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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2024 and 12/22/2025 have been considered and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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: “first receiving unit”, “second receiving unit”, and “determination unit” in claim 1, “notification unit” in claim 2, and “identification unit” in claim 3.
Regarding claim 1, the first and second receiving units have structure support found in the specification in Para. [0014] as a “communication unit”, with such communication unit as nothing more than “hardware” for controlling “transmission and reception of data”, as seen in Para. [0028]. Furthermore claim 1 discloses “determination unit” which has supporting structure in the specification in Para. [0031] with the determination unit being described as “the monitoring device functions as…a determination unit”, with the monitoring device amounting to no more than “a sever device”, see Para. [0028], or a “computer device”, see Para. [0007].
Regarding Claim 2, the notification unit has structure support in the specification found in Para. [0029], where the application discusses a notification screen created by the notification screen creation unit. While the exact phrase “notification unit” is not found within the specification, the examiner will interpret the notification unit and notification screen unit to be analogous for purposes of examination. Furthermore, structure of the notification screen creation unit is found in Para. [0031], where the monitoring device is disclosed as a functioning notification screen creation unit.
Regarding Claim 3, the identification unit has no structure support in the specification. At best the application discusses the identifying of a product to be produced, which amounts to no more than a code or robot name for identifying the target product. Furthermore, the specification provides no support as to which part of the monitoring device and system which performs the identification of the product target. Therefore the examiner interprets identification unit as no more than a software or program step and is not interpreted to have any hardware structure.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozawa et al. (US 2023/0305528; hereinafter Ozawa).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ozawa discloses a monitoring device comprising: a first receiving unit configured to receive, in accordance with a production program for causing a robot to execute a predetermined production operation (Ozawa, Para. [0089], Ozawa discloses a transmission/reception unit for receiving execution information for the robotic apparatus production), an execution history record including a start date and time and an end date and time of the production operation from a robot control device configured to control the robot (Ozawa, Para. [0089], [0171], Ozawa discloses the transmission unit communicates the execution schedule and operations for the current operation and previous executions of the programmed operation);
a second receiving unit configured to receive a change history record including a date and time when the production program or a variable was manually changed from the robot control device (Ozawa, Para. [0110-0114], Ozawa discloses parameters of the execution operation may be changed dependent on the target product, with such changes in production being communicated by the transmission or reception unit or communication device of the user, see at least Fig. 1); and
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not a time at which the production program or the variable was manually changed is during the production operation by comparing the change history record with the execution history record (Ozawa, Para. [0110], [0177-0179], Ozawa discloses a template execution procedure generation unit which selects a parameter which is determined to be changed, and determines if the change in the execution schedule is to occur during the current operation or a subsequent operation).
Regarding Claim 2:
Ozawa discloses the monitoring device according to claim 1.
Ozawa further discloses a notification unit configured to notify a user that the production program or the variable was manually changed during the production operation of the robot (Ozawa, Para. [0398], Ozawa discloses notifying the user through a display unit that the execution schedule is changed and whether the change in execution schedule or operations was successful).
Regarding Claim 3:
Ozawa discloses the monitoring device according to claim 1.
Ozawa further discloses wherein the execution history record includes production target information for individually identifying a production target, and the monitoring device further comprises: an identification unit configured to identify a production target when the change was made during the production operation of the robot, based on the production target information (Ozawa, Para. [0182-0186], Ozawa discloses the arithmetic processing unit and the continuous determination unit are configured to determine the changes in execution schedule, incorporate the new variables, and generate a new execution schedule based on the production target).
Regarding Claim 4:
Ozawa discloses the monitoring device according to claim 1.
Ozawa further discloses wherein the production operation includes a plurality of processes, the first receiving unit receives from the robot control device an execution history record including a start date and time and an end date and time of each of the processes together with the start date and time and the end date and time of the production operation (Ozawa, Para. [0089], [0171], Ozawa discloses the transmission unit communicates the execution schedule and operations for the current operation and previous executions of the programmed operation), and
the determination unit identifies one process in which the production program or the variable was manually changed out of the plurality of processes constituting the production operation by comparing the change history record with the execution history record (Ozawa, Para. [0110], [0177-0179], Ozawa discloses a template execution procedure generation unit which selects a parameter which is determined to be changed, and determines if the change in the execution schedule is to occur during the current operation or a subsequent operation).
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foreman et al. (USP 11,944,105) – discloses a robot and robotic system for performing production operations for a target product, with improvements to the operations being incorporated as supervised learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights