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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/24/2025.
Claims 1-20, 27-28 and 38 are canceled. Claims 21-26, 29-37 and 39-43 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have fixed the deficiencies set forth in the previous Office Action hence the respective rejections/objections have been withdrawn, except for those rejections/objections if still maintained or newly added in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the rejections for claims under 35 U.S.C § 103, the arguments have been fully considered but are deemed moot, in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 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.
Claims 21, 23-26, 29-37 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLEMENT (US 2019/0278250 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “CLEMENT”) in view of Fazeny (US 20060196326 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Fazeny”)
Regarding claim 21, CLEMENT teaches:
A computing system comprising:
at least one processor ([0112]: “The methodologies described herein are, in one or more embodiments, performable by a machine which includes one or more processors that accept code segments containing instructions”);
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0112]: “The processing system further may include a memory subsystem including main RAM and/or a static RAM, and/or ROM”); and
program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor ([0113]) such that the computing system is configured to:
receive a first set of one or more user inputs that collectively (i) identify a region of the first material that includes the pattern and (ii) comprise a request to generate a design corresponding to the pattern disposed on the first material (FIG. 9B and [0103]: “the user is able to directly access templates to select piece-parts, manipulate them individually or in groups or in their entirety wherein these are then directly processed by the CNC machine. In this manner a user may rapidly and easily establish a single piece-part to process or establish and process multiple piece-parts upon a new work piece or upon a previously used work piece in order to reduce waste etc. The manipulations available to a user may be limited, for example, to translations and rotations in order to fit the piece-part to a work-piece such as depicted with first part 960. In other embodiments the user may be able to scale a piece-part in conjunction with other transformations as well as combine them with others, replicate, copy, paste etc. Hence, for example, the user may add bolt holes to first and second piece parts 960 and 970 respectively or overlap them wherein the combined profile is processed”. This teaches the user can identify a region of the workpiece with pattern 960/970, generate a design corresponding to the pattern, such as moving/rotating/translating the pattern to “fit” the pattern to “reduce waste”);
based on the received first set of one or more user inputs, (i) generate the design and (ii) cause a visualization of a design corresponding to the pattern to be presented (FIG. 9B and [0102-0103]: based on the first set of user inputs, a design with pattern 960 and 970 is generated and presented to the user for visualization);
receive a second set of one or more user inputs indicating a manipulation to the design that defines one type of change to be effected on a material by the CNC machine to fabricate the design, the one type of change comprising (i) a cut (FIG. 9B and [0103-0104]: receive a second set of user inputs defining a cut on the material according to pattern 960/970);
cause a visualization of the design including the manipulation to be presented overlaying a visualization of a second material positioned on the material bed (FIG. 9B and [0102]: “Subsequently, as depicted in fourth schematic image 900D the user has finished selecting and adjusting the piece-parts depicted as first and second parts 960 and 970 respectively”. 900D shows the pattern 960 overlaying on the sheet positioned on the material bed);
generate a motion plan for fabricating the design including the manipulation on the second material ([0088]: “Alternatively, in "Library" they may select a piece-part from a list of piece-parts which once selected may be translated and/or rotated to provide a suitable fit to the offcut or remaining portion wherein if confirmed, through a subsequent menu or pop-up menu not depicted for clarity, is then either cut at that point or it is added to the cutting sequence for execution once the outlines 650 are processed during the cutting sequence to be executed”. This teaches to generate a motion plan to cut the sheet based on the manipulated pattern); and
cause the CNC machine to execute the motion plan by delivering electromagnetic energy ([0102]: “CNC laser cutting system”) on the second material to effect one or more changes on the second material and thereby fabricate the design including the manipulation on the second material ([0088]: as recited above).
In the embodiment shown in FIG.s 9A and 9B, CLEMENT is silent about where the pattern/template is from. CLEMENT does not explicitly teach to receive, via at least one camera mounted to an interior surface of a computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) machine, image data of at least a pattern disposed on a first material positioned on a material bed of the CNC machine; and based on the received image data, cause a visualization of a design corresponding to the pattern to be presented.
However, CLEMENT teaches in embodiment recited in [0101]:
receive, via at least one camera mounted to an interior surface (FIG. 3 and claim 3: “the camera is either: attached to the robot of the machine tool and is employed for both acquiring the images of the region of the work area”. This teaches the capturing is within an interior portion of the CNC machine) of a computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) machine, image data of at least a pattern disposed on a first material positioned on a material bed of the CNC machine ([0101]: “a template of the piece-part to be cut may exist, e.g. from a previous processing, from a template provided, etc. For example, a wooden or plastic template may have been formed by a customer at a worksite. Accordingly, its image may be captured upon the work-piece or discretely, processed, and then the pattern employed upon the CNC machine”. This teaches to capture/receive image data comprising a pattern/template disposed on a wood or plastic);
based on the received image data, generate a design corresponding to the pattern ([0101]: “Accordingly, its image may be captured upon the work-piece or discretely, processed, and then the pattern employed upon the CNC machine”. This teaches to generate the pattern/template from the image data taken from the wood or plastic).
The template/pattern generated from CLEMENT’s embodiment in [0101] can be used as the template in CLEMENT’s embodiment shown in FIG. 9B (CLEMENT teaches in [0103] that the pattern can be imported from “image file”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CLEMENT’s embodiment shown in FIG. 9B based on the teaching of CLEMENT’s embodiment in [0101], to further make the computing system to receive, via at least one camera mounted to an interior surface of a computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) machine, image data of at least a pattern disposed on a first material positioned on a material bed of the CNC machine; based on the received image data, generate a design corresponding to the pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help make use of a template of pattern already existed, as CLEMENT suggests in [0101].
CLEMENT teaches all the limitations except the design defines at least two different types of change to be effected on a material by the CNC machine to fabricate the design, the at least two different types of change comprising at least two different ones of (i) a cut, (ii) an engrave, or (iii) an etch; and wherein each different type of change defined by the manipulation to the design is presented in a visually distinct manner within the visualization of the design including the manipulation.
However, Fazeny teaches in an analogous art:
the design defines at least two different types of change to be effected on a material by the CNC machine to fabricate the design, the at least two different types of change comprising at least two different ones of (i) a cut, (ii) an engrave, or (iii) an etch (FIG. 7 and [0071]: “all of the cutting lines 5, 64 are set automatically, once the engraved patterns and the inks to be printed by it have been individually defined on the displayed stamp plate 5 by an operator …”. FIG. 7 shows the design includes cutting and engraving); and wherein each different type of change to the design is presented in a visually distinct manner within the visualization of the design (FIG.s 6 and 7, and [0069-0071]: the output device 61 presents in a visually distinct manner the cutting and engraving patterns).
The teaching from Fazeny of a design comprising cutting and engraving can be incorporated into the teaching of CLEMENT. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CLEMENT based on the teaching of Fazeny, to make the computing system to receive the second set of one or more user inputs indicating a manipulation to the design that defines at least two different types of change to be effected on a material by the CNC machine to fabricate the design, the at least two different types of change comprising at least two different ones of (i) a cut, (ii) an engrave, or (iii) an etch, wherein each different type of change defined by the manipulation to the design is presented in a visually distinct manner within the visualization of the design including the manipulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help enable “a simple and flexible manufacturing process”, as Fazeny suggests in [0003].
Regarding claim 23, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 21 from which the claim depends.
CLEMENT further teaches:
The manipulation comprises a first manipulation(FIG. 9B and [0103]: “the user is able to directly access templates to select piece-parts, manipulate them individually or in groups or in their entirety wherein these are then directly processed by the CNC machine. In this manner a user may rapidly and easily establish a single piece-part to process or establish and process multiple piece-parts upon a new work piece or upon a previously used work piece in order to reduce waste etc. The manipulations available to a user may be limited, for example, to translations and rotations in order to fit the piece-part to a work-piece such as depicted with first part 960. In other embodiments the user may be able to scale a piece-part in conjunction with other transformations as well as combine them with others, replicate, copy, paste etc. Hence, for example, the user may add bolt holes to first and second piece parts 960 and 970 respectively or overlap them wherein the combined profile is processed”. This teaches a first manipulation of moving/rotating/translating the pattern to “fit” the pattern to “reduce waste); and
the computing system further comprising program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to:
receive a third set of one or more user inputs indicating a second manipulation to the design (FIG. 9B and [0103]: “the user may add bolt holes to first and second piece parts 960 and 970 respectively or overlap them wherein the combined profile is processed”); and
cause a visualization of the design including the first manipulation and the second manipulation to be presented overlaying the visualization of the second material positioned on the material bed (as recited in the [0102-0103] above).
Regarding claim 24, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 23 from which the claim depends.
CLEMENT further teaches:
the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to cause the visualization of the design including the first manipulation and the second manipulation to be presented comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to replace the visualization of the design including the first manipulation with the visualization of the design including the first manipulation and the second manipulation (FIG. 9B and [0102]: “Subsequently, as depicted in fourth schematic image 900D the user has finished selecting and adjusting the piece-parts depicted as first and second parts 960 and 970 respectively”. 900D shows the pattern 960, which is further rotated from the pattern 950 in 900C; And [0103]: “the user may add bolt holes to first and second piece parts 960 and 970 respectively or overlap them wherein the combined profile is processed”. The old design is replaced with new design with further rotation and added bolt holes).
Regarding claim 25, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 23 from which the claim depends.
CLEMENT further teaches:
the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to generate the motion plan for fabricating the design including the first manipulation comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to generate the motion plan for fabricating the design including the first manipulation and the second manipulation ([0088]: “Alternatively, in "Library" they may select a piece-part from a list of piece-parts which once selected may be translated and/or rotated to provide a suitable fit to the offcut or remaining portion wherein if confirmed, through a subsequent menu or pop-up menu not depicted for clarity, is then either cut at that point or it is added to the cutting sequence for execution once the outlines 650 are processed during the cutting sequence to be executed”. This teaches to generate a motion plan to fabricate the pattern including the first and second manipulation).
Regarding claim 26, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 23 from which the claim depends.
CLEMENT further teaches:
the second manipulation comprises at least one of (i) a sizing manipulation to the design, (ii) a positioning manipulation to the design, or (iii) a rotating manipulation to the design (FIG. 9B and [0102]: “Subsequently, as depicted in fourth schematic image 900D the user has finished selecting and adjusting the piece-parts depicted as first and second parts 960 and 970 respectively”. 900D shows the pattern 960, which is further rotated from the pattern 950 in 900C).
Regarding claim 29, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 21 from which the claim depends.
CLEMENT further teaches:
the program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to, based on the received first set of one or more user inputs, cause the visualization of the design to be presented comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to, based on the received first set of one or more user inputs, cause the visualization of the design to be presented overlaying the visualization of the second material positioned on the material bed (as recited in the rejection of claim 21, the design is based on a pattern/template from the received image data. FIG. 9B show the visualization of the design to be presented overlaying the sheet).
Regarding claim 30, CLEMENT (,together with Fazeny) teach(es), in the embodiments described in FIG. 9B and [0101-0103], all the limitations of claim 21 from which the claim depends, but does not explicitly teach the second material comprises the first material.
However, CLEMENT teaches, in another embodiment described in [0099], that “alternatively, the user may directly mark the workpiece with a marking material, e.g. chalk, ink, paint, etc. that is captured by the machine's imaging system and processed to generate the instructions for the machine. Accordingly, in first image 800A the display is depicted in image acquisition mode wherein the work piece 850 is depicted with traces for previously cut or to be cut piece-parts. Accordingly, there is depicted an outline 830 comprised of freehand marked lines 820 and a curve 810, the curve including an indicator 815 also marked by the user. Subsequently, as depicted in second image 800B the machine processes the outline 830 to generate profile 840 …”. This teaches to generate the design patten/template from the markings on the workpiece.
The design patten/template generated in CLEMENT’s embodiment described in [0099] can be incorporated into CLEMENT’s embodiment shown in FIG.s 9A and 9B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CLEMENT’s embodiment (in conjunction with teaching of Fazeny) shown in FIG. 9B based on the teaching of CLEMENT’s embodiment in [0099], to further make the computing system wherein the design pattern/template is generated from the marking on the sheet, i.e., wherein the second material comprises the first material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since the captured image can help to make the pattern on the workpiece, as CLEMENT suggests in [0099].
Regarding claim 31, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 21 from which the claim depends.
CLEMENT further teaches:
generate the visualization of the second material positioned on the material bed based on image data of at least the second material captured via the at least one camera ([Claim 1]: “acquiring a plurality of images of the region of the work area with a camera forming part of the machine tool to define a geometry of a sheet within the work area of the machine tool”).
Claim 32 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions to implement operations conducted by the computing system of claim 21 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions to implement operations conducted by the computing system of claims 23, 24, 25, 26 and 30 respectively with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claims 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 23, 24, 25, 26 and 30, respectively.
Claim 40 recites method comprising operation steps conducted by the computing system of claim 21 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 40 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 41, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 21 from which the claim depends.
CLEMENT further teaches:
the visualization of the design including the manipulation that is presented overlaying the visualization of the second material (i) does not occlude the visualization of the second material from view (FIG. 9B and [0102]: ““Subsequently, as depicted in fourth schematic image 900D the user has finished selecting and adjusting the piece-parts depicted as first and second parts 960 and 970 respectively”. The visualization of manipulated patterns 960 and 970 does not occlude the visualization of the sheet positioned on the material bed) and (ii) is editable to further manipulate the design based on user input ([0103]: “for example, the user may add bolt holes to first and second piece parts 960 and 970 respectively”. This teaches the user can further add bolt holes to further manipulate the design).
Claim 42 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions to implement operations conducted by the computing system of claim 41 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 42 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 41.
Claims 22, 33 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLEMENT in view of Fazeny, and in further view of Gallucci (US 2012/0197427 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter as “Gallucci”).
Regarding claim 22, CLEMENT-Fazeny teach(es) all the limitations of claim 21 from which the claim depends, but does not explicitly teach the visualization of the second material positioned on the material bed comprises a visualization of (i) the material bed and (ii) any materials positioned on the material bed.
However, Gallucci teaches in an analogous art:
capture image of (i) the material bed and (ii) any materials positioned on the material bed (FIG. 1 and [0036]: the camera 9 is positioned to capture image of the material bed 2 and the article 4 positioned on the material bed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Gallucci’s teaching into CLEMENT-Fazeny, to make the computing system wherein the visualization of the second material positioned on the material bed comprises a visualization of (i) the material bed and (ii) any materials positioned on the material bed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can “enable an increase in the productivity”, as Gallucci teaches in [0041].
Claim 33 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions to implement operations conducted by the computing system of claim 22 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 22.
Claim 43 recites method comprising operation steps conducted by the computing system of claim 22 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 43 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 22.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights