DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 15-21 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.
Regarding Claim 15, recites the limitation "the computing device" in line 6-7 and “the surface processing apparatus” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependency status from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW201820063A by Chao et al. (hereinafter Chao) in view of CN208954112U by Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 15, Chao teaches a processing method capable of automatically monitoring surface features on an object, which is adapted to process a processing surface of an object (Abstract); wherein the processing method comprises:
step S1: capturing images of the processing surface of the object via an image capturing device (Fig. 1 @ 11, Page 5, 10);
step S2: generating a 3D image data (Page 18: 2D or 3D) corresponding to the processing surface by the computing device (Fig. 1 @ 12, Page 10, 11); based on the images captured via the image capturing device (Fig. 1 @ 11, Page 5, 10); and
step S3: receiving the 3D image data by the surface processing apparatus (Fig. 1 @ 123, Page 3, 10) and processing the processing surface of the object according to the 3D image data (Page 3, 10, 19) but does not explicitly teach the processing surface has at least one 3D feature marker.
However, Yang teaches the processing surface has at least one 3D feature marker (Abstract, Page 2, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao by Yang as taught above such that the processing surface has at least one 3D feature marker is accomplished in order to greatly improve the efficiency of information collection, and also effectively improve the accuracy rate (Yang, Page 3-4).
Regarding Claim 16, Chao teaches the image capturing device utilizes a 3D camera module to capture images of the processing surface of the object (See Claim 15 rejection), but does not explicitly teach a drive module of the image capturing device drives the 3D camera module to move, so that the 3D camera module driven by the drive module is able to capture the processing surface of the object at various angles.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a drive module of the image capturing device drives the 3D camera module to move in order to obtain a predictable result.
The examiner takes Official Notice that a drive module of the image capturing device drives the 3D camera module to move, so that the 3D camera module driven by the drive module is able to capture the processing surface of the object at various angles is well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418,420 (CCPA 1970).
Regarding Claim 17, Chao as modified by Yang teaches wherein in the step S2, after an image processing module (Chao, Fig. 1 @ 122, Page 11) of the computing device (Chao, Fig. 1 @ 12, Page 10, 11) receives the images captured by the images capturing device (Chao, Fig. 1 @ 11, Page 5, 10), the image processing module performs an image processing to obtain the 3D image data corresponding to the processing surface (See Claim 15 rejection); the 3D image data comprises at least one marker label corresponding to the at least one 3D feature markers (Yang, Abstract, Page 2, 5:identification feature 311 can be one of a color, a graphic, a text, and a barcode) (Note: 5-steps omitted due to same motivation).
Regarding Claim 18, Chao as modified by Yang teaches wherein in the step S2, the computing device (Chao, Fig. 1 @ 12, Page 10, 11) utilizes a mark identifying module (Chao, Fig. 1 @ 123, Page 12) to identify the at least one marker label in the 3D image data (Yang, Abstract, Page 2, 5: identification feature 311 can be one of a color, a graphic, a text, and a barcode), and the mark identifying module records a coordinate of 3D processing (Chao, Fig. 1 @ 123, Page 12) corresponding to a location of the marker label (Yang, Abstract, Page 2, 5: identification feature 311 can be one of a color, a graphic, a text, and a barcode) (Note: 5-steps omitted due to same motivation).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-14 are allowed.
7. Claims 19-21 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.
8. Claim 19-21 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.
Reason for Allowance
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
10. As to claim 1, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “a computing device connected to the image capturing device, wherein the computing device generates a 3D image data corresponding to the processing surface based on the images captured by the image capturing device, and the 3D image data comprises at least one marker label corresponding to the at least one 3D feature marker; the computing device records a coordinate of 3D processing corresponding to a location of the at least one marker label and calculates a processing path; and
a surface processing apparatus connected to the computing device and adapted to receive the 3D image data from the computing device, wherein the surface processing apparatus performs surface processing to the processing surface of the object according to the coordinate of 3D processing and the processing path in the 3D image data” along with all other limitations of claim 1.
11. Chao (TW201820063A) teaches a processing method capable of automatically monitoring surface features on an object but fails to teach the claimed limitations.
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 JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights