velocity” in ¶146) corresponding to the speed form (as per “the intervening variable time function derivation unit 18 obtains an acceleration/deceleration curve … which continuously varies so as to not exceed the stepped velocity curve represented by the intervening variable velocity upper limit function based on an allowable velocity” in ¶146) (Figs. 1-5, 24-25; ¶2-5, 40-119, 139-147).
As per Claim 14, Nishibashi discloses a controller (2) (Figs. 1-2; ¶40-41, 51-53), comprising:
a processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) configured to adjust (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) an operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) of a machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1), based on an orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of a control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) in a movement path (as per “path derivation unit 12” in Fig. 20) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119); and
a control circuit (22) configured to control an operation of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) according to the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) adjusted (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) by the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119),
wherein
the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by executing an operation form change function (as per S36, S38; as per determining dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) for changing an operation form (as per corner portion at t[3] in Fig. 9) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119), and
the operation form (as per “corner portion” in ¶69) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) includes at least one of a linear movement (as per path sections p2(s) and p(3)s in Fig. 9) of the control objective part (106) (as per 106 Fig. 1), {an arc movement of the control objective part, or each axis movement of the control objective part}.
As per Claim 15, Nishibashi discloses a mechanical system (Fig. 1; ¶41), comprising:
a machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-2; ¶41-53);
a processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) configured to adjust (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) an operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1), based on an orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of a control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) in a movement path (as per “path derivation unit 12” in Fig. 2) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119); and
a control circuit (22) configured to control an operation of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) according to the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) adjusted (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) by the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119),
wherein
the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by executing an operation form change function (as per S36, S38; as per determining dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) for changing an operation form (as per corner portion at t[3] in Fig. 9) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119), and
the operation form (as per “corner portion” in ¶69) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) includes at least one of a linear movement (as per path sections p2(s) and p(3)s in Fig. 9) of the control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1), {an arc movement of the control objective part}, or {each axis movement of the control objective part}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibashi (US Pub. No. 2014/0172153) in view of Sugaya (US Pub. No. 2019/0221037).
As per Claim 3, Nishibashi discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a keyboard configured to input the threshold value of the orientation change of the control objective part per unit distance or unit time.
Sugaya discloses a robotic system (1001) (Fig. 13; ¶142-146) operated by control data verified by a simulator system (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-37). The simulator system includes a display unit (102), an operating unit (103), input/output unit (104), and a controller (101) (Fig. 1; ¶36-37). In various embodiments, the input/output unit (104) includes an analysis condition setting area (109) for user selection of analysis conditions (Figs. 3, 9A, 10A; ¶38-39, 41-42, 48, 51-58, 63, 111-118). The operating unit (103) constitutes a user interface that includes a keyboard (D) (Figs. 1-2; ¶34, 37) for operating analysis button (111) of the analysis condition setting area (109) (Figs 3, 9A, 10A; ¶51). In this way, a user specifies threshold values informing simulation (¶58-67). Like Nishibashi, Sugaya is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to respond to user inputs. Applying the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that operates “a keyboard configured to input the threshold value of the orientation change of the control objective part per unit distance or unit time” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to receive thresholds set by a user as per Sugaya.
As per Claim 4, Nishibashi discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display an operation trajectory that highlights at least one selected from a group of the detected section by the processor and teaching points constituting the section.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Sugaya. Sugaya further discloses wherein the display unit outputs joint configuration data in a chronological sequence corresponding to movements between teaching points with specified highlighted bands (113, 114) indicating warning events (Figs. 6A-D; ¶75-91).
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to respond to user inputs. Applying the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that operates “a display configured to display an operation trajectory that highlights at least one selected from a group of the detected section by the processor and teaching points constituting the section” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to include a display as per Sugaya.
