DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 21 September 2026. Claims 1-3 have been amended. Claims 1-3 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 4, filed 21 September 2026, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 22 July 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Claims 1-3 are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 4, filed 21 September 2026, with respect to objected claims 1-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 September 2026. The objections of claims 1-3 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-5, filed 21 September 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 September 2026. The rejections of claims 1-3 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-5, filed 21 September 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 September 2026. The rejections of claims 1-3 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 5-8, filed 21 September 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
The present claims meet the burden of applying the judicial exception. Specifically, claim 1 applies a technical solution to solve the technical problem of controlling an industrial machine for machining a workpiece while considering the response of each operating part (see, Applicant's Specification, paragraphs [0002] and [0004]). … According to a technical solution of the invention, a processor of a control device for controlling a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece modifies the calculated setting value of the machine in accordance with the ratio of the operations of the at least two axes. (pg. 6, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0189947 A1 (instant application; citations referenced by the Applicant) discloses:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
When using a control device to control an industrial machine for machining a workpiece, it may be necessary to perform the control while considering the response of each operating part. For example, in a laser machine, the response to a command from the control device differs between the laser output of a laser oscillator and operations of driving units for moving a table and a machining head. In a laser machine, the response of laser output from the laser oscillator (the time from the point at which the laser output command is issued to the point at which a laser is actually output) is considerably faster than the response of the operations of the driving units for moving the table and the machining head (the time from the point at which the movement command is issued to the point at which the table or the machining head actually starts to move). In order to absorb the differences in the responses of the respective units in a laser machine, a delay time is set on the output command issued to the laser oscillator so as to align the output command with the timing of the movement operations of the table and the machining head (for example, PTL 1 or the like). Furthermore, in a water jet machine, the response of a water flow output from a cutting head is slower than the response of the operations of the driving units for moving the table and the machining head. Therefore, in order to absorb the differences in the responses of the respective units of a water jet machine, setting is performed so that the command to output the water flow is issued earlier than the movement commands of the table and the machining head are output. (pg. 1, par. [0003])
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
When the response differs among the plurality of driving parts for moving the table and the machining head, it is difficult to optimize the operation timings of other operating parts. For example, in a laser machine, the relative positions of the machining head and the workpiece are controlled by driving at least two axes (an X axis and a Y axis, for example) in order to move the table and the machining head. In this case, if the response on the X axis and the response on the Y axis are different, how to optimize the timings at which output commands are issued to the laser oscillator in relation to the respective axes becomes a problem. The influence of this response difference on the processing result is particularly large during high-speed machining. (pg. 1, par. [0005])
In summary, the preamble of claim 1 recites “(a) control device for controlling a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece”. The claimed limitations further recite a processor configured to calculate a ratio related to operations of the at least two axes; dynamically calculate a setting value of the machine from the ratio calculated by the processor and a predetermined parameter relating to the at least two axes; and modify the calculated setting value of the machine is modified in accordance with the ratio of the operations of the at least two axes without positively reciting control of the machine based on the calculated setting value of the machine in accordance with the calculated ratio related to the operations of the at least two axes. Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards, to the applicant’s argument
The features of claim 1 demonstrate that the alleged "abstract idea" has been integrated into a practical application related to controlling a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece wherein the processor modifies the calculated setting value of the machine in accordance with the ratio of the operations of the at least two axes. (pg. 7, paragraph 3)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner maintains, the preamble of claim 1 recites “(a) control device for controlling a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece”. The claimed limitations further recite a processor configured to calculate a ratio related to operations of the at least two axes; dynamically calculate a setting value of the machine from the ratio calculated by the processor and a predetermined parameter relating to the at least two axes; and modify the calculated setting value of the machine is modified in accordance with the ratio of the operations of the at least two axes without positively reciting control of the machine based on the calculated setting value of the machine in accordance with the calculated ratio related to the operations of the at least two axes. In addition, the applicant has not addressed why the limitation, “(a) control device for controlling a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine that machines a workpiece”, in the preamble does not merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use; wherein the courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments,
Thus, the improvements discussed herein are not merely alleged or theoretical, they are actual improvements that are shown in the application for a control device that improves a machining operation that takes into consideration the response of each operating part when the response differs among the plurality of driving units and optimizes the operation of the machine for machining workpiece through specific control steps. In view of these disclosures, the present application identifies a technical problem and a solution, the solution being embodied in the claims. This constitutes an improvement under the analysis outlined in the MPEP and supporting case law. (see Remark, pg. 7, paragraph 3)
