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 .
This office action is in response to amendments filed on July 8, 2024.
Claims 1-4 have been amended.
Claims 5-6 have been added.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated July 8, 2024 and January 27, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
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: an automatic-operation control unit configured to, a suspending control unit configured to, a program manipulating unit configured to, and an automatic-operation monitoring unit configured to in claim 1, the automatic-operation monitoring unit configured to in claim 2, the automatic-operation monitoring unit configured to in claim 3, the automatic-operation monitoring unit further configured to in claim 4, the automatic-operation monitoring unit further configured to in claim 5, and the automatic-operation monitoring unit further configured to in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification states the units are implemented as a program process (i.e., software) in ([0030]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Baida (JP2014026430A) in further view of Kurohara (US20150227133A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baida teaches a numerical control apparatus numerically controlling a motion mechanism unit of a machine tool, comprising:
a program storage storing an NC program constituted by a plurality of blocks describing NC codes (processing program that executes up to the block of the processing program that performs processing ... G code used for the processing program executed by the numerical control device ... defines the basic operation of numerical control ... a machining program is executed by prefetching a plurality of blocks)([0002], [0003], and [0004]; a numerical control program comprising blocks of G code is fetched from memory);
a display device configured to display at least the NC program in characters (A display unit that displays ... program numbers, block numbers, modal values of G codes, coordinate values, and tool correction amounts)([0013] and [0023]);
an automatic-operation control unit configured to execute the NC program stored in the program storage to operate the motion mechanism unit under numerical control (The CPU 11, which is a processor that controls the numerical control device 10 as a whole, reads a system program stored in the ROM 12 via the bus 19, and controls the entire numerical control device according to the system program)([0016]);
a suspending operation unit configured to suspend execution of the NC program by the automatic-operation control unit during the execution of the NC program and then resume the execution of the NC program (controlling a machine tool having a function of executing a machining program by automatic operation and interrupting and resuming machining by executing a machining program, when machining is interrupted)([0013]); and
a program manipulation unit configured to, when processing in the automatic-operation control unit is suspended by the suspending operation unit, with respect to the NC program under execution displayed on the display device, enable manipulation of character display on the display device with a displayed character designated or enable editing of the NC program (The operator can perform operations such as editing of the program 70, setting of the tool correction amount 71, manual feeding 74, etc. while the machining is interrupted)([0020]; a user is able to edit (i.e., change characters representative of values) of the numerical control program), wherein:
the numerical control apparatus includes an automatic-operation monitoring unit configured to: monitor an execution state of the automatic-operation control unit (It is judged whether or not the processing is ended ... It is determined whether or not the processing is interrupted)([0022]; state (e.g., executing, interrupting, etc.) is monitored during machining); at a time of resumption of the execution of the NC program after suspension of the execution of the NC program by the suspending operation unit, check … resume the processing in the automatic-operation control unit … halt the processing in the automatic-operation control unit (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, the flow of processing at the time of interruption and resumption of processing performed by the numerical control device 10 will be described ... After interruption of machining ... Processing is resumed ... tool correction amounts different from each other are displayed)([0022] and [0023]).
Baida differs from the claim in that Baida fails to teach determining whether a resumption block containing a character designated in the program manipulation unit (i.e., user character input such as set values) immediately before the resumption is a preset resumable block or not (i.e., is within range), wherein processing is resumed when the set values are within range and processing is halted when the set values are not within range.
However, determining whether user input of set values is within range immediately before resuming processing, wherein processing is resumed when the set values are within range and processing is halted when the set values are not within range is taught by Kurohara (a path can be immediately checked by check drawing when an operator changes a machining program or machining conditions, including a parameter, correction amount, and machining state ... FIG. 5 is a diagram showing how end point coordinate values before and after the stop of the program are compared ... FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing a flow of processing for the drawing of FIG. 5. ... Stored coordinate/set values and calculated coordinate/set values are compared ... It is determined whether or not the change is outside a tolerance ... An alarm or a warning signal is output ... Actual machining is performed)([0019], [0025], [0026], [0058], [0059], [0060], and [0061]; Figure 6 – checking if user set values is within range before resuming is shown).
The examiner notes Baida and Kurohara teach controlling a numerical control apparatus. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baida to include the determining of Kurohara such that immediately before resumption, a resumption block containing a character designated in a program manipulation unit is checked, wherein processing is resumed if the resumption block is a resumable block and processing is halted when the resumption block is not. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of improving resuming by preventing wrong machining or breakage of a tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for pausing and resuming a numerical control apparatus.
US4550378
US4638227
US5293024
US5793635
US9494929B2
US10379517B2
US20080103625A1
US20110190915A1
US20150073582A1
US20150338845A1
JP4374045B2
JP5543534B2
CN101174144A
EP2104013B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights