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 .
Response to Remarks
Drawings
The typographical error in Figure 8 is recognized as such and the corrected drawings filed 08/07/2026 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments in the case of the terms “display unit” and “input unit”, and in light of Applicant’s statements with respect to “execution setting change image”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The claims now stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 with respect Kurihara in light of Jeevan et al.
Examiner notes that Applicant frequently refers to features not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a single command”, “a specific icon”, “toggles”, a lack of an “alternative branch”, “static … decision that persists until the user affirmatively reverses it via “uncommenting”, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner additionally notes that recitation of a given reference in the Conclusion section does not amount to a confirmation of any distinction with respect to relied upon prior art as asserted by Applicant on Page 12 of the Remarks. As clearly stated in the Conclusion section, these references are “art made of record and not relied upon … considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure”. They do not carry any implications beyond what is stated in the Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
The claims recite various terms which have been interpreted particularly broadly, even if the present rejections made under prior art do not necessarily rely on such broad interpretations. Applicant’s specification appears to be brief with respect to the terms used in the claims, and do not amount to an express intent to provide a special definition of any of the terms. Consequently, the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms are used, which are effectively the English dictionary definition of the combined words of a given term/phrase. MPEP 2111.01 relates. More specifically, the following terms/phrases have been interpreted as the following:
Operation program: Any program which may relate to the operation of a device. “for a robot” appears to only indicate the intended use given that it is not repeated in any reiterations of the phrase referring back with antecedent basis (i.e., the phrase is hereafter referred to only as “the operation program”
Operation symbols: Any symbol related to the operation of a device. A dictionary definition of the term “symbol” is “an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 5/7/2026). A dictionary definition of a “letter” is “a symbol usually written or printed representing a speech sound and constituting a unit of an alphabet” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary accessed 5/7/2026). Consequently, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “operation symbol” is inclusive of letters and words, in addition to shapes, images, characters, etc., related to some kind of “operation”.
Examiner furthermore notes that Applicant has explicitly argued the term “execution setting change image” as being inclusive of text (See below), and therefore it seems even more reasonable to interpret “symbols” as likewise inclusive of text.
Execution setting change image: Any image (i.e. literally displayed item) which is related to the change of settings related to execution of something. Per Applicant’s remarks on page 7 of the Remarks filed 08/07/2026 this is inclusive of “terms such as “icon”, “button”, “dialog box”, or “user interface code” ” as well as a “check box” or “toggle button” and “button” or “dialog”. In light of the final item of “user interface code”, the term is clearly inclusive of displayed text.
As another note, there does not appear to be any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion within Applicant’s originally filed disclosure for every single operation symbol to each be displayed with a different appearance from each other as is claimed in Claim 2, except in the circumstance where only two operation symbols exist and one is “commented”, and the other “commented out”, or if the term “appearance” is especially broad including the position of the symbol, etc. See e.g. [0023] and [0031] (recited below).
[0023] In this way, by simply selecting a specific icon and operating the execution setting change button, it is possible to skip the command contained in that icon and execute the program. As exemplified in FIG. 3, it is preferable that the appearance of the selected icon 24, more specifically, its color and shade, be changed by commenting out it from before commenting out, so that the user can easily visually recognize that the icon 24 has been commented out.
[0031] In this way, it is possible to execute the program by skipping the commands contained in the icons by a simple operation of selecting the icons and selecting the comment out button 46 from the confirmation image 44. As exemplified in FIG. 6, it is preferable that the appearance (color and/or shade, etc.) of the selected icons 24, 40 and 42 changes after being commented out from that before being commented out, so that the user can easily visually recognize that the icons 24, 40 and 42 have been commented out.
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.
(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 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being Kurihara et al. (US 20210170591 A1) in view of Jeevan et al. (VBA Comment Block, https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/vba-comment-block/, published 8/04/2019*) which discloses the use of a comment and uncomment button in Microsoft Visual Basic, wherein commented code does not execute, and wherein commented and uncommented code are displayed differently, in particular with different colors.
*The PDF print out of the webpage was unable to capture the displayed publication date. See the image below copied from the webpage.
PNG
media_image1.png
148
1369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Kurihara teaches:
A programming device (See at least [0008] “A program generation device”) configured to generate or edit an operation program for a robot (See at least [0008] “… generates an operation program of a robot apparatus”), the programming device comprising:
a display (See at least [0008] “The program generation device includes a display part”) configured to display a plurality of operation symbols (See at least [0006] “expressing the commands of the operation program with icons”) respectively representing a plurality of operation commands included in the operation program (See at least 101a – 101d of Figure 3); and
a user interface configured to accept an operation by a user with respect to the operation symbol displayed on the display (See at least [0061] “The operator can select the tab 111 by pressing the tab 111 for programming with a finger. The display control unit 32 displays reference operation icons 101a to 101d which are references for generating the operation icons 71a to 71c, in the information display region 61b. The reference operation icons 101a to 101d indicate basic operations that the robot apparatus 5 drives”),
wherein the display is configured to display, in response to a specified operation by the user, an execution setting change image (See at least [0097] The auxiliary icon 76p indicates control of determining whether or not the predetermined condition is met. When the condition specified by the auxiliary icon 76p is met, the robot apparatus performs operations indicated by the operation icons 76a to 76c arranged in the former section. When the condition specified by the auxiliary icon 76p is not met, the robot apparatus performs operations indicated by the operation icons 76d to 76f arranged in the latter section”)
Kurihara does not explicitly teach using the phrasing of “comment” and “uncomment”, but Jeevan explicitly teaches the limitation using such phrases:
[an execution setting change image] by which the user can set either a comment out state in which the operation command included in the operation symbol selected by the user is to be skipped when the operation program is executed, or an uncomment state in which the operation command is executed when the operation is executed (See at least Page 4, “there is a built-in option of “Comment/Uncomment Block” in VBA” and the “ “Customize” pop-up window” on Page 6 illustrating the selectable icons/boxes that may be added to the displayed toolbar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a comment/uncomment shortcut such as a box/icon as taught in Jeevan in the system of Kurihara with a reasonable expectation of success. As indicated even by Applicant on Page 12 of the Remarks filed 08/07/2026, “the concept of commenting” is one of many “recognized … concepts in the programming arts”. This is further supported by the references cited in the Conclusion section. It would thus be clear to provide a user-friendly means to comment and uncomment out portions of the robot program such as the user selectable button of Jeevan.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore notes that under the presently undefined nature of the term “operation symbol”, Jeevan appears to teach every limitation of the claim except the limitation “for a robot”.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kurihara and Jeevan teaches:
The programming device according to claim 1,
Kurihara further teaches, under the broad phrasing used in the claim limitation:
wherein the display is configured to display each operation symbol in a different appearance (See at least Figure 15, 76a – 76f and 76p), depending on whether the comment out state or uncomment state is set (Examiner notes that the phrasing of this claim is especially broad. The term “appearance” is particularly broad, and may include items such as the location of the symbol on a display, its relationship to other items, etc. and the nature of “different” are not claimed, nor is the nature of the dependence indicated by “depending”. It furthermore is not exclusive or otherwise indicate the nature of display regardless of the comment/uncomment state. In other words, the claim does not provide in any manner how the appearance is different and appearance covers a broad spectrum. Furthermore, while the intended meaning of the claim based on the disclosure appears to be that the appearance of a given symbol depends on if it is commented or uncommented, wherein they will vary between two colors, the phrasing is broader than this and encompasses both conditions.
Thus, under this particularly broad claim construction, see again Figure 15. 76p is clearly illustrated as having a different appearance and the location of a given icon such as 76a and 76f depends on which branch they lie within which also determines if they will be skipped or executed
In the interest of compact prosecution, see also and alternatively at least Page 11 of Jeevan, “For doing that, the highlighted statements that commented would now turn into executable statements of the code or procedure and change in color from green to black again”. It would have been furthermore obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternative a color of the block/code/etc. based on the comment/uncomment state as taught by Jeevan in Kurhara with a reasonable expectation of success. Such immediately recognizable means of identifying commented and uncommented program information is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the programming arts, for again the purpose of being immediately recognizable).
Regarding Claim 3, the claim is directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 1 with respect to the application of prior art. The claim is therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Onoyama et al. (US 20180231965 A1) which discloses a robot programming device which allows for commenting and uncommenting symbolic code types for the purposes of skipping or executing particular code.
Koizumi (JP 2007003743 A) which discloses a programming device which allows for commenting and uncommenting symbolic code types with different associated displays for the purposes of skipping or executing particular code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights