DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/927,717 filed on October 25, 2024, presents claims 1-11 for examination, claims priority to PCT/JP2022/024781, filed on 6/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024, was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Line 2, -with changed data that is the design data (41) after being changed-.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a device claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“identify a changed part in a control program generated from original data by comparing the original data with changed data in terms of pieces of design information constituting each of the original data and the changed data, for each piece of design information that is a generation source of one program component, the original data being design data before being changed, the changed data being the design data after being changed; and
update the control program by setting a new program component generated from the changed data for the changed part.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually identify a changed part in a control program as defined in the claim, and can manually update the control program as defined in the claim. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“A program generation device”, and “processing circuitry”
These additional elements are cited as a generic computer system or computer component, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “A program generation device”, and “processing circuitry” are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, is not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 10, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a program generation method claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a computer program generation method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 10 does not recite any additional element, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and there is no inventive concept.
With respect to claim 11, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a computer readable medium claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a computer readable medium to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 11 recites additional elements, i.e. a computer readable medium and a computer. But these additional elements are generic computer elements in the computer system, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the processing circuitry identifies each of updated information, deleted information, and added information as the changed part, the updated information being design information that differs between the original data and the changed data, the deleted information being design information that does not exist in the changed data but exists in the original data, the added information being design information that does not exist in the original data but exists in the changed data, and
wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by setting a new program component generated from the updated information in the changed data and a new program component generated from the added information in the changed data.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually identify each of updated information, deleted information, and added information as the changed part as defined in the claim, and can manually update the control program as defined in the claim. The processing circuitry is cited as a generic computer component, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 3, “wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by replacing a program component corresponding to the updated information in the control program with a new program component generated from the updated information in the changed data.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually update the control program as defined in the claim. The processing circuitry is cited as a generic computer component, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 4, “wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by inserting a new program component generated from the added information in the changed data into the control program.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually update the control program as defined in the claim. The processing circuitry is cited as a generic computer component, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 5, “wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by deleting a program component corresponding to the deleted information from the control program.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually update the control program as defined in the claim. The processing circuitry is cited as a generic computer component, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 6, “wherein the processing circuitry generates a program component from the design information,
wherein the processing circuitry sets tracking information that indicates design information that is a generation source for the program component, and
wherein the design information corresponding to the program component is identified based on the tracking information.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually generate program component as defined in the claim, can manually set tracking information as defined in the claim, and can manually identify the design information as defined in the claim. The processing circuitry is cited as a generic computer component, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 7, “wherein generation source information that indicates design data that is a generation source is set in the control program, and
wherein the processing circuitry identifies the original data based on the generation source information that is set in the control program.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually set the generation source information as defined in the claim, and can manually identify the original data as defined in the claim. The processing circuitry is cited as a generic computer component, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 8, “wherein the processing circuitry generates a link component that links the control program and a simulator in which the control program is implemented, based on link data that indicates a correspondence between a variable in the simulator and a signal in the design data.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually generate a link component as defined in the claim. the generation source information as defined in the claim, and can manually identify the original data as defined in the claim. The processing circuitry and the simulator are cited as a generic computer component or software component, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 9, “wherein the processing circuitry acquires design data to be used as input when an initial generation process is specified, and acquires the original data and the changed data when a regeneration process is specified,
wherein the processing circuitry newly generates a control program using a program component generated from design information that is a constituent of the design data when the initial generation process is specified,
wherein the processing circuitry identifies the changed part when the regeneration process is specified, and
wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program when the regeneration process is specified.”
Wherein the “generates …” process, the “identifies …” process, and the “updates …” process are mental processes. E.g. the user can manually generate a control program as defined in the claim, can manually identify the changed part as defined in the claim, and can manually update the control program as defined in the claim. The “acquires …” process is insignificant extra-solution activities such as retrieving data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for retrieving and storing data. The processing circuitry is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by HIROMI et al (JP,2000-222195, A, hereinafter, “HIROMI”, please refer to the attached English translation copy).
With respect to claim 1, HIROMI anticipates A program generation device comprising
processing circuitry to (e.g. para [0013], “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an automatic program generation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention, …”):
identify a changed part in a control program generated from original data by comparing the original data with changed data in terms of pieces of design information constituting each of the original data and the changed data, for each piece of design information that is a generation source of one program component, the original data being design data before being changed, the changed data being the design data after being changed (e.g. para [0006], “… retrieving a changed portion of a program based on a changed content of design information …” para [0022], “The current design information (current CASE) after the change is collated with the design information ( MFH300AD.MDB ) saved at the time of the previous mockup, the change point is extracted, and the information indicating the change point is stored in the correction information list box (S11 in FIG. 3). In the correction information list box, changes are stored after all records are deleted at the time of re-mockup support, that is, at the time of automatic generation of a program.also see para [0023-0028]); and
update the control program by setting a new program component generated from the changed data for the changed part (e.g. para [0021], “Next, in the automatic program generation apparatus having the above-described configuration, when a program inheriting a correction program is automatically generated based on design information (the program inheriting the correction program is referred to as "a program inheriting the correction program"), the program inheriting the correction program is automatically generated.”).
With respect to claim 2, HIROMI anticipates wherein the processing circuitry identifies each of updated information, deleted information, and added information as the changed part, the updated information being design information that differs between the original data and the changed data, the deleted information being design information that does not exist in the changed data but exists in the original data, the added information being design information that does not exist in the original data but exists in the changed data (e.g. para [0022-0023], “The correction information list box stores, for example, a form ID, a group ID, an action ID, and the like, which will be described later, to be updated, added, or deleted by a change in a form, a group, an action, and the like, which are items of the design information.” Para [0026-0027], wherein overwrite information reads on updated information, para [0028] teaches deleted information, and added information, inherently, the deleted information does not exist in the changed data but in the original data, and the added information does not exist in the original data but exist in the changed data), and
wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by setting a new program component generated from the updated information in the changed data and a new program component generated from the added information in the changed data (para [0026] teaches updating the control program, “… When the overwrite information is stored in the correction information list box (S14, YES), which part of the corrected business BAS the overwrite part corresponds to is retrieved from the information indicating the overwrite part of the correction information list box, and the corresponding code is overwritten and updated with the contents of the present design information. …” para [0028-31] teaches generating a new program component from the added information in the changed data, para [0019-0021] teaches generating program based on changed data, “Next, when the design information is changed, a new program is automatically generated based on the changed latest design information.”).
With respect to claim 3, HIROMI anticipates wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by replacing a program component corresponding to the updated information in the control program with a new program component generated from the updated information in the changed data (Para [0026-0027], “… When the overwrite information is stored in the correction information list box (S14, YES), which part of the corrected business BAS the overwrite part corresponds to is retrieved from the information indicating the overwrite part of the correction information list box, and the corresponding code is overwritten and updated with the contents of the present design information. …”).
With respect to claim 4, HIROMI anticipates wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by inserting a new program component generated from the added information in the changed data into the control program (Para [0028], “… Further, it is retrieved which part of the new business BAS the added part corresponds to from the additional information of the correction information list box, and the corresponding line number of the corrected line business BAS is acquired from the line array 31.” Para [0031], “… When the change content is addition, a line number to be added is written in the line column of the processing list box 32, …”).
With respect to claim 5, HIROMI anticipates wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program by deleting a program component corresponding to the deleted information from the control program (Para [0028], “… which part of the corrected business BAS the deleted part corresponds to is retrieved from the correction information and the correction point of the correction information list box, and the corresponding line number is acquired from the line array 31. ...” Para [0031-32], “… it is not necessary to rearrange the data when adding or deleting a row, …”).
With respect to claim 6, HIROMI anticipates wherein the processing circuitry generates a program component from the design information (e.g. para [0015], “An automatic program generation part 13 automatically generates a program based on the design information. ...”),
wherein the processing circuitry sets tracking information that indicates design information that is a generation source for the program component (e.g. para [0026-0027] teaches updating the modified part of the control program. para [0072-0095], “A method of searching for a code added or deleted by the latest design information based on the correction information will be described. …” these paragraphs indicate there is tracking information that indicates design information that is generation source for the program component), and
wherein the design information corresponding to the program component is identified based on the tracking information. (e.g. para [0073], “When the form is changed, a character string "Case {form number}" including the form ID of the design change target form set in the form correction information list box 231 is retrieved from the program, and when a character string including the form number is detected, all codes in the detected line and "Case" are extracted as changed codes.”).
With respect to claim 7, HIROMI anticipates wherein generation source information that indicates design data that is a generation source is set in the control program (e.g. para [0073], “When the form is changed, a character string "Case {form number}" including the form ID of the design change target form set in the form correction information list box 231 is retrieved from the program, and when a character string including the form number is detected, all codes in the detected line and "Case" are extracted as changed codes.” This paragraph indicates the generation source information such as “Case {form number}” is set in the control program), and
wherein the processing circuitry identifies the original data based on the generation source information that is set in the control program (Para [0026], “… When the overwrite information is stored in the correction information list box (S14, YES), which part of the corrected business BAS the overwrite part corresponds to is retrieved from the information indicating the overwrite part of the correction information list box, and the corresponding code is overwritten and updated with the contents of the present design information.. ...” this paragraph indicates that the original data (corresponding to the present design) is identified based on the generation source information that is set in the control program).
With respect to claim 9, HIROMI anticipates wherein the processing circuitry acquires design data to be used as input when an initial generation process is specified (e.g. para [0015], “An automatic program generation part 13 automatically generates a program based on the design information. …”), and acquires the original data and the changed data when a regeneration process is specified (e.g. para [0020], “Next, when the design information is changed, a new program is automatically generated based on the changed latest design information. Then, based on the difference between the saved first design information and the second latest design information, the code to be deleted and the code to be added due to the change of the design information are retrieved from the program, …”),
wherein the processing circuitry newly generates a control program using a program component generated from design information that is a constituent of the design data when the initial generation process is specified (e.g. para [0020], “Next, when the design information is changed, a new program is automatically generated based on the changed latest design information. Then, based on the difference between the saved first design information and the second latest design information, the code to be deleted and the code to be added due to the change of the design information are retrieved from the program, …” wherein the unchanged components are newly generated),
wherein the processing circuitry identifies the changed part when the regeneration process is specified (e.g. para [0020], “Next, when the design information is changed, a new program is automatically generated based on the changed latest design information. Then, based on the difference between the saved first design information and the second latest design information, the code to be deleted and the code to be added due to the change of the design information are retrieved from the program, …” wherein the difference reads on the changed part), and
wherein the processing circuitry updates the control program when the regeneration process is specified. (e.g. para [0020], “Next, when the design information is changed, a new program is automatically generated based on the changed latest design information. Then, based on the difference between the saved first design information and the second latest design information, the code to be deleted and the code to be added due to the change of the design information are retrieved from the program, …” also see para [0026-0027]).
With respect to claim 10, it is directed to a program generation method that is disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 11. Note that, HIROMI anticipates A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program generation program that causes a computer to function as a program generation device to perform (e.g. Fig. 1, “a block diagram of an automatic program generation apparatus.”):
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 of this title, 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROMI et al (JP,2000-222195, A, hereinafter, “HIROMI”, please refer to the attached English translation copy) in view of D'Amato et al. (US 20190163147 A1, hereinafter, “D'Amato”).
With respect to claim 8, HIROMI anticipates The program generation device according to claim 1, but does not appear to anticipate wherein the processing circuitry generates a link component that links the control program and a simulator in which the control program is implemented, based on link data that indicates a correspondence between a variable in the simulator and a signal in the design data. However, this is taught in analogous art, D'Amato (e.g. Fig. 2A, para [0038-0049]. Para [0048], “Step 208 may be executed by the processor sub-unit 120 and memory sub-unit 122, in conjunction with the MBCDS 104. At step 208, the first model-based analytic algorithm is associated with the system model by defining the algorithm configuration data corresponding to the first model-based analytic algorithm based on the system input parameter and the system output parameter corresponding to the system model.” Wherein the processor sub-unit reads on the processing circuitry, and associating suggests a link component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of HIROMI with the invention of D'Amato because it provides Model-Based Controls (MBC) for improving control performance. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing Model-Based Controls (MBC) for improving control performance as suggested by D'Amato (see para [0004-0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, WALLBAUM et al., US 20200201608 A1 teaches method and system for generating program code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights