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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
Claim 4 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation as follows.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a data examiner configured to:” in claim 4.
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.
Double Patenting Warning
Related and copending application 18/668,406 is noted. Ensure a clear line of demarcation is maintained between this application and related copending application 18/668,406.
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 1-5 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.
Portions of claim 1 which are considered to have indefinite limitations are
as follows:
1. A drawing data examination method for examining drawing data of a figure expressed by a B-spline curve, the drawing data being used by a drawing apparatus, the drawing data examination method comprising:
…
setting, as an examination target region of the drawing data, a region surrounded by a line segment connecting at least three or more control points adjacent to each other in the drawing data with a straight line after acquiring the coordinates;
…
determining whether the figure of the drawing data has an intersection by determining whether the examination target control point exists inside the examination target region based on the relative position.
The determining step is indefinite for the following reasons:
1) The claimed “the figure of the drawing data” is different than the previously claimed “drawing data of a figure”, thus, lacks antecedent basis in the claim and is unclear as to “examining drawing data of a figure” in this determining step; and
2) The claimed “the figure of the drawing data has an intersection” is unclear even in light of the specification as to the metes and bounds of the claimed “intersection” of the figure.
Regarding the setting step this step is unclear as to how a line segment and/or a straight line surrounds a region.
Portions of claim 2 which are considered to have indefinite limitations are
as follows:
2. The drawing data examination method according to claim 1, further comprising:
…
determining whether the figure of the drawing data has an intersection by determining whether the first examination target line segment and the second examination target line segment intersect each other based on the relative positions of the first examination target line segment and the second examination target line segment.
The determining step is indefinite for the following reason:
The claimed “the figure of the drawing data has an intersection” is unclear even in light of the specification as to the metes and bounds of the claimed “intersection” of the figure.
Claim 4 claims limitations similar to limitations discussed above for claim 1.
Portions of claim 4 which are considered to have indefinite limitations are as follows:
4. A drawing apparatus configured to examine drawing data of a figure expressed by a B-spline curve, the drawing apparatus comprising a data examiner configured to:
…
set, as an examination target region of the drawing data, a region surrounded by a line segment connecting at least three or more control points adjacent to each other in the drawing data with a straight line after acquiring the coordinates;
…
determine whether the figure of the drawing data has an intersection by determining whether the examination target control point exists inside the examination target region based on the relative position.
The determine function is indefinite for the following reasons:
1) The claimed “the figure of the drawing data” is different than the previously claimed “drawing data of a figure”, thus, lacks antecedent basis in the claim and is unclear as to “examine drawing data of a figure” in this determine function; and
2) The claimed “the figure of the drawing data has an intersection” is unclear even in light of the specification as to the metes and bounds of the claimed “intersection” of the figure.
Regarding the set function this function is unclear as to how a line segment and/or a straight line surrounds a region.
Claim 5 claims limitations similar to limitations discussed above for claim 1.
Portions of claim 5 which are considered to have indefinite limitations are as follows:
5. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to implement:
processing of acquiring coordinates representing the positions of a plurality of control points forming a B-spline curve expressing a figure of drawing data used by a drawing apparatus;
…
processing of setting, as an examination target region of the drawing data, a region surrounded by a line segment connecting at least three or more control points adjacent to each other in the drawing data with a straight line after acquiring the coordinates;
…
processing of determining whether the figure of the drawing data has an intersection by determining whether the examination target control point exists inside the examination target region based on the relative position.
The processing of determining step is indefinite for the following reason:
The claimed “the figure of the drawing data has an intersection” is unclear even in light of the specification as to the metes and bounds of the claimed “intersection” of the figure.
Regarding the processing of setting step this step is unclear as to how a line segment and/or a straight line surrounds a region.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasui, US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0053272, describes with reference to FIGs. 10-12 for a charged particle beam drawing apparatus determining intersections of a curve with a region’s sides “thereby making it possible to calculate a pixel coverage speedily and accurately”, refer to paragraph [0059].
Hara et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0284510, describes for a charged particle beam drawing apparatus correcting the drawing data.
Perry et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0022530, describes with reference to FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0042]-[0044] determining contour intersections in input path 201 and converting into output path 202 having no intersections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-3:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 1 for “drawing data being used by a drawing apparatus” the claimed “determining whether the figure of the drawing data has an intersection by determining whether the examination target control point exists inside the examination target region based on the relative position”.
Claim 4:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 4 for a “drawing apparatus” the claimed “determine whether the figure of the drawing data has an intersection by determining whether the examination target control point exists inside the examination target region based on the relative position”.
Claim 5:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in the context of independent claim 5 for “drawing data used by a drawing apparatus” the claimed “processing of determining whether the figure of the drawing data has an intersection by determining whether the examination target control point exists inside the examination target region based on the relative position”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613