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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s filing date of January 9, 2025, which included a preliminary amendment. In the amendment, Claims 1-9 were amended. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 9, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority to Prior-Filed Application
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/JP2022/036517 filed on 9/29/2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 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: an arithmetic processing unit; machine control device; an error correction code, a region for storing the data, encoding region specifying unit; a state grasping unit in claims 1-3 and 7-9.
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 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimori et al (US-20180316127-A1)(“Fujimori”) and Deguchi et al (US-20080126905-A1)(“Deguchi”).
As per claim 1, Fujimori discloses a mobile operation device for portable operating a machine (Figure 1, teach pendant 14 coupled to machine 12 through connector 16.) comprising:
a memory including a plurality of storage units (Fujimori at Figure 1, teach pendant 14 has a memory 32 with storage units 32a & 32b, and Para. [0020] disclosing controller and memory 32:” teach pendant 14 includes an immediate stop button 28, switches SW1 and SW2, a control unit 30, and a storage unit 32 having a volatile memory 32a and a nonvolatile memory 32b.”);
While Fujimori teaches the protection of the data exchanged between the teach pendant 14 and the control machine 12, Fujimori is silent as to the correction of data if there is discrepancy between the exchanged data between the devices. Thus, Fujimori does not disclose imparting of an error correction code to data in the memory and specifying a region for storing the data to which the error correction code is imparted.
Fujimori does not teach, however Deguchi teaches a code imparting unit (Deguchi at Figure 1, CPU 1003, Figure 2, control device 1120, and Para. [0006] discloses an imparting unit 1003 for reading and writing data to a memory:” CPU 1003 sends an instruction for reading and writing data to the chip set 1002.”) configured to impart an error correction code to data in the memory (Deguchi at Figure 3, memory 130, and Para. [0079] discloses imparting an error correction code during a write/imparting cycle:” the microcontroller block 110 computes the error correcting code 132 for each object 140 having the predetermined size (S 103). Finally, the microcontroller block 110 writes the error correcting code 132 computed in S 103 into the data region 141 (S 104).”); and
Fujimori does not teach, however Deguchi teaches an encoding region specifying unit configured to specify a region for storing the data to which the error correction code is imparted (Deguchi at Figure 3, memory 130 and ECC 132 region, and Para. [0081] discloses specifying a region for storing the ECC code:” since the address resolution is performed in consideration of the regional portion of the data region 141, even in the case where the error correcting code 132 is written into the data region 141, the size of the data region 141 having the predetermined size and the size of the error correcting code 132 are the same.”).
Deguchi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which stores and protects data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujimori further in view of Deguchi to allow for the correction of data such as data necessary for the operation of the operating machine. Motivation to do so would allow for significant data having the impact on the system operation protected with the error correcting code and a reduction in the required memory capacity needed at the teach pendant by specifying a region to a predetermined range in memory that may be storing critical data (Deguchi at Para. [0168]).
As per claim 2, Fujimori and Deguchi disclose a mobile operation device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a state grasping unit configured to grasp a state of the mobile operation device (Fujimori at Figure 1, attachment switch 20, and Para. [0064] which discloses a grasping unit (figure 4) for coupling and decoupling the teach pendant from the operating machine and indication of the state (ON/OFF):” the detachment switch 20 becomes ON when the engagement structure 60 engages and becomes OFF when the engagement structure 60 disengages.”) , and wherein
the encoding region specifying unit is configured to specify a region for storing data to which the error correction code is imparted among the plurality of storage units, based on an output of the state grasping unit (Fujimori at Para. [0072] discloses that upon activation, grasping state ON by attachment, the teach pendant 14 can acquire data from the operating machine:” when the first connector part (16a) and the second connector part (16b) are connected to activate the second device (14), the second device (14) can use the data protected in the storage unit (26) of the first device (12).”).
As per claim 3, Fujimori and Deguchi disclose a mobile operation device according to claim 2, further comprising:
an arithmetic processing unit configured to execute an application program (Fujimori at Figure 1, processor 30, and Para. [0066] discloses executing a program upon activation like grasping state of ON:” control unit 30 of the teach pendant 14 may perform the predetermined process, triggered by an event that the detachment switch 20 is turned on.”), and wherein the state grasping unit is configured to grasp a state of the application program executed by the arithmetic processing unit (Fujimori at Figures 2A-2C, engagement structure 50, and Para. [0025] discloses that upon engagement the processing ascertain the grasp state since there is a connection between the devices:” configuration enables exchange of signals (data) between the control unit 24 of the numerical control device 12 and the control unit 30 of the teach pendant 14.”), and the encoding region specifying unit is configured to switch a capacity of a region for storing the data to which the error correction code is imparted among the plurality of storage units, based on the state of the application program grasped by the state grasping unit (Fujimori at Para. [0052] discloses that upon recognizing a triggering event, i.e., an attachment to operating machine as indicated by switch 20, the program switches the stored data between the storing devices like 32b abd 32a:” control unit 30, as triggered by the operation of the detachment switch 20, performs a predetermined process. Specifically, the control unit 30 performs, as the predetermined process, a writing process (storing process) of writing data being stored in the volatile memory 32a into the nonvolatile memory 32b.”) .
As per claim 4, Fujimori and Deguchi disclose a mobile operation device according to claim 3, wherein the code imparting unit is configured to impart an error correction code to data when the application program grasped by the state grasping unit is directly related to a system (Fujimori at Para. [0066] can be triggered by the attachment by grasping unit at attachment 50 (figs 2A-2C0:” control unit 30 of the teach pendant 14 may perform the predetermined process, triggered by an event that the detachment switch 20 is turned on.”), and not impart the error correction code to date when the application program grasped by the state grasping unit is not directly related to the system (Fujimori at Para. [0028] discloses that the disconnection switch 20 is used an indicator that the teach pendant is being disconnected so data is not being exchanged in the system:” the state in which the voltage input to the control unit 24 through the lead wire L6 falls from 5V to 0V may be called a disconnection signal. In this case, the teach pendant 14 can be regarded as sending the disconnection signal to the control unit 24 when the detachment switch 20 is operated. Upon receiving the disconnection signal, the control unit 24 determines that the detachment switch 20 has been switched from the closed (on) state to the open (off) state, or that the first connector part 16a and the second connector part 16b are going to be disconnected.”) .
As per claim 5, Fujimori and Deguchi disclose a mobile operation device according to claim 3, wherein the memory is a main memory accessible by the arithmetic processing unit and is a DRAM capable of controlling whether or not to cause any of the storage units to function the error correction code (Fujimori at Paea. [0031] discloses that the memory especially 32a is a DRAM memory:” volatile memory 32a is memory for temporarily storing data, and is made up from, for example, a DRAM or the like. The volatile memory 32a functions as a buffer memory of the control unit 30. The nonvolatile memory 32b is memory for storing data, and is made up from, for example, a NAND type flash memory.”).
As per claim 6, Fujimori and Deguchi mobile operation device according to claim l, wherein the machine is a robot or a CNC machine tool (Fujimori at Figure 1, numerical control device 12, and Para. [0029] discloses a numerical control machine or robot:” control unit 24 is made up from a processor such as a CPU, and performs control of each part of the numerical control device 12 and the robot.”), and the mobile operation device is a teach pendant configured to teach an operation to the robot or the CNC machine tool (Fujimori at Figure 1, teach pendant 14, and Para. [0017] discloses that the teach pendant is used to teach the numerical machine/robot certain operations:” the first device 12 and the second device 14 should not be limited to these examples (numerical control device and teach pendant). The teach pendant 14 is an operation panel for operating and teaching the robot.”).
As per claim 7, Fujimori discloses a machine system (Figure 1)comprising:
the mobile operation device according to claim l (See above writeup combining Fujimori and disclosing the elements of claim1) ;
a machine control device (Fujimori at Figure 1, numerical control device 12 and control unit 24. ) connected to the mobile operation device (Fujimori at Figure 1, teach pendant 14.) via a communication line (Fujimori at Figure 1, line 18, and Para. [0025] disclosing a line to facilitate communication between the devices:” lead wire L5 allows communication between the control unit 24 of the numerical control device 12 and the control unit 30 of the teach pendant 14.”); and
the machine connected to the machine control device via a communication line and operated by the mobile operation device via the machine control device (Fujimori at Para. [0025] discloses the exchange of data between the pendant and the control unit 24 at the operational machine:” lead wire L5 allows communication between the control unit 24 of the numerical control device 12 and the control unit 30 of the teach pendant 14. This configuration enables exchange of signals (data) between the control unit 24 of the numerical control device 12 and the control unit 30 of the teach pendant 14.”).
Deguchi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which stores and protects data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujimori further in view of Deguchi to allow for the correction of data such as data necessary for the operation of the operating machine. Motivation to do so would allow for significant data having the impact on the system operation protected with the error correcting code and a reduction in the required memory capacity needed at the teach pendant by specifying a region to a predetermined range in memory that may be storing critical data (Deguchi at Para. [0168]).
As per claim 8, Fujimori discloses a computer readable non-transitory tangible medium for storing a memory control program for a mobile operation device (Fujimori at Figure 1, memory 32.) including an arithmetic processing unit (Fujimori at Figure 1, controller/processor 30.), and a memory including a plurality of storage units accessed by the arithmetic processing unit (Fujimori at Figure 1, teach pendant 14 has a memory 32 with storage units 32a & 32b, and Para. [0020] disclosing controller and memory 32:” teach pendant 14 includes an immediate stop button 28, switches SW1 and SW2, a control unit 30, and a storage unit 32 having a volatile memory 32a and a nonvolatile memory 32b.”), the memory control program causing the arithmetic processing unit to execute:
While Fujimori teaches the protection of the data exchanged between the teach pendant 14 and the control machine 12, Fujimori is silent as to the correction of data if there is discrepancy between the exchanged data between the devices. Thus, Fujimori does not disclose imparting of an error correction code to data in the memory and specifying a region for storing the data to which the error correction code is imparted.
Fujimori does not teach, however Deguchi teaches a code imparting unit (Deguchi at Figure 1, CPU 1003, Figure 2, control device 1120, and Para. [0006] discloses an imparting unit 1003 for reading and writing data to a memory:” CPU 1003 sends an instruction for reading and writing data to the chip set 1002.”) imparting an error correction code to data in the memory (Deguchi at Figure 3, memory 130, and Para. [0079] discloses imparting an error correction code during a write/imparting cycle:” the microcontroller block 110 computes the error correcting code 132 for each object 140 having the predetermined size (S 103). Finally, the microcontroller block 110 writes the error correcting code 132 computed in S 103 into the data region 141 (S 104).”); and
Fujimori does not teach, however Deguchi teaches specifying a region for storing the data to which the error correction code is imparted (Deguchi at Figure 3, memory 130 and ECC 132 region, and Para. [0081] discloses specifying a region for storing the ECC code:” since the address resolution is performed in consideration of the regional portion of the data region 141, even in the case where the error correcting code 132 is written into the data region 141, the size of the data region 141 having the predetermined size and the size of the error correcting code 132 are the same.”).
Deguchi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which stores and protects data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujimori further in view of Deguchi to allow for the correction of data such as data necessary for the operation of the operating machine. Motivation to do so would allow for significant data having the impact on the system operation protected with the error correcting code and a reduction in the required memory capacity needed at the teach pendant by specifying a region to a predetermined range in memory that may be storing critical data (Deguchi at Para. [0168]).
As per claim 9, Fujimori and Deguchi disclose a computer readable non-transitory tangible medium for storing the memory control program for the mobile operation device according to claim 8, wherein the memory control program causing the arithmetic processing unit to further execute:
grasping a state of the mobile operation device (Fujimori at Figure 1, attachment switch 20, and Para. [0064] which discloses a grasping unit (figure 4) for coupling and decoupling the teach pendant from the operating machine and indication of the state (ON/OFF):” the detachment switch 20 becomes ON when the engagement structure 60 engages and becomes OFF when the engagement structure 60 disengages.”) , and
switching a capacity of a region for storing the data to which the error correction code is imparted, based on the grasped state of the mobile operation device (Fujimori at Para. [0072] discloses that upon activation, grasping state ON by attachment, the teach pendant 14 can acquire data from the operating machine:” when the first connector part (16a) and the second connector part (16b) are connected to activate the second device (14), the second device (14) can use the data protected in the storage unit (26) of the first device (12).”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Flynn; David et al. (US-20120221924-A1) APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR DETECTING AND REPLACING FAILED DATA STORAGE;
Suzuki; Yoshinori et al. (US-20130070577-A1) OPTICAL RECORDING MEDIUM, RECORDING APPARATUS, RECORDING METHOD;
SUGIYAMA; Yuusuke (US-20180197112-A1) MACHINE LEARNING DEVICE THAT LEARNS SHOCKS TO TEACHING DEVICE, SHOCK PREVENTION SYSTEM OF TEACHING DEVICE, AND MACHINE LEARNING METHOD;
Katou; Tomoki (US-20200338737-A1) ROBOT TEACHING DEVICE;
Flynn; David et al. (US-20100293439-A1) APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR RECONFIGURING AN ARRAY TO OPERATE WITH LESS STORAGE ELEMENTS;
Thatcher; Jonathan et al. (US-20120131413-A1) APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD TO INCREASE DATA INTEGRITY IN A REDUNDANT STORAGE SYSTEM;
Nagasaka; Toshiro (US-20080082872-A1) Memory controller, memory system, and data transfer method;
Berman; Amit et al. (US-11387848-B1) Hierarchical error correction code;
Sarma; Sudha et al. (US-5918242-A) General-purpose customizable memory controller;
Japanese Patent Publication (JP-6612080-B2) Portable operation device and program;
IKEDA TATSUYA (JP-2012228734-A) INDUSTRIAL ROBOT;
SHIMIZU SHINOBU (JP-2010167507-A) ROBOT SYSTEM AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME;
OTA YUICHI et al. (JP-2007061940-A) ROBOT AND INFORMATION DISPLAY METHOD OF ROBOT;
TAKADA TOSHIYUKI (JP-2013056378-A) ROBOT SYSTEM, CONTROL DEVICE, AND METHOD;
Japanese Patent Publication (JP-6438763-B2) Error correction device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3658