As per Claim 5, Nishibashi discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to detect the section (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73) in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than the threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
Nishibashi does not expressly disclose wherein the section is detected by evaluating a distance between teaching points in the operation program, an operating speed or an operating time between the teaching points, and the orientation change of the control objective part between the teaching points.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Sugaya. Sugaya further discloses an analysis unit (106) that executes an analysis process on the robot operation described by the robot control data in the form of teaching point data (Figs. 2-4; ¶36, 48-50, 57-59).
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to respond to user inputs. Applying the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that operates “wherein the section is detected by evaluating a distance between teaching points in the operation program, an operating speed or an operating time between the teaching points, and the orientation change of the control objective part between the teaching points” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to analyze intervals between teaching points as entered according to Sugaya.
As per Claim 10, Nishibashi discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display the operation program that highlights the adjusted operation instruction.
Sugaya discloses a robotic system (1001) (Fig. 13; ¶142-146) operated by control data verified by a simulator system (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-37). The simulator system includes a display unit (102), input/output unit (104), and a controller (101) (Fig. 1; ¶36-37). In various embodiments, the input/output unit (104) includes an analysis condition setting area (109) (Figs. 3, 9A, 10A; ¶38-39, 41-42, 48, 51-58, 63, 111-118). The display unit (102) outputs joint configuration data in a chronological sequence corresponding to movements between teaching points with specified highlighted bands (113, 114) indicating warning events (Figs. 6A-D; ¶75-91). In this way, a user specifies threshold values informing simulation (¶58-67). Like Nishibashi, Sugaya is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to respond to user inputs. Applying the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that includes “a display configured to display the operation program that highlights the adjusted operation instruction” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to display data as per Sugaya.
As per Claim 12, Nishibashi discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display an execution confirmation of automatic adjustment of the operation instruction.
Sugaya discloses a robotic system (1001) (Fig. 13; ¶142-146) operated by control data verified by a simulator system (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-37). The simulator system includes a display unit (102), input/output unit (104), and a controller (101) (Fig. 1; ¶36-37). In various embodiments, the input/output unit (104) includes an analysis condition setting area (109) (Figs. 3, 9A, 10A; ¶38-39, 41-42, 48, 51-58, 63, 111-118). The display unit (102) outputs playback of an animation of the simulated robot including appropriate updated points such that the user can confirm specified events (Fig. 12; ¶136-140). In this way, a user specifies threshold values informing simulation (¶58-67). Like Nishibashi, Sugaya is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to respond to user inputs. Applying the teachings of Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that includes “a display configured to display an execution confirmation of automatic adjustment of the operation instruction” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to display data as per Sugaya.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibashi (US Pub. No. 2014/0172153) in view of Yui (US Pub. No. 2020/0094408).
As per Claim 11, Nishibashi discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display the operation program that simultaneously displays the operation instruction before the processor adjusts the operation instruction and the operation instruction after the processor adjusts the operation instruction.
Yui discloses a robot system (100) that includes a robot (10), a controller (20), and a teaching pendant (30) (Fig. 1; ¶29). The teaching pendant (30) includes a display (31) that includes a 3D image of the robot (10) including a first motion trajectory (LN1) and a second motion trajectory (LN2) (Fig. 6; ¶69-74). In this way, the operator can visually recognize changes to the trajectory of the robot (10) (¶74). Like Nishibashi, Yui is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Yui, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yui to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by allowing the operator to visually recognized changes. Applying the teachings of Yui to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system with “a display configured to display the operation program that simultaneously displays the operation instruction before the processor adjusts the operation instruction and the operation instruction after the processor adjusts the operation instruction” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to visually indicate changes as per Yui.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 November 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 6 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not maintained.
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 USC 101 should not be maintained in view of the amendment (page 6 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, claim interpretation under 35 USC 101 is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “The calculation of the pre-interpolation tip path and the pre-interpolation midair path are not an operation form change function for changing an operation form of the operation function” and “Thus, step S2 of Fig. 3 of Nishibashi does not correspond to an operation form change function for changing an operation form of the operation instruction” (page 7 of Amendment).
Comparing the teachings of Nishibashi to the claim language at issue, Nishibashi discloses wherein “the processor is configured to adjust the operation instruction by executing an operation form change function for changing an operation form of the operation instruction” in that the operation processing unit (6): includes a pre-interpolation path derivation unit (13) that calculates a pre-interpolation tip path (as per S2) and a path interpolation unit (14) that performing interpolations (S3, S4) for generating a post-interpolation path based on the pre-interpolation path; corrects (as per S36, S38) any errors produced during the interpolation process in order to generate the post-interpolation path; and, in one embodiment, generates the post-interpolation path in order to smooth a corner portion in the pre-interpolation path by replacing the corner portion with a smooth curve (as per dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119).
Accordingly, Nishibashi discloses all limitations in the claim language at issue. As such, Applicant’s assertion that “The calculation of the pre-interpolation tip path and the pre-interpolation midair path are not an operation form change function for changing an operation form of the operation function” is not consistent with the cited portions of Nishibashi in which producing an error free post-interpolation path (S36, 38) involves producing a post-interpolation path that smooths a corner portion in the pre-interpolation path by replacing the corner portion with a smooth curve. Further, Applicant’s assertion that “step S2 of Fig. 3 of Nishibashi does not correspond to an operation form change function for changing an operation form of the operation instruction” is not consistent with the cited portions of Nishibashi in which producing an error free post-interpolation path (S36, 38) involves producing a post-interpolation path that smooths a corner portion in the pre-interpolation path by replacing the corner portion with a smooth curve involves first identifying the pre-interpolation path (S2). Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because “according to the cited portions of Nishibashi, the adjustment is made to the tip interpolation path and is not made to an operation form including a linear movement, an arc movement or each axis movement” and “Therefore, the steps 36 and 38 of Fig. 4 of Nishibashi do not correspond to the operation form change function for changing an operation form of the operation instruction wherein the operation form of the operation instruction includes at least one of a linear movement, an arc movement or each axis movement” (page 8 of Amendment).
Comparing the teachings of Nishibashi to the claim language at issue, Nishibashi discloses wherein “the operation form of the operation instruction includes at least one of a linear movement of the control objective part, an arc movement of the control objective part or each axis movement of the control objective part” in that generating a post-interpolation path based on the pre-interpolation path (as per S2) involves correcting (as per S36, S38) any errors produced during the interpolation process and, in one embodiment, the pre-interpolation path (as per S2) includes linear path sections (as per path sections p2(s) and p(3)s in Fig. 9) that are replaced by curved path sections in the post-interpolation path (as per determining dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119).
Accordingly, Nishibashi discloses all limitations in the claim language at issue. As such, Applicant’s assertion that in “Nishibashi, the adjustment is made to the tip interpolation path and is not made to an operation form including a linear movement, an arc movement or each axis movement” is not consistent with the cited portions of Nishibashi in which linear path sections of the pre-interpolation path are replaced by curved path sections in the post-interpolation path. Further, Applicant’s assertion that “the steps 36 and 38 of Fig. 4 of Nishibashi do not correspond to the operation form change function for changing an operation form of the operation instruction wherein the operation form of the operation instruction includes at least one of a linear movement, an arc movement or each axis movement” is not consistent with the cited portions of Nishibashi in which linear path sections of the pre-interpolation path are replaced by curved path sections in the post-interpolation path, the post-interpolation path produced by correcting (as per S36, S38) any errors produced during the interpolation process. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Sugaya was not applied in a manner that attempted to make up for the above-identified deficiencies” and “Claims 3-5, 10, and 12, therefore, distinguish over the applied references for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1, and/or for the additionally recited features” (page 9 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the deficiencies alleged by Applicant are not present in the rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “The deficiencies of Nishibashi with respect to claim 1 were discussed above. Yui was not applied in a manner that attempted to make up for the above-identified deficiencies” and “Claim 11, therefore, distinguishes over the applied references for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1, and/or for the additionally recited features” (page 9-10 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the deficiencies alleged by Applicant are not present in the rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656