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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/2/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2024 and 12/3/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: settling time acquisition unit, pre-reading unit, gas supply control unit in claim 1, gas stop determination unit in claim 2, movement standby setting unit in claim 1, gas supply decision unit in claims 1 and 3.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over translation of JP2011156578 to Nakamoto et al. (hereinafter “Nakamoto”), in view of US20160107259 to Petolillo et al. (hereinafter “Petolillo”).
As per claim 1, Nakamoto substantially discloses a control device for controlling a machining apparatus that performs machining on a workpiece by a machining head while using a gas, in accordance with a machining program that includes a plurality of instructions (Nakamoto, see [0010]), the control device comprising:
a settling time acquisition unit configured to acquire a settling time that is necessary for a supply state of the gas to reach a required state from a start of supply of the gas (Nakamoto, see [0010]-[0014], it is noted that the pre-flow time for stabilizing the gas flow rate can be interpreted as a settling time that is necessary for a supply state of the gas to reach a required state from a start of supply of the gas);
a pre-reading unit configured to pre-read the instruction in the machining program (Nakamoto, see [0010] “interpret the work program in advance”);
a gas supply decision unit configured to decide, based on the instruction pre-read by the pre-reading unit, a start timing at which the supply of the gas is to be started such that a specific instruction involving the supply of the gas will be executed after lapse of the settling time from the start of supply of the gas (Nakamoto, see [0010]-[0015], ” the optimal pre-flow time is automatically calculated in consideration of the flow rate change depending on the welding environment and the flow rate change due to the elapsed time from the end of the previous welding, and the shielding gas is output at the timing based on the pre-flow time. This makes it possible to stabilize the gas flow rate required at the start of welding”); and
a gas supply control unit configured to cause the gas to be supplied to the machining apparatus at the start timing decided by the gas supply decision unit (Nakamoto, see [0010]-[0015], “start output of the shielding gas at a timing corresponding to the corrected preflow time when the determination unit determines that the allowable flow rate arrival time can be secured within the required time”).
Nakamoto does not explicitly disclose a numerical control device. However, Petolillo in an analogous art discloses a numerical control device (Petolillo, see [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Petolillo into the apparatus of Nakamoto. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a numerical control device that enables the consumption of a process gas to be reduced without lowering the quality of the processing results and without resorting to expensive control devices (Petolillo, [0009] and [0026]).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Nakamoto further discloses a gas stop determination unit configured to determine whether or not the supply of the gas is to be stopped upon completion of execution of the specific instruction, based on the instruction subsequent to the specific instruction (Nakamoto, see [0050]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Nakamoto further discloses the specific instruction is an instruction to start the supply of the gas (Nakamoto, see [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, Nakamoto discloses a controller for an arc welding robot, in which welding starts by starting gas output at a time traced back by a preflow time from the time when a welding torch reaches a welding starting position. A gas flow rate characteristic table is preliminarily stored in which a relation is determined between an interval time from gas stopping to outputting and an allowable flow rate-reaching time for the gas flow rate to reach an allowable value. When the next section exists through preceding interpretation of teaching data during the welding, a required time is computed from the completion of the welding until the start of the next welding. With this required time inputted in the gas flow rate characteristic table, feasibility is determined of securing the allowable flow rate-reaching time within the required time to compute a corrected preflow time. In accordance with this corrected preflow time, the gas output is controlled. Thus, a stable gas flow rate is constantly maintained in starting welding, Petolillo discloses a method for machine processing, in particular for machine welding processing of workpieces, in particular of plate-like workpieces, tubes and/or profiles, by means of a thermal processing beam, in particular by means of a processing beam is described, wherein the processing of the workpiece is carried out with a relative movement between the processing beam and the workpiece, wherein a process gas is fed to a processing zone in a settable quantity of process gas per unit of time. After a stored stabilization time, in which the processing of a workpiece is continued with a relative movement between the processing beam and the workpiece, a quantity of process gas per unit of time is automatically reduced. US20150314394 discloses a laser processing system including a laser processing unit, a controller controlling the processing unit according to a laser processing program, and a restart preparation apparatus performing a preparation process of the controller to resume the program execution after being suspended. The restart preparation apparatus includes an operating state judging section judging whether an operating state of the processing unit when suspending the program execution is in course of laser processing, and a restart condition specifying section specifying a restart condition of the processing unit when resuming the program execution, from among predetermined conditions, based on a judgment result. The operating state judging section judges that the operating state is in course of laser processing, if a predetermined operation command for processing the workpiece is output from the controller, or predetermined external information for processing the workpiece is input to the controller, at the instant of suspending the program execution, the combination of the cited prior arts does not describe:
a movement standby setting unit configured to stop relative movement between the machining head and the workpiece immediately before a start of the machining, wherein in a case where the settling time cannot be ensured before the specific instruction is executed, the gas supply decision unit calculates a shortage of time, and the movement standby setting unit stops the relative movement between the machining head and the workpiece for a time equal to the shortage of time
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20120261392 discloses a method of starting a multi-gas plasma arc torch for cutting a workpiece is provided that includes directing a pre-flow gas within the plasma arc torch and switching the pre-flow gas to a plasma gas before a pilot arc is transferred to the workpiece. The plasma gas is supplied initially at a first gas pressure when the pre-flow gas is switched to the plasma gas. The gas pressure is switched to a second gas pressure that is different than the first gas pressure after the pilot arc is transferred. The method provides a smooth transition from the pre-flow gas to the plasma gas and reduces the time delay in replacing the pre-flow gas with the plasma gas in the plasma arc torch, thereby improving cut or marking quality.
US20160067812 discloses a power supply, for a plasma cutter or a plasma arc welder, having a variable switching frequency and method of operating the power supply is generally disclosed. The power supply includes a switch for setting the switching frequency and a chopper control circuit for determining current output from the power supply, determining an operating frequency based on the determined current output and setting the switching frequency based on the determined operating frequency.
US5695662 discloses a plasma arc torch has a secondary gas flow that is extremely large during piercing of a workpiece to keep splattered molten metal away from the torch and thereby prevent "double arcing". The secondary flow exits the torch immediately adjacent the transferred plasma arc and is an extremely uniform, swirling flow. A swirl ring is located in the secondary gas flow path at the exit point. A prechamber feeds gas to the swirl ring, which is in turn fed through a flow restricting orifice. For certain applications the secondary gas is a mixture of an oxidizing gas, preferably oxygen, and a non-oxidizing gas, preferably nitrogen, in a flow ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the range of 2:3 to 9:1. Preferably the flow ratio is about 2:1. A network of conduits and solenoid valves operated under the control of a central microprocessor regulates the flows of plasma gas and secondary gas and mixes the secondary gas. The network includes valved parallel branches that provide a quick charge capability and a set of venting valves, also electrically actuated by the microprocessor, to provide a quick discharge. In a preferred high-definition embodiment, a nozzle with a cut back outer surface and a large, conical head allows a metal seal and enhanced cooling. A two-piece cap protects the nozzle during cutting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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 E. Fennema can be reached on (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 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights