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 1-20 have been presented for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1: An information handling system comprising:
a memory to store data associated with one or more drill bits for a backdrill operation of a printed circuit board; and
a processor to communicate with the memory, the processor to:
determine an XY axis tolerance for a via of the printed circuit board;
based on the XY axis tolerance and a signal speed, determine an effective Z axis tolerance for the backdrill operation;
based on the determined effective Z axis tolerance, determine a tip angle; and provide the tip angle on a display device.
Step 1: The claim is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitations (i)-(iii) in the claim recites determining an XY axis tolerance for a via of a PCB; determining an effective Z axis tolerance based on the XY axis tolerance and signal speed; and determining a tip angle based on the effective Z axis tolerance. At a high level these represent the Mental Process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) group of abstract ideas. Furthermore, limitation (iii) represents the Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations) group of abstract ideas [Eqn. 1].
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element of providing the tip angle on a display device. Additionally, applicants’ specification describes “determine the XY axis tolerance” as being received by the processor [0021]. These additional elements represent mere data gathering and insignificant application and are recited at a high level of generality that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Thus, the input of data and output of the tip angle are insignificant extra-solution activity. The display devices is also an additional element which is configured to carry out limitation (iii), i.e., tool that is used to output the tip angle. As such, it is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. Even when viewed in combination, the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception.
The claim has additional elements. The first is a memory to store information in accordance with limitation (a). The memory is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Next is the processor in communication with the memory to perform steps (i)-(iii). The processor is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The last the display device, which performs limitation (iii). A generic display for displaying the tip angle is at best the equivalent to adding the words “display it” to the judicial exception. [T]he claims' invocation of memory, processor and display does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional memory, processor, or display components, or even a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces," but merely call for performance of the claimed storing of data, analysis, and display functions "on a set of generic computer components" and display devices. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349-52, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, these are rejected substantially on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. With respect to claim 19, just like the processor above, the added graphics processing unit to perform the display in step (iii) is also at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 11-12, the fact that the effective Z axis tolerance is performed by a ML model running on a processor amounts to nothing more than merely performing the abstract idea (Mental Process: evaluation) on a generic processor/computer executing a ML model. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, it would be reasonable to consider the “determination of the effective Z axis tolerance” using a ML model to merely restrict the abstract idea to a field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). Under either 2106.05(f) or 2106.05(h), the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 20, these further define characteristics of the data used in the mental process. They provide no additional element that could integrate the abstract into the practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, storing data in a table is well-known routine and conventional and provides no additional element that could integrate the abstract into the practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 15-17, these further define characteristics of the data used in the mental process. They provide no additional element that could integrate the abstract into the practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, these further define characteristics of the data used in the mental process. They provide no additional element that could integrate the abstract into the practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
PGPUB 2002/0141835 to Herbert teaches a machine for machining circuit boards [abstract].
CN113079638A to Huang teaches setting a preset threshold according to a condition wherein a drill tip angle is greater than the preset threshold.
CN112466001A to Meng teaches backdrilling stubs and controlling the depth and precision of the back drilling.
What is PCB Back Drilling? to PCBWayOfficial teaches back drilling a PCB and indicates that the board itself, the via size and clearances are all factors in the back drilling process.
What is Back Drilling in PCB Design and Manufacturing? to The Sierra Circuits Team teaches having pre-recommended clearance and tolerance values and how an amount of residual stub length affects signal loss in the PCB.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, determining a tip angle based on an effective Z axis tolerance that is determined based on an XY axis tolerance and signal speed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 at 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 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 6/19/26
Prosecution Insights