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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are rejected below.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, and 6-8 are 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 “device” in claim 1 lacks any structure. The “device” is made up of units. These units do not have an inherent structure and appear to be software per se.
The video acquisition unit is configured to acquires a video. This does not state it is actual a camera or a machine that takes the video rather it just acquires it.
The same is with the machine program acquisition unit, nothing the claim states structure of any kind and it seems to just obtain to the program.
The feature detection unit is used for analysis and has no structure.
The data associating unit just associates data again with no structure.
All of these units appear to be software. The specification even state “a storage medium stores computer-readable instructions with which one or a plurality of processors perform: acquiring a machining video of a numerical controller; acquiring a machining program of the numerical controller; detecting a characteristic frame among frames included in the machining video; detecting a block instructing a machine tool to perform a characteristic operation among blocks included in the machining program; and associating the characteristic frame with the block instructing the machine tool to perform the characteristic operation.” As such, this claim is considered as software per se and is not directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-3 and 6 do not add in any structure or exceptions that would overcome the issues with claims 1.
Claim 7 has the same “units” as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasoning as above.
Claim 8 defines a storage medium storing computer readable instructions. However, storage medium is not specifically defined in the specification and therefore could be considered a carrier wave and is not directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
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.
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 (unit) 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:
Video acquisition “unit”, a machining program acquisition “unit”, a video feature detection “unit”, a machining program feature “unit” a data association “unit” in claim 1.
An execution time calculating “unit” in claim 2.
Video acquisition “unit”, a machining program acquisition “unit”, a video feature detection “unit”, a machining program feature “unit” a data association “unit” in claim 7.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 and being interpreted to have a manual input (claim 4) and some type of sensing unit for light or motion (claim 5).
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) 1, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Putman (U.S. PG Pub 2019/0299536).
As to claim 1, 7 and 8 Putman teaches a video analysis device comprising: a video acquisition unit configured to acquire a machining video of a numerical controller [0024 additive manufacturing printer 115 can include one or more image sensors 120 for capturing images and/or video during the printing process. The image sensor(s) 120 can be configured to capture images (or video) of an object while and/or after each layer of the object is printed. Image sensor 120 can be, for example, a charge coupled device (CCD) or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor like what might be used in a digital still and/or video camera.]; a machining program acquisition unit configured to acquire a machining program of the numerical controller[0021 At a high level, the basic components of additive manufacture system 100, according to some embodiments, include numerical control code generator 110,]; a video feature detection unit configured to detect a characteristic frame among frames included in the machining video [ 0024 additive manufacturing printer 115 can include one or more image sensors 120 for capturing images and/or video during the printing process. The image sensor(s) 120 can be configured to capture images (or video) of an object while and/or after each layer of the object is printed. Image sensor 120 can be, for example, a charge coupled device (CCD) or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor like what might be used in a digital still and/or video camera.]; a machining program feature detection unit configured to detect a block instructing a machine tool to perform a characteristic operation among blocks included in the machining program [ 0067 For example, in some embodiments, the image analyzer can communicate the discovered correlations and/or instructions for adaptively adjusting print parameter settings to numerical control code generator 110, control module 160 and/or to any other device. The numerical control code generator 110 and/or control module 160 can then use the information to make adjustments to the print parameters in the numerical control code for any subsequent layers of an object that is currently being printed. In some embodiments, print parameters can be adjusted so that a next layer or any future layer compensates for anomalies found in a prior layer. For example, if an unintended gap is detected in a print layer, the numerical control code for the next layer can include instructions to fill the gap when depositing the filament located above the gap. In another example, when an unintended gap is found in a lower portion of an object, the numerical control code for a symmetrical layer in the upper portion of an object can include instructions to compensate for the gap.]; and a data association unit configured to associate the characteristic frame with the block instructing the machine tool to perform the characteristic operation [0067 detecting a correlation between a detected anomaly and one or more print patterns, image analyzer 180 can provide information, data, and/or instructions which alter the manner in which one or more layers of an object being printed or one or more objects to be printed in the future are printed.].
As to claim 5, Putman teaches wherein the video feature detection unit includes an automatic detection unit that detects the characteristic frame based on at least one of a change in luminance or a change in motion (step 650 fig. 6).
As to claim 6 Putman teaches wherein the machining program feature detection unit detects the block instructing the machine tool to perform the characteristic operation based on a type of code included in the block and a coordinate value of the code [0067].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putman (U.S. PG Pub 2019/0299536) in view of Nogami (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0068203).
Putman teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4. However, this is an obvious variation and is taught by Nogami as follows:
As to claim 4, Nogami teaches wherein the video feature detection unit includes a manual detection unit that receives an input from an operator and detects the characteristic frame based on an instruction of the operator[0090].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Nogami into the system and methods of Putman. The motivation to combine is that Nogami teaches that operator can ensure the correct imagine is used for analysis by manually operating the video acquisitioning [0090].
Other prior art of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Satake (U.S. PG Pub. 2016/0291583) teaches correlating machine control to a plurality of image data.
Romanov (U.S. PG Pub. 2007/0051884) teaches enhancing a position system using smart frame rate adjustments.
Koren (U.S. PG Pub. 2002/0180960) teaches a camera for inspecting a product during manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119