DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 31 January 2025 is a duplicate of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 16 January 2025
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 calculation part” in claims 1 and 5, “a display part” in claims 1, 2, 5, and 8, and “a storage part” in claim 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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the input range of the sensor signal for each press working” in lines 2-3 and “the input ranges” in lines 4, 5-6, and 6. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the input ranges” in lines 4, 5-6, and 6 should read “the input range of the sensor signal for each press working”; 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.
Claim 5 is 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 claim 5 with respect to the claim interpretation of “a storage part” is unknown since the specification as filed neither recites clear structure for the “storage part” in claim 5 nor algorithms that a computer uses to perform the claimed function as recited in claim 5. The Examiner notes the Specification (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0010565 A1) recites the functionality of the “storage part” (pg. 3, par. [0060], pg. 4, par. [0062], [0064], and [0065], and pg. 6, par. [0076] and [0081]); however, the Specification does not expressly indicate any particular structure for the “storage part” or algorithms that a computer uses to perform the claimed functionality of the “storage part”.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 storage part” (claim 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 claim 5 with respect to the claim interpretation of “a storage part” is unknown since the specification as filed neither recites clear structure for the “storage part” in claim 5 nor algorithms that a computer uses to perform the claimed function as recited in claim 5. The Examiner notes the Specification (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0010565 A1) recites the functionality of the “storage part” (pg. 3, par. [0060], pg. 4, par. [0062], [0064], and [0065], and pg. 6, par. [0076] and [0081]); however, the Specification does not expressly indicate any particular structure for the “storage part” or algorithms that a computer uses to perform the claimed functionality of the “storage part”. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are allowed.
Claims 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the current objection and rejections as set forth in the current office action.
Reasons for the Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Numerous U.S. Patent Publications and U.S. Patents; e.g. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0291375 A1 discloses a servo press machine includes a display unit that displays a strip-shaped region for setting a motion of a slide and an operation unit that receives an input operation; U.S. Patent No. 7,266,781 B1 discloses a method and apparatus for generating a graphical display report; U.S. Patent No. 11,413,838 B2 discloses a press machine includes a display unit which displays a first image in a circular shape corresponding to a rotation of an eccentric mechanism and representing one stroke of slide operation and a second image in a circular-arc shape corresponding to an operation of an attachment device interlocked with the press machine, and an operation unit which receives an input operation; and U.S. Patent No. 12,158,738 B2 discloses a press machine includes a display that displays a plurality of images and a processor that generates a plurality of images corresponding to a slide operation and a movement operation.
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, expressly teach or fairly suggest the combination of the specifics of a display device of a press machine that comprises of a display part that presents a plurality of images including first image representing a stroke of a current sliding motion, a second image representing an input range of a sensor signal corresponding to a motion of an accessory device (e.g. a feeder) associated with the press machine, and a third image representing a range for monitoring the sensor signal; wherein the first image is annular or arc-shaped, the second image and third image are arch-shaped or fan-shaped images that are concentric with the first image, and the second image is presented on the display part for a predetermined amount of time subsequent to stoppage of the sensor signal.
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 monitoring, display, and press systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0109002 A1 discloses a user interface for computer devices that display information.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0180252 A1 discloses a press system capable of achieving a reduced number of man-hours required for generation of a motion
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0381748 A1 discloses a press machine and a die condition monitoring method.
U.S. Patent No. D869,490 S discloses a display screen or portion thereof with a graphical user interface.
U.S. Patent No. 5,732,619 discloses a press machine with has a console panel provided with a crank angle display, a pressing state display, a sheet switch for inputting control information into a control section, and a multi-display capable of displaying a plurality of pieces of the control information at one time.
U.S. Patent No. 6,448,987 B1 discloses a graphic user interface (GUI) for a delivery system of multiple categories of digital information contents
U.S. Patent No. 6,456,898 B1 discloses a press monitoring and control system includes a press machine, a press configuration module, and a press controller.
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