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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 9/3/2024 and 2/13/2025 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 9/4/2023.
Objection to Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Applicant is reminded that the Abstract is required to clearly and concisely surmise applicants claimed subject matter in under 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Title Objections
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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, (f) 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 18-20 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 18-20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 18-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 18-19 all recite the processing device is configured to perform a method. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “which can be used via a desktop computer or as a cloud-based application in order to create programs for one or a plurality of machine tools. Particularly preferably, the app can even be executed on a smartphone or tablet computer” [Specification, Page 3], which the Office is interpreting as a generic computing device with processor and memory.
Claim 20 recites the processing device is configured to perform a method. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “which can be used via a desktop computer or as a cloud-based application in order to create programs for one or a plurality of machine tools. Particularly preferably, the app can even be executed on a smartphone or tablet computer” [Specification, Page 3], which the Office is interpreting as a generic computing device with processor and memory.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 state the term “and/or” and whilst this term alone is not indefinite, when multiple “and/or” are stacked in continuous limitations, the actual metes and bounds of the claims and what is and what is not required becomes unclear, thus indefinite. As currently presented, Claims 1-20 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds and are indefinite. The Office is going to interpret each as “or” for mapping an analysis. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-17, 18-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an process. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, Claim 18 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus (controller). Therefore, Claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1, 18 and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A method for operating a numerically controlled machine tool to design, create, modify and/or execute a sequence program for machining a workpiece, the method comprising the steps of: providing
a graphical user interface as a human-machine interface for inputting input information by a user and outputting output information to the user; displaying, on the user interface,
a project library with a plurality of project templates,
each project template comprising a preconfigured sequence of operations for machining the workpiece according to the sequence program;
selecting a project template by a user;
displaying, on the user interface, a parameter display for setting a plurality of process parameters for the sequence program;
setting the plurality of process parameters by the user and storing the process parameters;
displaying, on the user interface, a schedule with a plurality of operations and an order of the plurality of operations;
displaying, on the user interface, an operation library with a plurality of operation templates;
selecting an operation template by the user and placing the operation template at a desired position of an operation in the schedule;
and/or relocating an operation template in the schedule;
repeating the selecting and placing and/or relocating of operation templates until the schedule is completed;
and generating a sequence program with corresponding machine and/or control functions according to the schedule and the process parameters and outputting the sequence program to a controller of the machine tool
via a control interface.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “selecting, setting, repeating and generating” steps encompass a user to make create a process for a computer program. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a generic computer”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “generic computer” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the selecting, setting, repeating and generating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the generic computer is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of generating a sequence program is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only creates a process of steps where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that creating a process using a generic computer are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a controller to perform the process. In particular, the selecting, setting, repeating and generating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of creating a sequence program), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a generic computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the generic computer amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the data and determining errors are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 18 and 20 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claim 2-17 and 19 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 18, and 20.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and positively recite controlling a machine with the sequence program. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Nixon et al. (United States Patent Publication 2014/02788312) in view of Jennessen et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0107626).
With respect to Claim 1: While Nixon discloses “A method for operating a machine tool to design, create, modify and/or execute a sequence program for creating work” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“the method comprising the steps of: providing a graphical user interface as a human-machine interface for inputting input information by a user” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019 with Figures 2-5];
“and outputting output information to the user” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“displaying, on the user interface, a project library with a plurality of project templates” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“each project template comprising a preconfigured sequence of operations for machining the workpiece according to the sequence program” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“selecting a project template by a user” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“displaying, on the user interface, a parameter display for setting a plurality of process parameters for the sequence program” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“setting the plurality of process parameters by the user and storing the process parameters” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“displaying, on the user interface, a schedule with a plurality of operations and an order of the plurality of operations” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“displaying, on the user interface, an operation library with a plurality of operation templates” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“selecting an operation template by the user and placing the operation template at a desired position of an operation in the schedule and/or relocating an operation template in the schedule” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“repeating the selecting and placing and/or relocating of operation templates until the schedule is completed” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“and generating a sequence program with corresponding machine and/or control functions according to the schedule and the process parameters” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
“and outputting the sequence program to a controller of the machine tool via a control interface” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5];
Nixon does not specifically state that a numerically controlled machine tool to design, create, modify and/or execute a sequence program for machining a workpiece, rather “to create and execute data processing models in process plants and/or in process control systems and particularly in process control systems that implement big data architectures” [Nixon, ¶ 0002].
Jennessen, which is in the same field of invention of programming computers teaches “method for operating a numerically controlled machine tool to design, create, modify and/or execute a sequence program for machining a workpiece” [Jennessen, ¶ 0001, 0050, and 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jennessen into the invention of Nixon to not only include using models/templates/schedules for creating a working machine process as Nixon discloses but to also use these models for machining parts as taught by Jennessen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Jennessen into Nixon to create a more robust system that not only uses known processes and templates into a computer, but use these models for machining parts and can help “reduce the input required manually” [Jennessen, ¶ 0087]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as programming a CNC machine and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein: the project templates are adopted in a parameterized manner, and/or each operation template is a sub-program comprising preconfigured machining templates” [Nixon, ¶ 0048-0092].
With respect to Claim 3: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein: the selecting and placing or relocating of the operation templates and operations are performed by gesture control” [Nixon, ¶ 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5 (a drag and drop graphical user interface to facilitate creation of the model including a library region)].
With respect to Claim 4: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 3, wherein the gesture control comprises dragging and dropping.” [Nixon, ¶ 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5 (a drag and drop graphical user interface to facilitate creation of the model including a library region)].
With respect to Claim 5: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the operation templates and operations are each dynamically adjusted to the desired position in the schedule during the selecting and placing and/or relocating” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 6: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein available positions in the schedule are dynamically adjusted during the selecting and placing and/or relocating of operation templates or operations” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 7: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the sequence program is automatically generated according to the schedule” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 8: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein control structures are dynamically generated and/or adjusted during the selecting and placing of operation templates in the schedule” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 9: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein: the settable process parameters are dependent on the machine tool; and/or the settable process parameters are displayed graphically” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 10: While Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the process parameters comprise data” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
Nixon does not specifically state all the types of process parameters.
Jennessen, which is in the same field of invention of programming computers teaches “wherein the process parameters comprise at least one of the following: chucking means dimensions of a work spindle; a clamping force of the work spindle; workpiece zero points; or workpiece dimensions” [Jennessen, ¶ 0088 and 0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jennessen into the invention of Nixon to not only include using models/templates/schedules for creating a working machine process as Nixon discloses but to also use these models for machining parts as taught by Jennessen with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Jennessen into Nixon to create a more robust system that not only uses known processes and templates into a computer, but use these models for machining parts and can help “reduce the input required manually” [Jennessen, ¶ 0087]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as programming a CNC machine and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 11: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the schedule is a graphical and interactive representation having a row for each operation and a column for each tool carrier and each workpiece carrier” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
Office Note: It is the Office's stance that the specification of a row for each operation and a column for each tool carrier and each workpiece carrier, without any explanation of any well-known benefit of a row for each operation and a column for each tool carrier and each workpiece carrier or columns for each operation and row for each tool carrier is a mere design choice. By choosing a row for each operation and a column for each tool carrier and each workpiece carrier over any other type of display, without the recitation of a known and understood benefit of selecting displays as such does not distinct the invention over the prior art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any display variant would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
With respect to Claim 12: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the schedule has a column for each tool carrier and for each workpiece carrier” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
Office Note: It is the Office's stance that the specification of a row for each operation and a column for each tool carrier and each workpiece carrier, without any explanation of any well-known benefit of a row for each operation and a column for each tool carrier and each workpiece carrier or columns for each operation and row for each tool carrier is a mere design choice. By choosing a row for each operation and a column for each tool carrier and each workpiece carrier over any other type of display, without the recitation of a known and understood benefit of selecting displays as such does not distinct the invention over the prior art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any display variant would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
With respect to Claim 13: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is performed by: an application on a control device of the machine tool, the control device having an input medium for inputting input information by a user; or an application on a computer; or an application in a cloud or on a geographically remote server” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 14: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of operations comprise at least one of the following: accepting a sequence program associated with the schedule; equipping or preparing one or more chucking means required for the sequence program on the machine tool; setting up one or more tools required for the sequence program on the machine tool; loading and/or preparing one or more tools required for the sequence program on the machine tool; loading and/or programming one or more numerical control (NC} codes, NC programs and/or NC program portions required for the sequence program; executing one or more NC codes, NC programs and/or NC program portions required for the sequence program; executing a process monitoring application; documenting one or more machining processes associated with the sequence program; performing an automated quality check of one or more machined workpieces; and/or outputting the sequence program.” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 15: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of operations comprise at least one of the following: automatically assembling workpiece pallets; automatically loading workpiece pallets; automatically resorting workpieces to workpiece pallets; setting a clamping position of a workpiece; changing from one clamping position to another clamping position; automatically measuring workpieces; automatically loading a tool magazine of the machine tool; automatically setting up tools on the machine tool; automatically resorting tools on the tool magazine; and/or performing one or more cleaning, maintenance, servicing and/or service applications on the machine tool” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 16: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the input information comprises one or more of: model data indicating a computer-aided design (CAD} model of one or more workpieces, one or more workpiece parts and/or one or more tools; numerical control (NC) data indicating one or more NC codes, one or more NC programs and/or one or more NC program portions; job data indicating job data associated with workpiece processing; tool data indicating information about one or more associated tools; tool list data indicating a list of a sequence program or tools associated with workpiece processing, respectively; chucking means data indicating information about one or more associated chucking means; and/or chucking means list data indicating a list of a sequence program or chucking means associated with workpiece processing, respectively” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claim 17: Nixon discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein each project template comprises an animation and/or an explanation and/or a graphical illustration of a sequence included in the project template” [Nixon, ¶ 0002, 0013-0019, and 0048-0092 with Figures 2-5].
With respect to Claims 18-19: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1-17. The device taught/disclosed in Claims 18-19 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1-17 and further with a server [Nixon, ¶ 0030]. Therefore Claims 18-19 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1-17. The apparatus taught/disclosed in Claim 20 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1-17. Therefore Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights