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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 6 recites “wherein the superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image, based on the position where the target carrier is located in the preset coordinate system and the rotation angle of the target carrier comprises”. The Specification lacks antecedent for “based on the position where the target carrier is located in the preset coordinate system and the rotation angle of the target carrier”. In specification page 12, lines 1-3, it states “superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image, based on the position where the target processing pattern on the seed carrier is located in the preset coordinate system”
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim 1 recite “control method” and thus is a statutory category of invention.
With regards to claims 1, 10, 21:
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1, 10, 21 recite(s) “determining a carrier among the at least one carrier in the captured image as a seed carrier” which is a process that can be performed as mental process of observing and judging by user observing the image and selecting a seed carrier in the image.
The claim(s) 1, 10, 21 recite(s) “determining a target carrier in the captured image, wherein the target carrier is a carrier that matches a shape of the seed carrier, among the at least one carrier” which is a process that can be performed as mental process of observing and judging by user observing the image and judging which of the carriers has a shape matching the seed carrier.
The claim(s) 1, 10, 21 recite(s) “wherein the seed carrier is superimposed with a target processing pattern”, “superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image” which is a process that can be performed as mental/manual process such as a user superimposing a pattern on one of the seed or target carrier.
As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (b) and (c) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e.,mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1, 10, 21 recites additional element of “obtaining a captured image of a processing platform, wherein at least one carrier is placed on the processing platform” which is insignificant extra-solution activity related to data gathering of obtaining input images.
Claim 10 recites additional element of “a processing platform for carrying at least one carrier”, “a camera for capturing an image of the at least one carrier placed on the processing platform; and a controller” which recites insignificant extra-solution activity related to data gathering of obtaining input images via camera. The platform is merely a structure used to hold carrier. Further the controller is recited at a high level of generality and therefore is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 21 recites additional element of “wherein the program, when being executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement” which recites a processor executing program at a high level of generality and therefore is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of is recited at a high level of generality and therefore is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of that performs obtaining captured images is recited at a high level of generality and therefore is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
With regards to dependent claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “generating machining instructions according to the position where the target processing pattern on the seed carrier is located in a preset coordinate system; and processing the target carrier on the processing platform according to the machining instructions”. This limitations pertain to determining position of pattern on the carrier which can be a mental process performed in the mind by observing and determining positions of pattern on carrier.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 8 recite additional element “generating machining instructions” and processing according to the machining instructions are abstract concept recited at a high level of generality and therefore is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 8 as a whole or the additional elements in combination does not recite significantly more than the recited exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no additional element. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to dependent claim 11:
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “wherein superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image comprises making a relative position between the target carrier and the target processing pattern on the target carrier is equivalent to a relative position between the seed carrier and the target processing pattern on the seed carrier”. This limitations pertain to abstract concept that can be performed mentally such as matching relative positions of target pattern on target carrier and seed carrier.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 11 does not recite additional element.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 11 as a whole or the additional elements in combination does not recite significantly more than the recited exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no additional element. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to dependent claims 12:
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “obtaining a pixel distribution of the at least one carrier in the captured image, and determining the target carrier based on the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier”. This limitations pertain to abstract concept of observing and making judgement by user such as determining target carrier based on obtained data.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 12 does not recite additional element.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 12 as a whole or the additional elements in combination does not recite significantly more than the recited exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no additional element. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to dependent claims 16:
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the display is configured to present a graphical interactive interface for user to superimpose the target processing pattern on the at least one carrier”. This limitations pertain to display output for superimposing pattern on the carrier.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 16 recite additional element display, interface.
The additional element is merely insignificant extra-solution activity for outputting data.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 16 as a whole or the additional elements in combination does not recite significantly more than the recited exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no additional element. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to dependent claims 17-20:
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 17-18, 20 recites “further comprising a frame, wherein an enclosed processing space is defined inside the frame, the frame is provided with a top opening that is in communication with the processing space, and the frame is further connected to a cover plate which covers the opening in a rotatable manner”, “further comprising a processing tool configured to process the target carrier on the processing platform”, “further comprising a mounting bracket arranged in the frame, wherein the camera is arranged on the mounting bracket”. This limitations pertain to structural design of the processing device including frame, processing space, opening, cover plate, mounting bracket and processing tools.
Claim 19 recites “wherein a track is provided inside the frame and the processing tool is arranged on the track so that the processing tool is movable to implement processing inside the processing space along at least one of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction”. This limitations pertain to structural design of the processing device including track used to move the processing tools in different directions.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 17-20 recite additional element frame, processing space, opening, cover plate, processing tool, track, mounting bracket. The additional element are merely limitations on the structure of the device and description of tools.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 17-20 as a whole or the additional elements in combination does not recite significantly more than the recited exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no additional element. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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) 1-5, 8, 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113971662 to Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a processing control method (paragraph n0066), comprising:
obtaining a captured image of a processing platform, wherein at least one carrier is placed on the processing platform (paragraph n0067);
determining a carrier among the at least one carrier in the captured image as a seed carrier, wherein the seed carrier is superimposed with a target processing pattern (paragraph n0069, n0071);
determining a target carrier in the captured image, wherein the target carrier is a carrier that matches a shape of the seed carrier, among the at least one carrier (paragraph n0073; target carrier has same shape as seed carrier); and
superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image (paragraph n0075; step 150).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 12, wherein the obtaining a pixel distribution, of the at least one carrier in the captured image comprises (paragraph n0013, n0079; “obtaining pixel distribution”):
performing edge detection on the captured image to obtain an edge-detected image (paragraph n0080); extracting at least one closed shape from the edge-detected image, and performing color filling on the at least one closed shape, wherein an outline of the at least one closed shape corresponds to an outline of the carrier (paragraph n0082);
obtaining a binarized edge-detected image by binarizing the edge-detected image subjected to color filling (paragraph n0083); and
obtaining values of respective pixel points and positions of respective pixel points, for each closed shape in the binarized edge-detected image, to obtain the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier (paragraph n0085).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 12, wherein the determining a target carrier in the captured image according to the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier comprises (paragraph n0088):
generating pixel distributions of modified seed carriers based on the pixel distribution of the seed carrier, wherein the modified seed carriers are obtained by rotating the seed carrier by a set of preset angles (paragraph n0089; “variant seed carrier” (modified seed carrier) obtained by rotation of angle set); and
performing a similarity matching between the at least one carrier and the modified seed carriers based on the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier and the pixel distributions of the modified seed carriers, to determine the target carrier in the captured image (paragraph n0090; similarity between variant seed carrier (modified seed) and one carrier is determined to find matching carrier as target carrier in the image).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 3, wherein the performing a similarity matching between the at least one carrier and the modified seed carriers based on the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier and the pixel distributions of the modified seed carriers, to determine the target carrier in the captured image comprises (paragraph n0090; similarity between variant seed carrier (modified seed) and one carrier is determined to find matching carrier as target carrier in the image):
obtaining binarized images respectively corresponding to the at least one carrier and the modified seed carriers based on the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier and the pixel distribution of the modified seed carriers (paragraph n0094; step 610 );
scaling the binarized images to a preset size separately (paragraph n0096);
obtaining an overlap ratio of a first carrier among the at least one carrier to the modified seed carriers by performing an overlap matching between the scaled binarized image of the first carrier and the scaled binarized images of the modified seed carriers (paragraph n0098-n0099; overlap areas are where the both pixels are black or white (matching overlap)); and
determining the first carrier to be the target carrier if the overlap ratio of the first carrier to any modified seed carrier is greater than or equal to a preset threshold (paragraph n0100; target vector (target carrier) if overlap ratio is greater than threshold).
.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 3, wherein the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier is determined in a preset coordinate system, and the determining a target carrier in the captured image according to the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier further comprises (paragraph n0104-n0105):
performing the similarity matching between the at least one carrier and the modified seed carriers according to the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier and the pixel distributions of the modified seed carriers in the preset coordinate system, to determine a rotation angle of the target carrier relative to the seed carrier (paragraph n0104-n0105).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 1 further comprising:
generating machining instructions according to the position where the target processing pattern on the seed carrier is located in a preset coordinate system; and processing the target carrier on the processing platform according to the machining instructions (paragraph n0037, n0038; paragraph n0044; “the position where the target processing pattern on the target carrier” is same as “the position where the target processing pattern on the seed carrier”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses a processing device (paragraph n0045; processing apparatus) comprising:
a processing platform for carrying at least one carrier (paragraph n0046);
a camera for capturing an image of the at least one carrier placed on the processing platform (paragraph n0047); and
a controller configured to (paragraph n0048):
obtain a captured image of a processing platform, wherein at least one carrier is placed on the processing platform (paragraph n0067);
determine a carrier among the at least one carrier in the captured image as a seed carrier, wherein the seed carrier is superimposed with a target processing pattern (paragraph n0069, n0071);
determine a target carrier in the captured image, wherein the target carrier is a carrier that matches a shape of the seed carrier, among the at least one carrier (paragraph n0073; target carrier has same shape as seed carrier); and
superimpose the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured
image (paragraph n0075; step 150).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 1, wherein superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image comprises making a relative position between the target carrier and the target processing pattern on the target carrier is equivalent to a relative position between the seed carrier and the target processing pattern on the seed carrier (paragraph n0075; relative position of pattern and target/seed carrier are same).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 1, further comprising obtaining a pixel distribution of the at least one carrier in the captured image, and determining the target carrier based on the pixel distribution of the at least one carrier (paragraph n0013, n0088).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 5, wherein superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image comprises (paragraph n0028):
determining a position where the target carrier is located in the preset coordinate system (paragraph n0029; “translation distance” that is relative to seed carrier is the position of target carrier in the preset coordinate system); and
superimposing the target processing pattern on the target carrier in the captured image, based on the position where the target carrier is located in the preset coordinate system and the rotation angle of the target carrier (paragraph n0030; using translation distance and rotation angle of target carrier to superimpose target processing pattern on the target carrier).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 5, further comprising: in response to determining that the overlap ratio between a carrier among the at least one carrier and any modified seed carrier is greater than the preset threshold, determining the carrier as the target carrier and determining a rotation angle of the modified seed carrier relative to the seed carrier as the rotation angle of the carrier relative to the seed carrier (paragraph n0100, n0106; if overlap ratio of first carrier and variant seed vector exceed threshold then first vector (carrier) is target carrier; further rotation of variant seed carrier relative to seed is rotation of carrier).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the processing control method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining closed shapes of the at least one carrier by performing the edge detection based on a color contrast between the at least one carrier and a background of the captured image (paragraph n0081-n0082; closed shape extracted based on edge detection image based on color contrast between carrier and background).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses the processing device according to claim 10, further comprising a display, wherein the display is configured to present a graphical interactive interface for user to superimpose the target processing pattern on the at least one carrier (paragraph n0072; user can drag and place pattern on carrier via interaction interface).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses the processing device according to claim 10, further comprising a frame, wherein an enclosed processing space is defined inside the frame, the frame is provided with a top opening that is in communication with the processing space, and the frame is further connected to a cover plate which covers the opening in a rotatable manner (paragraph n0133; frame 940 is provided with closed processing space 920; frame 940 includes top opening communication with processing space 920 and connected to cover plate that cover opening “rotatably”).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses the processing device according to claim 17, further comprising a processing tool configured to process the target carrier on the processing platform (paragraph n0133; processing device (tool) engraves/cuts workpiece (carrier) on processing space (platform)).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses the processing device according to claim 18, wherein a track is provided inside the frame and the processing tool is arranged on the track so that the processing tool is movable to implement processing inside the processing space along at least one of an X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a Z-axis direction (paragraph n0133; frame includes moving track; processing device is placed on track; processing device movable in x, y, z direction when processing).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses the processing device according to claim 17, further comprising a mounting bracket arranged in the frame, wherein the camera is arranged on the mounting bracket (paragraph n0135; camera mounted on bracket 950 inside frame).
Regarding claim 21, see rejection of claim 1. Further Zhang discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a program stored thereon, wherein the program, when being executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement (paragraph n0140-n0141).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Other Prior Art Cited
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220317957 to Hayashi discloses printing on medium supported on jigs.
CN 113290313 to Liu discloses laser processing of carriers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
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.
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.
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).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
05/27/2026
Prosecution Insights