DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Application No. 18/623,599, filed on 1 April 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites “the one or more tooling features”, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adler (US 2021/0012054).
Regarding claim 1, Adler discloses a method performed by a PCB design analysis system, comprising: receiving a printed circuit board (PCB) design information (¶5); analyzing the PCB design information using the PCB design analysis system, the PCB design analysis system being trained using one or more PCB design rules (¶¶5, 24); determining, using the PCB design analysis system, based at least in part, on the analysis, whether to provide a recommendation regarding an update to the PCB design (¶¶43, 70, 82, 86); based, at least in part, on determining to provide the recommendation regarding the update to the PCB design, the PCB design analysis system determining whether to provide a first recommendation corresponding to a first PCB design aspect or to provide a second recommendation corresponding to a second PCB design aspect, wherein the determination as to whether to provide the first recommendation or the second recommendation is based, at least in part, on a PCB design criterion (¶¶43, 82, 86); generating, by the PCB design analysis system, at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation; and providing, by the PCB design analysis system, the at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation to a computing device (¶¶43, 82, 86).
Regarding claim 3, Adler discloses that the first recommendation is a modification to the PCB design information (¶¶43, 82, 86).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Adler discloses that the second recommendation is a tooling modification to one or more tooling features used to fabricate a PCB based on the PCB design information (¶86).
Regarding claim 10, Adler discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) design analysis system (¶5), comprising: at least one processor and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations (Abstract, ¶6), comprising: receiving a PCB design (¶5); analyzing the PCB design using one or more learned PCB design rules (¶¶5, 24); determining, based at least in part, on the analysis and on a PCB design criterion, whether to provide a first recommendation corresponding to a first PCB design aspect or to provide a second recommendation corresponding to a second PCB design aspect (¶¶43, 82, 86); generating at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation and providing the at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation to a computing device (¶¶43, 82, 86).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Adler discloses that the first recommendation includes a PCB design modification (¶¶43, 82, 86).
Regarding claim 17, Adler discloses a system, comprising: at least one processing means and a printed circuit board (PCB) design analysis means (Abstract, ¶6) operable to: receive, from a computing device, a PCB design (¶5); analyze the PCB design using one or more learned PCB design rules (¶¶5, 24); determine, based at least in part, on the analysis and on a PCB design criterion, whether to provide a first recommendation corresponding to a first PCB design aspect or to provide a second recommendation corresponding to a second PCB design aspect (¶¶43, 82, 86); generate at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation and provide the at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation to the computing device (¶¶43, 82, 86).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 4, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler in view of Fraser (“ECAPP: A Process Planning Tool Using Artificial Intelligence”).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the one or more PCB design rules include at least one of: mechanical keep out (MKO) rules; keep out zone keep in zone (KOZKIZ) rules; and tooling design information. Fraser discloses these limitations (p. 121, ¶2, process-engineering rules; p. 122, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Adler and Fraser, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of avoiding conflicts between PCB component placement and tooling. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Adler discloses a PCB design evaluation system trained using rules to identify issues with PCB designs. Fraser teaches that the rules should include keep-out and tooling rules to prevent design components from exceeding tooling and machine constraints. The teachings of Fraser are directly applicable to Adler in the same way, so that Adler’s rules would include keep-out and tooling rules to avoid conflicts between PCB component placement and tooling.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first recommendation includes a tooling recipe associated with the modification of the PCB design information. Fraser discloses these limitations (p. 121, last ¶; p. 123, first ¶; p. 128, ‘Setup Reports’). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Adler and Fraser, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of successfully manufacturing a design. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Adler discloses a PCB design evaluation system that generates corrected PCB designs. Fraser teaches determining optimized tooling recipes for each PCB design. The teachings of Fraser are directly applicable to Adler in the same way so that Adler would similarly provide optimized tooling recipes for PCB designs in order to successfully manufacture designs.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alder in view of Lukis (US 2011/0060439).
Regarding claim 6, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the second recommendation includes a determined amount of time for modifying the one or more tooling features. Lukis discloses these limitations (¶¶65-67). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Adler and Lukis, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of having time and cost information to evaluate recommended tooling configurations. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Adler discloses a PCB design evaluation system that recommends tooling configurations. Lukis teaches providing cost and time associated with tooling. The teachings of Lukis are directly applicable to Adler in the same way so that time and cost information is available to evaluate recommended tooling configurations.
Regarding claim 7, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the second recommendation includes a determined cost for modifying the one or more tooling features; Lukis discloses these limitations (¶¶77-78, 86). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 6.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the PCB design criterion is based, at least in part, on a timing schedule; Lukis discloses these limitations (¶104). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the PCB design criterion is based, at least in part, on a determined cost associated with the second recommendation; Lukis discloses these limitations (¶104). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 6.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler in view of Liebfahrt (EP 4216010).
Regarding claim 14, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the operations further comprise: receiving feedback associated with the at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation; and updating an analysis system associated with the PCB design analysis system based, at least in part, on the feedback. Liebfahrt discloses these limitations (¶26).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Adler and Liebfahrt, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of improving the evaluation system based on user feedback. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Adler teaches a PCB design evaluation system that issues recommendations. Liebfahrt teaches that such evaluation systems should be updated based on user feedback on the recommendations. The teachings of Liebfahrt are directly applicable to Adler in the same way, so that Adler would similarly update the PCB design evaluation system based on user feedback to improve the evaluation system.
Regarding claim 18, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose means for receiving feedback associated with the at least one of the first recommendation and the second recommendation; and means for updating a knowledge base associated with the PCB design analysis means using the feedback. Liebfahrt discloses these limitations (¶¶8-9, 26). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 14.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler in view of Liebfahrt and Lukis.
Regarding claim 15, Adler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the second recommendation includes a determined amount of time for modifying the one or more tooling features. Lukis discloses these limitations (¶¶65-67). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Adler, Liebfahrt, and Lukis, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of having time and cost information to evaluate recommended tooling configurations. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Adler discloses a PCB design evaluation system that recommends tooling configurations. Lukis teaches providing cost and time associated with tooling. The teachings of Lukis are directly applicable to Adler in the same way so that time and cost information is available to evaluate recommended tooling configurations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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.
29 September 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights