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 .
This is response to Application 18/378,072 filed on 10/09/2023. Claims 1-9 are pending in the office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CHINA on 01/17/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202310117707 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 2 and figure 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: step 1 – step 14, step 21- step 27; step 271-276; steps 31-32; steps 321-326, step 33; steps 331-step 333, steps 34-step 38; steps 41-43 and steps between; step 52- step 55, and step 61-step 64 and steps between; step 71- step 76 and steps between; and step 81- step 83. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1: line 15, after “selection;” inserts -- and --.
As per claim 2: line 30, after “established;” inserts -- and --.
As per claim 3: line 58, after “repeated;” inserts -- and --.
As per claim 4: line 58, after “repeated;” inserts -- and --.
As per claim 5-9, has similar issue as above, need to be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
As per claims 1-9: the claimed invention is directed to a mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: claim 1 is directed to “a method” which is considered as “a process”. Thus, it falls into one of four categories statutory of inventions (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 is broadest reasonable interpretation to describe a mathematical concept, such as:
step 1: recited the data information (i.e.., a surface mount machine parameter and production data) for mathematical concept,
step 2: recited the step of gathering and assigning data information (i.e., grouping placement points in a row to obtain dot array rows).
Steps 3-7 are directed to mathematical process (i.e., encoding, decoding, calculating, using generic algorithm, comparison, and selection).
Step 8, directed to the mathematical result output.
Hence, claim 1 is directed to the mathematical process which is a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Claim 1 does/do not recited (1) additional element in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those addition elements individual or combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim itself does not include additional element either from claim language, specification, and drawings. The claim list the step of mathematical concept and maybe solving the mathematical problem by using pencil and paper, not even computer or other device involve. Even the claim preamble texted “a surface mount machine”, but it does not active involve with the mathematical process (Step 2A, Prong two analysis: No).
Step 2B analysis:
Claim 1 is purely mental concept to solving mathematical process without include additional elements and insufficient extra-solution activity which do not provide an inventive concepted (Step 2B: No).
Thus, claim 1 is not eligibility subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
As per claims 2-9: are further mathematical concept from the claim 1. There are still a mathematical concepted and insignificant extra-solution activity which do not provide any inventive concepted.
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 1-9 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.
As per claim 1:
In step 4: recited “outputting them” unclear which one reference to “them” in the claim language?
Also recited the limitations:
at step 6, based on a crossover operator, operating each chromosome and updating the placement path optimization result by comparison and selection;
at step 7, based on a mutation operator, operating each chromosome and updating the placement path optimization result by comparison and selection;
These limitations area unclear to one of ordinary skill in the arts for operating each chromosome and updating the placement path optimization result by comparison and selection to what result or value in these steps.
As per claim 2-9 are also rejected because are depended directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, Wai Man (hereinafter Chan) (U.S. Pub. 2013/0132042) in view of Eshelman et al., (U.S. Pub. 2002/0083026).
As per claim 1: Chan teaches a method for combinatorial layout design with placement path, comprise:
at step 2, grouping placement points in a row to obtain dot array rows (‘042, fig. 3-fig. 6b, dot array, fig. 8a-8b, horizontal (row) orientation parameter equals to 0 and vertical (column) orientation parameter equal to 1, these parameters are used to control the orientation of each individual cavity 108 in a virtual multi-cavity group 104, see par. [0086] and fig. 9a-10b and dot array as fig. 11);
at step 3, encoding the row grouping results of the placement points to generate a chromosome population (‘042, fig. 1, encoding, par. [0011], par. [0015], par. [0029], fig. 2, encoding genotypes between shape domain and GA domain, par. [0079]);
at step 4, decoding the chromosomes (‘042, fig. 1, decoding, par. [0011], par. [0015], par. [0029], fig. 2, decoding, par. [0079]) to obtain column grouping (i.e., vertical orientation) results of the placement points within the dot array rows, converting the column grouping results into placement path optimization results, calculating the placement path lengths, and outputting them (fig. 21, 298 cost runner and 306 flow path balance 306 and also see fig. 22, path length);
at step 5, setting parameters and loop conditions for the genetic algorithm (‘042, fig. 1, loop condition for generic algorithm (GA), fig. 2, stop criteria met 136 for GA, par. [0079]);
at step 6, based on a crossover operator, operating each chromosome and updating the placement path optimization result by comparison and selection (‘042, fig. 1, crossover operation, par. [0029], fig. 2, apply crossover 128, par. [0079] and compare with the terminal condition 136 and next generation);
at step 7, based on a mutation operator, operating each chromosome and updating the placement path optimization result by comparison and selection (‘042, fig. 1, mutation operation, par. [0029], fig. 2, apply mutation 132, par. [0079], and compare with the terminal condition 136 and next generation);
at step 8, outputting the optimal placement path optimization result (‘042, fig. 2, output results 138, par. [0079]).
Chan does not teach a placement path optimization method of a surface mount machine, comprise: at step 1, obtaining a surface mount machine parameter and a circuit board production data.
Eshelman teaches a placement path optimization method of a surface mount machine, comprise: at step 1, obtaining a surface mount machine parameter and a circuit board production data (‘026, fig. 1, surface mount machines 1 and 3, par. [0016], fig. 2, control parameter 103, par. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claim invention to combine Eshelman and Chan to use Eshelman’s optimizer module to integrate to Chan’s Generic Algorithm (GA) to improve result with less error for the machines used in assembly of surface mount devices (SMDs) and other components onto printed circuit boards (PCBs) (‘026, par. [0002] [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination limitations recited in claim 2, comprise: the placement path optimization method of claim 1, wherein the specific process of obtaining the surface mount machine parameter and the circuit board production data in step 1 comprises the following steps:
at step 11, the surface mount machine parameter is obtained; the surface mount machine parameter comprises a total number H of suction heads, and an index of the suction heads in a sequence of increasing along X axis is numbered as h E[1,...,H], and a spacing between the suction heads is DI;
at step 12, the circuit board production data is obtained; the circuit board production data comprises a total number P of placement points, a sequence number of each placement point is pE[1,...,P], an array xyn0 with a row number 3 and a column number P is initialized, the first two rows of the array store the coordinate of each placement point, the third row stores placement point number, and the X coordinate and Y coordinate of the P-th placement point are xyn0(1,p) and xyn0(2,p), where its placement point number is xyn0(3,p)=p;
at step 13, each placement point is sorted in an increasing sequence of Y coordinates: i0=sort(xyn0(2,:)), where sort performs sorting on components in the array in an increasing sequence and returns an index of the sorted components in the original array, xyno=xyno(:,i0);
":" represents obtaining all values of this dimension in auto increment manner, and xyno(2,:) represents obtaining Y coordinates of all placement points, which are described below:
"1:1: P" represents an array increased with an increment of 1 from the start amount 1 to the end amount P, i.e. [1,...,P], "P:-1:1" represents an array increased with an increment of -1 from the start amount P to 1, i.e. [P,P-1,...,1]; since the auto increment (increment 1) search is often used, 1:1:P is simplified as 1:P; when indexing is performed on the array, if the start amount is 1 and the end amount is just the number of the components in the dimension, xyn0(2,1:P) is further simplified as xyn0(2,:);
Xyn0(:,i0) represents obtaining each column in the xyn0 in the sequence of the array i0, xyn0=xyn0(:,i0) refers to re-storing xyn0(:,i0) into xyn0 so as to re-sort each column in xyno based on the array io;
notes: the sort result is described; if the original array before sorting is 01=[2 3 1], the results of the array sorted in increasing sequence are 02=[1 2 3], and thus the sequence of each component of 02 in 01 is 03=sort(0i)=[31 2], namely, 02=01(03) is always established;
at step 14, a total number of PAP cycles is K=[P/H], where the symbol [] refers to performing up-rounding on the value therein, and a number of suction heads performing mounting in the last period is H1=P-(K-1)*H;
wherein * represents a multiplication sign.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGHIA M DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5973. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
NGHIA M. DOAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2851
/NGHIA M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights