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 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 limitations are:
“… a first model generation unit …”, “… a second model generation unit …”, ”… an extraction unit …”, ”… a model creation unit …”, and ”… a determination unit …”, in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 along with their dependents.
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 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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “device” which is a manufacture.
STEP 2 PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. The claim specifically recites multiple mathematical abstractions.
a second model generation unit configured to generate a plurality of matching models by rotating and/or inverting the original model;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical transformations (calculations) to generate the plurality of matching models by rotating and/or inverting.
an extraction unit configured to match each of the plurality of matching models to the original model and extract aligned portions of the respective matching models with the original model as matching sections;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to perform pattern matching on aligned portions.
a model creation unit configured to create a matching aggregate model by aggregating the matching sections extracted in a state conforming to the original model and synthesizing the matching sections;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to perform aggregation and matching on sections.
a determination unit configured to compare the original model with the matching aggregate model and make a determination of a feature point on the workpiece; and
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to match patterns and decide a feature point.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
a first model generation unit configured to obtain shape data of a workpiece to be set and generate an original model of the workpiece based on the shape data;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is pre-solution data gathering activity of gathering the data of the workpiece to create an original model.
a display unit configured to display the feature point in a highlightable manner, along with an image of the workpiece, on a display screen of a display device based on a determination result of the determination unit.
MPEP 2106.05(f) – These are generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is post-solution activity of displaying.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to mathematical abstractions, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by further specifying the manner of performing the recited determination by determining presence or absence of the feature point based on rotational or inverse symmetry (claim 2) and conditionally executing a secondary determination process (claim 3). The claims remain mathematical concepts. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claims 4-6:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying internal steps of the secondary determination search by ranking by match rates, extracting non-matching sections, referring to a pattern table of combination patterns with use priorities, and creating and comparing determination candidates (claim 4), in priority order (claim 5), until the lowest priority pattern is reached (claim 6). The claims remain mathematical concepts. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claim 7:
This claim merely narrows the abstract idea by adding a thinning process and a checking process by contour detection, convex hull computation, and re-superimposition, which are mathematical calculations and evaluative judgments. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2 PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. The claim specifically recites multiple mathematical abstractions.
generating, by a second model generation unit, a plurality of matching models by rotating and/or inverting the original model;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical transformations (calculations) to generate the plurality of matching models by rotating and/or inverting.
matching, by an extraction unit, each of the plurality of matching models to the original model and extracting aligned portions of the respective matching models with the original model as matching sections;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to perform pattern matching on aligned portions.
creating, by a model creation unit, a matching aggregate model by aggregating the matching sections extracted in a state conforming to the original model and synthesizing the matching sections;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to perform aggregation and matching on sections.
comparing, by a determination unit, the original model with the matching aggregate model and determining a feature point on the workpiece; and
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to match patterns and decide a feature point.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
obtaining, by a first model generation unit, shape data of a workpiece to be set, and generating an original model of the workpiece based on the shape data;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is pre-solution data gathering activity of gathering the data of the workpiece to create an original model.
displaying, by a display unit, the feature point in a highlightable manner, along with an image of the workpiece, on a display screen of a display device based on a determination result of the determination.
MPEP 2106.05(f) – These are generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is post-solution activity of displaying.
Conclusion: Claim 8 is directed to mathematical abstractions, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by further specifying the manner of performing the recited determination by determining presence or absence of the feature point based on rotational or inverse symmetry (claim 9) and conditionally executing a secondary determination process (claim 10). The claims remain mathematical concepts. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claims 11-13:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying internal steps of the secondary determination search by ranking by match rates, extracting non-matching sections, referring to a pattern table of combination patterns with use priorities, and creating and comparing determination candidates (claim 11), in priority order (claim 12), until the lowest priority pattern is reached (claim 13). The claims remain mathematical concepts. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claim 14:
This claim merely narrows the abstract idea by adding a thinning process and a checking process by contour detection, convex hull computation, and re-superimposition, which are mathematical calculations and evaluative judgments. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “non-transitory, computer readable storage medium” which is a manufacture.
STEP 2 PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. The claim specifically recites multiple mathematical abstractions.
generating, by a second model generation unit, a plurality of matching models by rotating and/or inverting the original model;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical transformations (calculations) to generate the plurality of matching models by rotating and/or inverting.
matching, by an extraction unit, each of the plurality of matching models to the original model and extracting aligned portions of the respective matching models with the original model as matching sections;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to perform pattern matching on aligned portions.
creating, by a model creation unit, a matching aggregate model by aggregating the matching sections extracted in a state conforming to the original model and synthesizing the matching sections;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to perform aggregation and matching on sections.
comparing, by a determination unit, the original model with the matching aggregate model and determining a feature point on the workpiece; and
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation/formula.
In this case this is a set of mathematical calculations to match patterns and decide a feature point.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
obtaining, by a first model generation unit, shape data of a workpiece to be set, and generating an original model of the workpiece based on the shape data;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is pre-solution data gathering activity of gathering the data of the workpiece to create an original model.
displaying, by a display unit, the feature point in a highlightable manner, along with an image of the workpiece, on a display screen of a display device based on a determination result of the determination.
MPEP 2106.05(f) – These are generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is post-solution activity of displaying.
Conclusion: Claim 15 is directed to mathematical abstractions, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by further specifying the manner of performing the recited determination by determining presence or absence of the feature point based on rotational or inverse symmetry (claim 16) and conditionally executing a secondary determination process (claim 17). The claims remain mathematical concepts. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claims 18-20:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying internal steps of the secondary determination search by ranking by match rates, extracting non-matching sections, referring to a pattern table of combination patterns with use priorities, and creating and comparing determination candidates (claim 18), in priority order (claim 19), until the lowest priority pattern is reached (claim 20). The claims remain mathematical concepts. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claim 21:
This claim merely narrows the abstract idea by adding a thinning process and a checking process by contour detection, convex hull computation, and re-superimposition, which are mathematical calculations and evaluative judgments. This does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this application.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of MASUDA et al. “Extraction of Symmetry Properties Using Correlation with Rotated and Reflected Images” (1993), in view of SAKAI et al. US7158853B2 (2006), and in view of KITAJIMA et al. US20150016731A1 (2015), instant independent claims 1, 8, and 15, would not have been anticipated or obvious by one of or ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
MASUDA et al. “Extraction of Symmetry Properties Using Correlation with Rotated and Reflected Images” (1993) teaches detecting the symmetry of an image by rotating and mirroring copies of it, correlating each copy against the original.
SAKAI et al. US7158853B2 (2006) teaches generating 2D unfolded models of sheet metal parts from CAD shape data and comparing part shapes by flipping and rotating them to find similar and symmetrical parts, with user displayed results.
KITAJIMA et al. US20150016731A1 (2015) teaches generating a model edge image of a target from 3D CAD data, creating multiple rotated/scaled/translated copies of that model, and compositing the copies into a single combined region used for template matching.
For claim 1, none of the prior art on record, either alone in combination, teaches the limitations “a model creation unit configured to create a matching aggregate model by aggregating the matching sections extracted in a state conforming to the original model and synthesizing the matching sections; a determination unit configured to compare the original model with the matching aggregate model and make a determination of a feature point on the workpiece; and a display unit configured to display the feature point in a highlightable manner, along with an image of the workpiece, on a display screen of a display device based on a determination result of the determination unit.”, in combination with the remaining limitations if the claim.
Dependents 2-7 would be allowable for depending on claim 1 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 8, none of the prior art on record, either alone in combination, teaches the limitations “creating, by a model creation unit, a matching aggregate model by aggregating the matching sections extracted in a state conforming to the original model and synthesizing the matching sections; comparing, by a determination unit, the original model with the matching aggregate model and make a determination of a feature point on the workpiece; and displaying, by a display unit, the feature point in a highlightable manner, along with an image of the workpiece, on a display screen of a display device based on a determination result of the determination.”, in combination with the remaining limitations if the claim.
Dependents 9-14 would be allowable for depending on claim 8 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 15, none of the prior art on record, either alone in combination, teaches the limitations “creating, by a model creation unit, a matching aggregate model by aggregating the matching sections extracted in a state conforming to the original model and synthesizing the matching sections; comparing, by a determination unit, the original model with the matching aggregate model and make a determination of a feature point on the workpiece; and displaying, by a display unit, the feature point in a highlightable manner, along with an image of the workpiece, on a display screen of a display device based on a determination result of the determination.”, in combination with the remaining limitations if the claim.
Dependents 16-21 would be allowable for depending on claim 8 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190026399A1 teaches a system that compares CAD data of input new design shape with template CAD data registered in a database, and when the CAD data of the new design shape includes the template CAD data, diverts template mesh data corresponding to the template CAD data to reduce cost for creating mesh data.
US20220299974A1 teaches a method and system for automatic identification of a primary manufacturing process (PMP) from a three-dimensional (3D) model of a product. The method includes generating a plurality of images corresponding to a plurality of views of the product based on the 3D model of the product; determining a plurality of confidence score vectors, based on the plurality of images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, REHANA PERVEEN, can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights