DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. (Original) A numerical control device comprising:
a compressing unit that compresses a first command point sequence to create a second command point sequence;
a calculating unit that calculates an execution position of the operation in the second command point sequence, for a first output command that is held by the first command point sequence and instructs an industrial machine to execute the operation; and
a holding unit that causes the second command point sequence to hold a second output command for instructing the industrial machine to execute the operation at the execution position.
5. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a processor included in a numerical control device to function as:
a compressing unit that compresses a first command point sequence to create a second command point sequence;
a calculating unit that calculates an execution position of the operation in the second command point sequence, for a first output command that is held by the first command point sequence and instructs an industrial machine to execute the operation; and
a holding unit that causes the second command point sequence to hold a second output command for instructing the industrial machine to execute the operation at the execution position.
Step 1: The claims recite a numerical control device and a program for causing a processor included in a numerical control device to function. Thus, the claims are to a manufacturer or a machine and a process, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitation reciting “a calculating unit that calculates an execution position of the operation…” falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. Nor does the recitation of a calculating unit in this claim negate the mental nature of the limitation because the claim merely uses the calculating unit as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process. Also, the limitation reciting “a holding unit that causes the second command point sequence to hold…” falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the holding of the second output command can practically be performed in the human mind. The recitation of a holding unit in this claim does not negate the mental nature of the limitation because the claim here merely uses the holding unit as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Beside the abstract ideas, the claims recite the additional element of “a compressing unit that compresses a first command point sequence…”. This additional element represents mere data gathering (via compression) and it recited at a high level of generality. This limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the compressing unit, the calculating unit, and the holding unit are also additional elements which are configured to carry out the limitations. As such, they are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of each unit. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exceptions.
Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions. As explained previously, the additional elements are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two were considered insignificant. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply to an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not eligible.
Note: Dependent claims 2-4 offer nothing more than extra-solution activity and do not present a resolution to the recited judicial exceptions. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-4 are also not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowable over the prior art and would be in condition for allowance with resolution to the above 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As designated in WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY of PCT/JP2022/022963 cited in International Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 10/7/2024, prior art fails to specifically disclose a numerical control device comprising:
a compressing unit that compresses a first command point sequence to create a second command point sequence;
a calculating unit that calculates an execution position of the operation in the second command point sequence, for a first output command that is held by the first command point sequence and instructs an industrial machine to execute the operation; and
a holding unit that causes the second command point sequence to hold a second output command for instructing the industrial machine to execute the operation at the execution position.
Though Murakami (US PGPub 2015/0227131) discloses a numerical control device compressing a command point sequence (see paragraph 0025, lines 1-4); Murakami fails to specifically disclose the numerical control device further comprising:
a calculating unit that calculates an execution position of the operation in the second command point sequence, for a first output command that is held by the first command point sequence and instructs an industrial machine to execute the operation; and
a holding unit that causes the second command point sequence to hold a second output command for instructing the industrial machine to execute the operation at the execution position.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 5, and the claims which depend from them are allowable over the prior art and would be in condition for allowance with proper resolution to the above cited 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights