DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/25 and 6/19/24 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Drawings
Figures 7A and 7B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, independent claims 1, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5:
Yes, the claim 1 is directed to a control device; claim 5 is to a computer program product comprising memories. which are a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. The limitations “calculation of a start point and an end point of reciprocation
of a feed axis by using a machining program; synchronous control between the start point and the end point thus calculated on feed movement of the feed axis and relative rotational movement between a tool and a workpiece; determination as to whether or not a condition for reversing a feed direction of the feed axis is satisfied during the synchronous control before the feed axis reaches the start point or the end point”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim further recites “when the determinator determines that the condition is satisfied, the controller reverses the feed direction of the feed axis before the feed axis reaches the start point or the end point.” are amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, making judgment and adjusting data until the desire expectation of outcome is not satisfied (MPEP 2106.05 (g)): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a calculator, and a controller" amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities. The system, memory, processor, are generic computer components used as a tool. They provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claims 1 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-4:
They depend on claim 1, therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of claim 1. The claims 2-4 recited other new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are mental processes based abstract idea. Please note that a narrower abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case since the limitations of the claims 2-4 are more narrowing the abstract idea of the claim 1. Therefore, the claims 2-4 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. Furthermore, the claims 2-4 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. The claims 2-4 are not patent eligible.
8. Examiner's note: To qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the particular machine to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.
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 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.
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue (Inoue), US publication no. 2018/0079043 A11.
As per claim 1, Inoue discloses a numerical control device [figure 1], comprising:
a calculator [30, figure 1] for calculating a start point and an end point of reciprocation of a feed axis by using a machining program [para 25, 26];
a controller for conducting synchronous control between the start point and the end point calculated by the calculator to control feed movement of the feed axis and relative rotational movement between a tool and a workpiece [figure 3; para 28]; and
a determinator for determining whether or not a condition for reversing a feed direction of the feed axis is satisfied during the synchronous control before the feed axis reaches the start point or the end point, wherein when the determinator determines that the condition is satisfied, the controller reverses the feed direction of the feed axis before the feed axis reaches the start point or the end point [para 27-30]. In summary, Inoue teaches that the inversion position Pr is extracted by the reversing position calculating section, and if it is determined that the tool has reached the extracted reversing position, the feeding operation of the tool is reversed. Therefore, it is easy for a person skilled in the art to provide a determination unit in consideration of the matter that whether the tool has reached the reversing position is determined at any time during the movement of the tool.
Inoue teaches:
[0026] The reading/interpreting section 12 reads and interprets an NC program, and sequentially outputs executable program data to the program execution controlling section 14. The program execution controlling section 14 outputs moving commands to an acceleration/deceleration controlling section 16 based on the executable program data output from the reading/interpreting section 12. The moving commands include feed per revolution and feed rates in the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis directions.
[0030] The reversing position calculating section 34 calculates a reversing position Pr at which the movement direction of the tool T is reversed on the connection path 3
based on the program data relating to the opposite paths extracted by the opposite path extracting section 32, as described below. The reversing path generating section 36 generates a reversing path based on the program data relating to the opposite paths extracted by the opposite path extracting section 32 and the coordinate of the reversing position Pr calculated by the reversing position calculating section 34. In the example of FIG. 3, the reversing path is the connection path 3 that passes through the reversing position Pr between the first tool path 2 which is a path through which the tool T is pulled back from the first hole Hl and the second tool path 4 which is a tool path for machining the second hole H2.
As per claim 2, Inoue discloses the condition is that a rotation speed in the rotational movement reaches a predefined rotation speed or lower, or a feedrate of the feed movement reaches a predefined feedrate or lower [para 26, 27].
As to claim 5, directed to a computer readable storage medium/memory storing the instructions to perform the method of steps executed by the system as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 3 and 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of records do not teach: in claim 3, the condition is that a position error between a position of the feed axis and a rotation angle of the rotary axis that occurs when reversing the feed direction of the feed axis is estimated to be less than a predefined reference position error, or that a speed error between the feedrate of the feed axis and the rotation speed of the rotary axis that occurs when reversing the feed direction of the feed axis is estimated to be less than a predefined reference speed error. In claim 4, the condition is that an angle error between crosshatch angles that occurs when reversing the feed direction of the feed axis is estimated to be less than a predefined reference angle error.
13. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kawana et al,, US publication no. 2013/0173045, teaches a numerical control method which controls a feed axis of a machine tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Inoue is cited by applicant.
Prosecution Insights