As noted in MPEP § 2106.05(a), an improvement to other technology or technical field is indicative that an additional element (or combination of element) may have integrated the exception into a practical application. Put another way, the claims do not simply recite "an abstract idea," but rather, relate to a particular practical application of these alleged abstract ideas to improving control of an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece. The present invention is not merely a data calculation but rather optimizes the operation of the machine for machining a workpiece through specific control steps, and is integrated into practical applications that solve technical problems. The MPEP and supporting case law recognize that such an application renders the claims eligible. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner again maintains, the preamble of claim 1 recites “(a) control device for controlling a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine that machines a workpiece”. The claimed limitations recite a processor configured to calculate a ratio related to operations of the at least two axes; dynamically calculate a setting value of the machine from the ratio calculated by the processor and a predetermined parameter relating to the at least two axes; and modify the calculated setting value of the machine is modified in accordance with the ratio of the operations of the at least two axes without positively reciting control of the machine based on the calculated setting value of the machine in accordance with the calculated ratio related to the operations of the at least two axes. Further, the examiner respectfully notes the applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement directed to an advantage (i.e. benefit) of use of the claimed invention without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence to why the additional limitations amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (i.e. controlling a machine; MPEP 2106.04(a)). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive since the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two of the subject matter eligibility requirement).
Claim 1 stands objected to and claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested claim language: “a basis”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) control device”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “calculate a ratio related to operations of the at least two axes”; “dynamically calculate a setting value of the machine from the ratio calculated … and a predetermined parameter relating to the at least two axes, …”; and “… modifies the calculated setting value of the machine in accordance with the ratio of the operations of the at least two axes”.
The limitation of “calculate a ratio related to operations of the at least two axes” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0189947 A1: pg. 3, par. [0031] and [0032]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “dynamically calculate a setting value of the machine from the ratio calculated … and a predetermined parameter relating to the at least two axes, …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0189947 A1: pgs. 3-4, par. [0033] and [0035]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… modifies the calculated setting value of the machine in accordance with the ratio of the operations of the at least two axes” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0189947 A1: pgs. 3-4, par. [0035]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece” and “the control device comprising a processor”.
The limitations “a machining program” and” the control device comprising a processor” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “… a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a machining program” and” the control device comprising a processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… a machine having at least two axes on the basis of a machining program for controlling an operation of the machine for machining a workpiece” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… an output adjustment time of an external output signal is modified in accordance with the ratio related to the operations of the at least two axes by calculating a signal output adjustment time of the machine from a signal output adjustment time set for each of the at least two axes”.
The limitation of “… an output adjustment time of an external output signal is modified in accordance with the ratio related to the operations of the at least two axes by calculating a signal output adjustment time of the machine from a signal output adjustment time set for each of the at least two axes” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0189947 A1: pg. 3, par. [0035]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the processor”.
The limitation “… the processor” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… the processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… a laser output delay time is modified in accordance with the ratio related to the operations of the at least two axes by calculating a laser output delay time of a laser oscillator from a laser output delay time set for each of the at least two axes”.
The limitation of “… a laser output delay time is modified in accordance with the ratio related to the operations of the at least two axes by calculating a laser output delay time of a laser oscillator from a laser output delay time set for each of the at least two axes” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0189947 A1: pg. 3, par. [0035]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the processor”.
The limitation “… the processor” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… the processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 numerical controllers and machining systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0195073 A1 discloses a numerical controller that simultaneously controls a plurality of industrial machines including a machine tool and a robot.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0375233 A1 discloses a relative displacement-specifying unit specifies relative displacement between a jig and tool based on measurement values of displacements of the tool and jig.
U.S. Patent No. 12,681,461 B2 discloses a numerical control device that controls a drive axis of a machine tool based on a machining program that includes a plurality of movement blocks each specifying a command speed.
U.S. Patent No. 12,699,375 B2 discloses a numerical controller controls a relative speed between a tool and a workpiece on a basis of a machining program.
U.S. Patent No. 12,730,428 B2 discloses a numerical value control device capable of easily setting an effective diameter for a machined circle.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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