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 .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1-13 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 8/15/24 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 9 includes a storage unit, however, the specification does not clearly define what the storage unit is, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that the storage unit could include transitory signals, which are non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner further notes that Paragraphs [0052] discusses “The storage unit 18 is configured as a memory, such as a read only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive (HDD), or a solid state drive (SSD)” (Pub: 2025/0155869), however, this paragraph also fails to define the storage unit as a statutory medium as it provides only examples, and some of those examples include transitory embodiments.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
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 removal region input unit configured to analyze a program, a machining condition input unit configured to read machining conditions for the cutting processing, and a motion generator configured to generate the cutting operation in claim 1;
the removal region input unit in claim 3-5;
the machining condition input unit in claim 6, 8;
a storage unit configured to store the machining conditions, the machining condition input unit in claim 9.
Also as noted, the specification discloses the structure of the claimed units and functions that invoked 112f.
In regard to the claimed different unit, the filed specification disclose that “The numerical controller 10 includes a removal region input unit 12, a machining condition input unit 14, a motion generator 16, and a storage unit 18. Components of the numerical controller 10 (except the storage unit 18) are each configured as an arithmetic processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The components of the numerical controller 10 (except the storage unit 18) have various functions that are implemented through execution of predetermined software (a predetermined program) stored in the storage unit 18, for example. The components of the numerical controller 10 (except the storage unit 18) may have various functions that are implemented either through cooperation between hardware and software or through only hardware (an electronic circuit)”, “The storage unit 18 is configured as a memory, such as a read only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive (HDD), or a solid state drive (SSD). The storage unit 18 stores predetermined software (a predetermined program) for implementing the various functions of the components of the numerical controller 10 described above.” (Para. [0050]-[0052] of PG Pub: 2025/0155869)
Thus, the claimed limitations are supported by the specification and are in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "amount of intersection" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The filed disclosure does not define what is mean by the “amount of intersection”, and what does it include? Does the amount include any number or value?
Hence the claimed “amount of intersection” is unclear and indefinite.
The dependent claim 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) due to their direct/indirect dependency over the claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection is provided for independent claim 1. The claim 1 is allowed over the prior art.
The closest prior art Matsubara (Pub: 2016/0077518) disclose a numerical-control machining-program creation device according to the present invention creates a numerical-control machining program including turning machining based on shape data of a workpiece. The numerical-control machining-program creation device includes: a turning sectional-shape generation unit that generates a three-dimensional turning shape designating a turning shaft as a rotation central axis from shape data of a workpiece, and generates a two-dimensional turning sectional shape based on the generated turning shape; a turning-machining removal-shape generation unit that generates a first turning-machining removal shape indicating a shape to be removed by turning machining based on the turning sectional shape; a turning-groove-shape extraction unit that extracts a turning groove shape from the first turning-machining removal shape; and a numerical-control machining-program creation unit that creates a numerical-control machining program for turning machining based on a second turning-machining removal shape obtained by separating the turning groove shape from the first turning-machining removal shape (Para. [0008]).
Abe (Pub: 2014/0364992) disclose a machining-program generating apparatus that generates a machining program for causing a wire electric discharge machining apparatus to operate is constructed to include: an input receiving unit that receives designation of a part where core fixing machining is performed in a machining shape forming a core and divides, on the basis of content of the received designation, the machining shape into machining shape elements including a first machining shape element for which the core fixing machining is performed and a second machining shape element for which the core fixing machining is not performed, the second machining shape element being connected to the first machining shape element; a machining-condition setting unit that allocates a first electric condition for the core fixing machining to the first machining shape element and allocates a second electric condition different from the first electric condition to the second machining shape element; and a machining-program generating unit that generates a machining program for machining the second machining shape element under the second electric condition and continuously machining the first machining shape element under the first electric condition after the machining of the second machining shape element (Para. [0006]).
Nakata (Pat: 5532933) disclose a method of generating machining paths for the same, in which the work shape is divided according to defined work shape data and finish shape data for each of a plurality of machining surface Z heights, and removal shapes for machining path generation are automatically extracted by effecting a check as to the inclusion of machining surface in the radial direction, thus automatically generating a machining path for each removal shape and permitting operation efficiency improvement (Col. 3, Ln. 1-11, also refer to Fig. 23-24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights