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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention II (claims 8-12) in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected Invention I (claims 1-11) are withdrawn from consideration. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The terms “and/or” in lines 14 and 27 of claim 8 should read “or”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“shooting, by a first image capturing device, the workpiece and generating a first image, transmitting, by the first image capturing device, the first image to a main control device, and searching, by the main control device, the at least one target area on the workpiece through the first image” in claim 8;
“a laser module to perform a laser process” in claim 8;
“a second image capturing device to shoot the at least one target area and generate a second image” in claim 8
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Para.[0036] of specification discloses “The first image capturing device 13 may be a linear scanner with a plurality of image capturing elements arranged along a linear direction, and the scanning width thereof corresponds to the side length of the workpiece 20 in the first direction, such as 9 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm, 20 cm or 30 cm.”
Para.[0028] of specification discloses “the main control device 15 may include a plurality of controllers (not shown in figure) for controlling the platform 12, the first image capturing device 13, the second image capturing device 14 and the laser module 16 respectively. In another embodiment, the main control device 15 may be electrically connected to a plurality of controllers for controlling the platform 12, the first image capturing device 13, the second image capturing device 14 and the laser module 16 respectively.”
Para.[0028] of specification discloses “the laser module 16 may include a plurality of laser sources. The plurality of laser sources are different laser sources, including a continuous wave or pulsed laser source. The continuous wave laser source may be a CO2 laser, a CO laser, a helium-cadmium laser, a semiconductor laser, an optical fiber laser or a helium-neon laser. The pulsed laser source may be an excimer laser, an optical fiber laser or an yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser. Laser light of the laser sources includes deep ultraviolet light, ultraviolet light, green light, near-infrared light or mid-infrared light.”
Para.[0036] of specification discloses “The second image capturing device 14 may be a microscope, and a field of view (FOV) thereof may be 6 mm*5 mm or smaller. Thus, the field of view of the first image capturing device 13 is wider than the field of view of the second image capturing device 14. In addition, the resolution of the first image capturing device 13 may be about 6 μm, while the resolution of the second image capturing device 14 may be 1 μm, such that the resolution of the second image capturing device 14 is higher than the resolution of the first image capturing device 13.”
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 § 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.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims 8-12 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “providing a workpiece, wherein the workpiece comprises at least one target area, and the at least one target area comprises at least one specific feature” is indefinite. The definition of “specific feature” is unclear. What kind of features would be considered as “specific feature”?
The limitation “performing a positioning step, shooting, by a first image capturing device, the workpiece and generating a first image, transmitting, by the first image capturing device, the first image to a main control device, and searching, by the main control device, the at least one target area on the workpiece through the first image” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear what the positioning step is. The claim does not disclose any action of moving things. Furthermore, It is unclear whether the limitation after the first comma have any relationship with the positioning step. The metes and bounds of the limitation “positioning step” is unclear. 2) The limitation is unclear as to what constitutes this limitation, since multiple commas in the claim would change the scope of the claim with different interpretations.
The limitation “if the resolution of the first image is sufficient to perform a feature identification step” is indefinite. 1) The limitation "the resolution of the first image" is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 2) It is unclear how to determine whether the resolution of the first image is sufficient to perform a feature identification step. 3) The definition of “feature identification step” is unclear. What is required for the feature identification step.
The limitation “performing a laser processing step, controlling, by the main control device, a laser module to perform a laser process on the specific features based on a result of the feature identification step” is indefinite. It is unclear what the laser processing step is. It is unclear whether the limitation after the first comma have any relationship with the laser processing step. The metes and bounds of the limitation “laser processing step” is unclear.
The limitation “performing a fine positioning step, controlling, by the main control device, a second image capturing device to shoot the at least one target area and generate a second image, and receiving, by the main control device, the second image” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear what the fine positioning step is. The claim does not disclose any action of moving things. Furthermore, It is unclear whether the limitation after the first comma have any relationship with the fine positioning step. The metes and bounds of the limitation “fine positioning step” is unclear. 2) The limitation is unclear as to what constitutes this limitation, since multiple commas in the claim would change the scope of the claim with different interpretations.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the step of performing” is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the step of adjusting” is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “the step of selecting” and “the type of the workpiece” are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 9-12, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on an indefinite claim as shown above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitation does not specifically disclose laser pre-process is a required step of the method, and it appears to be not a part of the laser processing step. Therefore, the laser pre-process does not further limit the invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shapiro (US 2017/0235293).
Regarding claim 8, Shapiro teaches a laser processing method, comprising the following steps:
providing a workpiece (material 140), wherein the workpiece comprises at least one target area (surface of material 14), and the at least one target area comprises at least one specific feature;
performing a positioning step, shooting, by a first image capturing device, the workpiece and generating a first image (See [0077] “The head camera 120 can have a narrower field of view 122 and take higher resolution images of a smaller area, of the material 140 and the material bed”), transmitting, by the first image capturing device, the first image to a main control device (See para. [0073] “These cameras can then route their output to a computer for processing”), and searching, by the main control device, the at least one target area on the workpiece through the first image (See pare.[0073] “By viewing the CNC machine 100 in operation and analyzing the image data it can, for example, be determined if the CNC machine 100 is working correctly, if the CNC machine 100 is performing optimally, the current status of the CNC machine 100 or subcomponents of the CNC machine 100, etc.”); and
if the resolution of the first image is sufficient to perform a feature identification step, then: performing, by the main control device, the feature identification step based on the first image, performing a contour identification and/or a material identification on the at least one specific feature in the at least one target area (see para.[0162] “The positioning of the material, oversized or otherwise, can be specified by a user, or automatically with the cameras and image recognition system. In some implementations, this can be performed by an image of the material 140 being generated on a computer screen. The user can interact with the image by indicating corners, selecting or tracing boundaries, etc. The interaction can be with a touch-screen interface, mouse clicks selecting positions on the screen that map to the material reference points, etc. In another implementation, the software can determine corners by identifying, from image data of the material, corners of arbitrary angle, for example, approximately 90, 75, 60, 45, or 30 degrees. Recognition of standard shapes, such as polygons, circles, ellipses, can also be identified either in association with the pass-through cutting features described herein or during any other processes executed by the CNC machine 100.”); and performing a laser processing step, controlling, by the main control device, a laser module to perform a laser process on the specific features based on a result of the feature identification step (See para.[0048] “ The CNC machine 100 can also execute operation of a motion plan for causing movement of the movable head. As the movable head moves, the movable head can deliver electromagnetic energy to effect a change in the material 140 that is at least partially contained within the interior space.”);
if the resolution of the first image is insufficient to perform the feature identification step, then: performing a fine positioning step, controlling, by the main control device, a second image capturing device to shoot the at least one target area and generate a second image, and receiving, by the main control device, the second image; performing, by the main control device, the feature identification step based on the second image, performing the contour identification and/or the material identification on the at least one specific feature in the at least one target area; and performing the laser processing step [Examiner” note: Shapiro discloses the method including the resolution of the first image is sufficient. Therefore the contingent limitation of insufficient of the resolution of the first image is not required under required by the broadest reasonable interpretation.]
Regarding claim 9, Shapiro teaches the laser processing step further comprises the step of performing, by the main control device, computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) modeling based on a result of the contour identification, and performing processing path planning of the laser process based on a result of the CAD/CAM modeling (See para.[0064]-[0065] “CAD files or other drawing files that can be interpreted to describe the object or operations similarly to any of the examples above…FIG. 3A is a diagram illustrating one example of an SVG source file 310, consistent with some implementations of the current subject matter. FIG. 3B is an example of a graphical representation 320 of the cut path 330 in the CNC machine, consistent with some implementations of the current subject matter. FIG. 3C is a diagram illustrating the machine file 340 that would result in a machine creating the cut path 330, created from the source file 310, consistent with some implementations of the current subject matter. The example source file 310 represents a work surface that is 640×480 units with a 300×150 unit rectangle whose top left corner is located 100 units to the right and 100 units down from the top-left corner of the work surface. A computer program can then convert the source file 310 into a machine file 340 that can be interpreted by the CNC machine 100 to take the actions illustrated in FIG. 3B. The conversion can take place on a local computer where the source files reside on the CNC machine 100, etc..”)
Regarding claim 10, Shapiro teaches the laser processing step further comprises the step of adjusting, by the main control device, parameters of a laser source of the laser module based on a result of the material identification (see pare.[0055] “The head 160, in some implementations, can be configured to include a combination of optics, electronics, and mechanical systems that can, in response to commands, cause a laser beam or electromagnetic radiation to be delivered to cut or engrave the material 140. The CNC machine 100 can also execute operation of a motion plan for causing movement of the movable head. As the movable head moves, the movable head can deliver electromagnetic energy to effect a change in the material 140 that is at least partially contained within the interior space. In one implementation, the position and orientation of the optical elements inside the head 160 can be varied to adjust the position, angle, or focal point of a laser beam.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761