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 Claims
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 08/28/2024. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 and 08/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 storage unit configured to store” in claim 1.
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
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 3-5 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 3 recites the limitation "the peripheral environment data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As the claim is written, there is no prior mention of “peripheral environment data” in claim 3, or in claim 1, from which claim 1 depends. This makes the claim indefinite, as it is unclear which “peripheral environment data” the claim is referring to. Likewise, claims 4-5, which depend from claim 3, are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki et al. US 20200130107 A1 (“Mochizuki”).
Regarding Claim 1. Mochizuki teaches an information processing device that is capable of communicating with a first terminal (for the purposes of examination, the first machine learning device at 28 of FIG. 15 reads on the first terminal), the information processing device comprising:
a storage unit configured to store data;
and
a processor, wherein
the storage unit is configured to store specification data related to an operation of a machine device configured to operate based on an operation program of the machine device and an application for performing predetermined processing related to the operation of the machine device based on the specification data (A 3D laser machining system that may comprise a machining condition storage unit (machining condition storage unit 24 in FIG. 13). The optimum laser machining conditions may be stored in the machining condition storage unit [paragraph 43]. If there is a laser machining condition setting command, device information such as the performance, specifications, etc. of the laser device 2 as a target of setting of a laser machining condition and the driver 3 is read to the machining condition setting control unit 19 mainly from the control unit 12 of the laser device 2 [paragraph 135]), and
the processor is configured to execute the application based on an operation from the first terminal to perform the predetermined processing related to the machine device selected based on the operation from the first terminal (The control unit outputs a command to perform the laser machining [paragraph 124]. The first learning unit at 28 can receive large numbers of input data, labels to learn a relationship between the input data and the label, as well as error calculation and a learning model update unit [paragraphs 162-163]. The laser machining condition is updated based on temporal change data, which updates a laser machining implementation command in FIGS. 16A-16D and the machining condition setting control unit reads a laser machining content commanded from the command input unit [paragraph 164], so the processor is configured to execute the application (3D laser machining) based on an operation (the detection of temporal change data) from the first terminal (first learning unit)).
Regarding Claim 2. Mochizuki teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Mochizuki also teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive upload of the application from a second terminal (When a command to set a laser machining condition is input to the command input unit 20, the machining condition setting control unit 19 reads 3D CAD data on the data acquisition unit 21 in response to the command from the command input unit 20, and gives a command to store the read CAD data into the CAD data storage unit 22 [paragraph 96]);
store a plurality of applications including the uploaded application in the storage unit (A plurality of time-series laser machining conditions may be settable, meaning that a plurality of applications can be uploaded into the storage unit [paragraph 129]); and
execute an application selected from the plurality of applications stored in the storage unit based on a selection operation from the first terminal (A plurality of time-series laser machining conditions may be settable, meaning that a plurality of applications can be uploaded into the storage unit [paragraph 129]. If a sequence of a plurality of time-series laser machining conditions are settable, a laser machining condition resulting in a minimum machining duration is desirably selected and set).
Regarding Claim 3. Mochizuki teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Mochizuki also teaches:
wherein
the processor is configured to store the peripheral environment data input from the first terminal in the storage unit (The peripheral state around the laser device, including things such as temperature, are detected by the first learning unit, which requires the storing of peripheral information [paragraph 50]),
the storage unit is configured to store a plurality of reference operation programs for causing the machine device to perform a predetermined operation ([paragraph 49]),
the application includes a first application for generating a peripheral environment operation program for causing the machine device to perform the operation to adapt to the peripheral environment (paragraphs 49-50),
the first application is associated with at least one of the reference operation programs (paragraphs 49-50), and
the processor is configured to generate the peripheral environment operation program based on the specification data and the peripheral environment data by the at least one reference operation program associated with the first application at the time of executing the selected first application (paragraphs 49-51. In paragraph 51, the temporal change data about the temperature detected by the temperature detection means may be input to the label acquisition unit of the first machine learning device through the lower-order network. A learning model may be shared between a plurality of the first learning units through the higher-order network and the lower-order network).
Regarding Claim 4. Mochizuki teaches the information processing device according to claim 3.
Mochizuki also teaches:
wherein
at the time of executing the first application, the processor selects a mounting component to the machine device, selects a peripheral device that cooperates with the machine device, or selects a workpiece which is an operation target of the machine device, based on the selection operation from the first terminal (The 3D laser machining system may further comprise a temperature detection means capable of detecting at least one of a temperature at the machining point moving along the machining line during laser machining and a surface temperature of the workpiece in the vicinity of the machining point. If a temperature difference occurs between a detected temperature detected by the temperature detection means at a certain time point in laser machining on the workpiece performed under the laser machining condition set by the machining condition setting device and a predicted temperature predicted at a position of a time point corresponding to the certain time point contained in the simulation result obtained under the laser machining condition set by the machining condition setting device, the control unit may fulfill a function of compensating for at least a part of the laser machining condition set by the machining condition setting device in response to the temperature difference. The laser device may continue laser machining under the compensated laser machining condition [paragraph 35]), and associates information on the selected mounting component, peripheral device, or workpiece with the peripheral environment operation program as supplementary information to be generated of the peripheral environment operation program (Paragraphs 35-40).
Regarding Claim 5. Mochizuki teaches the information processing device according to claim 3.
Mochizuki also teaches:
wherein
the processor is capable of downloading the peripheral environment operation program generated by executing the application into the first terminal (Paragraphs 49-50. Note that the difference in temperature detected can be used to cause the control unit to fulfill a function of compensating a part of the laser machining condition adjusted by the machining condition setting device in response to the temperature difference).
Regarding Claim 7. Mochizuki teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Mochizuki also teaches:
wherein
the storage unit is configured to store a simulation program for performing an operation simulation of the machine device (According to the present invention, machining head move simulation and non-stationary thermal fluid simulation are conducted. In the machining head move simulation, by using 3D CAD data about a workpiece defining thermophysical properties such as heat conductivity, specific heat, and density, and 3D CAD data about the outer shape of a machining head, the machining head is moved relative to the workpiece along a machining line set by the 3D CAD data about the workpiece while the machining head is maintained at a predetermined angle and a predetermine gap from a machining surface of the workpiece [paragraph 26]), and
the processor is configured to construct a virtual machine device in a virtual space based on the specification data by executing the simulation program (paragraph 27 describes this in detail), and to operate the virtual machine device based on the operation program of the machine device or operation data of the machine device (paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 8. Mochizuki teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Mochizuki also teaches:
wherein
the machine device includes a robot (the robot at 13 of FIG. 1).
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, 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(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. US 20200130107 A1 (“Mochizuki”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill et al. US 20160314621 A1 (“Hill”).
Regarding Claim 6. Mochizuki teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Mochizuki also teaches:
wherein
the processor is configured to acquire operation data from the machine device applied to the peripheral environment (paragraphs 49-50).
Mochizuki does not teach:
the application includes a second application for performing life prediction of the machine device, and
the processor is configured to output a life prediction result of the machine device by analyzing the operation data at the time of executing the second application.
However, Hill teaches:
the application includes a second application for performing life prediction of the machine device, and
the processor is configured to output a life prediction result of the machine device by analyzing the operation data at the time of executing the second application (In one example, a usage level of a particular component can be measured. In such an example, a computer may store data indicating the expected lifespan of one or more components. As the component is used, one or more measurements, e.g., a usage time measured in hours or days, may be monitored and compared to a threshold. Once one or more measurements approach or reach a threshold, the techniques disclosed herein may take one or more actions to indicate the same [paragraph 78]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656