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 .
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed toward a computer program per se without any structural limitations. “…software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.” See MPEP 2106.03.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the circuit part" in each of line 6 and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as line 2 of claim 1 recites a plurality of circuit parts, and therefore it is not clear as to which of these is being referred to by the claim limitations.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the circuit part " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as line 2 of claim 1 on which claim 4 depends recites a plurality of circuit parts, and therefore it is not clear as to which of these is being referred to by the claim limitations.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reclassified straight lines" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 on which claim 5 depends previously recites detecting only a singular straight line in claim 1 lines 9-10, and therefore there would only be a singular reclassified straight line in Claim 5. It is therefore not clear as to which additional reclassified straight lines is being referred to by the claim limitations.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the dashed line" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as line 8 of claim 5 on which claim 6 depends recites a plurality of dashed lines, and therefore it is not clear as to which of these is being referred to by the claim limitations.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the circuit part " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as line 2 of claim 1 on which claim 6 indirectly depends recites a plurality of circuit parts, and therefore it is not clear as to which of these is being referred to by the claim limitations.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the circuit part " in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as line 2 of claim 1 on which claim 7 depends recites a plurality of circuit parts, and therefore it is not clear as to which of these is being referred to by the claim limitations.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the circuit symbols" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 7 and claim 1 on which claim 10 depends recites only a singular circuit symbol.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the conducting wires connected to the circuit symbols" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 7 and claim 1 on which claim 10 depends recites only a singular conducting wire.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the conducting wire that inputs a signal to the circuit part" and "the conducting wire that outputs a signal to the circuit part" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the instruction to select the first circuit drawing data" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to --an instruction to select the first circuit drawing data--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the instruction for designating the detection area and the non-detection area" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to --an instruction for designating the detection area and the non-detection area--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the instruction for designating the work terminal" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to --an instruction for designating the work terminal--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the instruction to transmit the first or second circuit drawing data to the work terminal" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to --an instruction to transmit the first or second circuit drawing data to the work terminal--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the instruction to receive the conduction path data from the work terminal" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to --an instruction to receive the conduction path data from the work terminal--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the circuit part" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as line 2 of claim 15 recites a plurality of circuit parts, and therefore it is not clear as to which of these is being referred to by the claim limitations.
Claims 2-3, 8, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected based on their dependency to Claims 1 and 7, respectively, for the reasons stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections set forth above are overcome.
Claim 15 would be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection and the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth above are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Akamatsu et al., hereinafter Akamatsu, WO 2023119636 teaches a work support device that provides circuit drawing data showing a connection relationship of circuit parts to a work terminal used by a worker (Akamatsu Fig. 1 and attached translation page 2, see printed circuit board design device), the device comprising:
a conversion unit for converting first circuit drawing data created in a first data format into second circuit drawing data created in a second data format (Akamatsu Fig. 1 and attached translation page 3, see conversion unit that converts binary CAD data of the circuit diagram into text data),
a line detection unit for detecting a straight line described by the first circuit drawing data or detecting a straight line from an image area of the second circuit drawing data (Akamatsu Fig. 60 and attached translation page 34, wherein the connection detection unit detects straight lines in the circuit diagram);
a circuit symbol detection unit for detecting a circuit symbol (Akamatsu Fig. 60 and attached translation page 34, wherein circuit symbols are detected);
a communication unit for transmitting the first or second circuit drawing data to the work terminal (Akamatsu Fig. 3 and attached translation page 3, wherein a data input unit is a communication unit that inputs data including circuit diagrams).
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the following claim limitations:
the first data format being configured to represent, by geometric information, a line that forms a figure describing the circuit part, and
the second data format being configured to represent a figure describing the circuit part by a pixel;
a circuit symbol detection unit for detecting a circuit symbol excluding a conducting wire from the image area of the second circuit drawing data;
a conducting wire detection unit for detecting, as a conducting wire, a remainder after excluding the circuit symbol detected by the circuit symbol detection unit from the straight line detected by the line detection unit;
an analysis unit for analyzing conduction path data describing a result of tracing a conduction path on the first or second circuit drawing data with a line input manually by an operator on the work terminal, wherein
the analysis unit specifies the circuit part and the conducting wire through which the conduction path passes by matching the conduction path described by the conduction path data with the circuit symbol detected by the circuit symbol detection unit and the conducting wire detected by the conducting wire detection unit.
Regarding Claim 15, Akamatsu, WO 2023119636 teaches an analysis program that causes a computer to execute processing for analyzing circuit drawing data showing a connection relationship of circuit parts (Akamatsu Fig. 1 and attached translation page 2, see printed circuit board design program), wherein
the analysis program causes the computer to execute steps of
a) detecting a straight line from an image area of the circuit drawing data (Akamatsu Fig. 60 and attached translation page 34, wherein the connection detection unit detects straight lines in the circuit diagram);
b) detecting a circuit symbol (Akamatsu Fig. 60 and attached translation page 34, wherein circuit symbols are detected).
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the following claim limitations:
the circuit drawing data is configured to represent, by a pixel, a figure describing the circuit part,
b) detecting a circuit symbol excluding a conducting wire from the image area of the circuit drawing data;
c) detecting, as a conducting wire, a remainder excluding the circuit symbol detected in step b) from the straight line detected in step a); and
d) structuring the circuit symbols on the circuit drawing data and the conducting wire on the circuit drawing data according to the connection relationship, and in the step
d), the analysis program causes the computer to perform the structuring so that the circuit symbols excluding the conducting wires and the conducting wires are alternately connected.
Claims 2-14 would be allowable based on their dependency to Claim 1 for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
/ERIC D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851