ETAILED 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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on December 2, 2024 has been entered and made of record.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Each of claim limitations “module” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a processor that is programmed to perform all claim functions is described in paragraph [00179].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see M.P.E.P. § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 1-13 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claim 15 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory” and “processor” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim 16 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “PCBA” and “BOM ought to be spelt out as “printed circuit board assembly” and “bill of material”, respectively, so public readers could understand them. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, the claim recites limitations “L4” (lines 4 and 8-9) and “n1” (line 10). These claim limitations lack clarity as to what they are referred to. Specifically, the claim does not recite any L1 to L3 in advance and upper limit of n1. In addition, as to the term “n1”, is it referred to “first user” or (ii)“a plurality of users”?
Claims 2-13 depend on claim 1 and thus are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Each of claims 14-16 recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 1 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “extracting a component list L4 from the first CAD component list, wherein the component list L4 comprises all components for first article inspection; at a server, updating the first CAD component list based on a number of times of check of components in multi-check settings to obtain a second CAD component list, generating a task list based on the component list L4, and generating a check list based on the second CAD component list and the component list L4, to assign a current task number in the task list to at least n1 users not having a current task; at a user end, obtaining the current task number based on the task list, and obtaining status of the current task number, to obtain, when the status of the current task number is incomplete or complete, a check list updated according to the status in the check list and a check result; and at the server, after all results in the check list are updated, obtaining a task list whose status is closed and whose current task number is cleared, and generating and outputting a report of the current task number” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. These claim limitations could encompass mentally assigning tasks and generating a report of the tasks. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional elements (i) “obtaining a whole-board virtual assembly graph, a PCBA physical image and a first CAD component list” and (ii) “user end” and “server”. The first additional element (i) is nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant extrasolution activity. The last additional element (ii) is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. Thus, these additional elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, as pointed out in Step 2A prong 2, are (i)nothing more than data gathering which is insignificant activity and (ii)recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer and do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Each of claims 2-13 depends on claim 1 and recites a method. Thus, the advanced statements as an 101 analysis applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the obtaining of the whole-board virtual assembly graph, the PCBA physical image, and the first CAD component list comprises: forming the whole-board virtual assembly graph by combining a BOM and a CAD design file; obtaining a PCBA physical image corresponding to a PCBA board; and forming the first CAD component list comprising all of the components based on the CAD design file.” are (i)nothing more than data gathering and (ii)generic and conventional. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the updating of the first CAD component list based on the number of times of check of components in multi-check settings to obtain the second CAD component list comprises: when the components have polarities, updating the number of times of check in the first CAD component list to be n according to the number of times of check n in the multi-check settings, and when the components have no polarities, maintaining the number of times of check in the first CAD component list as 1, to generate the second CAD component list according to the first CAD component list undergone setting of the number of times of check, wherein n≥2” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the generating of the check list based on the second CAD component list and the component list L4 comprises: generating the check list based on the number of times of check in the second CAD component list and the component list L4.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein a number of people for tasks n1 is: n1=Q*t1/t wherein t is a first article check time, t1 is a processing time of each component, and Q is a total number of times of check of components on the component list L4.” are interpreted as mathematical calculation. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the assigning of the current task number in the task list to at least n1 users not having a current task comprises: generating a user task list; and assigning the current task number in the task list to the at least n1 users not having a current task in the user task list.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the obtaining of the current task number based on the task list, and obtaining the status of the current task number, to obtain, when the status of the current task number is incomplete or complete, the check list updated according to the status in the check list and the check result comprises: obtaining the current task number based on the task list, upon there being no current task numbers, ending the process; upon the current task number existing, obtaining the status of the current task number; upon the status of the current task number being invalid or closed, prompting the user of the status and ending the process; upon the status of the current task number being incomplete or complete, obtaining the check list updated according to the status in the check list and the check result.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the obtaining of the check list updated according to the status in the check list and the check result comprises: obtaining a list L1, wherein the list L1 is a list of components whose status in the check list is non-occupied and whose check result in the check list is empty; when the list L1 is empty and the check result in the check list is empty, prompting the current user that there is another user performing the task; when the list L1 is empty and the check result in the check list is non-empty, ending the process and prompting the current user that the check is completed, and again displaying a component failing in passing the check; when the list L1 is non-empty, excluding any multi-check component that is in the list L1 and has been checked by the current user to generate a list L2; when the list L2 is non-empty, updating the list L2 based on a grouping situation of a same material serial number to generate a list L3; displaying component information corresponding to position numbers in the list L3 sequentially according to a single group number g, wherein the component information comprises a virtual assembly diagram single box, a PCBA physical image single box, and a component image; and updating status and a user name of a corresponding position number in the check list, and obtaining a check result of the corresponding position number of the check list based on the component information, until all check results in the check list is non-empty.” are as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein after generating the list L2, the method further comprises: when the list L2 is empty and the check result in the check list is empty, prompting the current user that there is another user performing the task; when the list L2 is empty and the check result in the check list is non-empty, ending the process and prompting the current user that the check is completed, and again displaying a component failing in passing the check.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the updating of the list L2 based on a grouping situation of a same material serial number to generate a list L3 comprises: upon there being components having a same material serial number and the components of the same material serial number having been grouped into a same group, priorly ranking components of which the number of components in the same group is greater than or equal to the single group number g to update the list L2, so as to generate the list L3 by using the updated list L2; upon there being no components having a same material serial number, using a query order in the list L2 by default to generate the list L3.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein before the displaying of the component information corresponding to the position numbers in the list L3 sequentially according to the single group number g, the method further comprises: determining whether to reset to zero according to settings of an assignment condition; upon determining to reset to zero, performing displaying through a reset-to zero interface; upon determining not to reset to zero, performing displaying through a non-reset-to-zero interface; wherein the assignment condition is set to whether to display the virtual assembly graph single box and PCBA physical image single box at 0°; when the display is at 0°, determining to reset to zero; when the display is not at 0°, determining not to reset to zero.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the obtaining the task list whose status is closed and whose current task number is cleared, and generating and outputting the report of the current task number comprises: when all check results of the position numbers corresponding to the current task numbers in the check list are non-empty, obtaining the task list of which the status is updated to be complete, and assigning an overall inspection result to the results in the task list; and obtaining the task list whose status is closed and whose current task number is cleared, and generating and outputting the report of the current task number.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 12 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites additional limitations “wherein the report comprises a final check result of the current task number, and/or a passing proportion, and/or an average check time per component, and/or a position number, and/or an overall check result of the position number, and/or an inspector, and/or a single check result of the position number, and/or a number of times.” are interpreted as being performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim does not specifically define anything particular to such limitations that could not be performed in human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 13 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites an apparatus and thus falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that the claim recites addition elements “modules” which are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claim does not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 14 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, it recites an apparatus and thus falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that the claim recites addition elements “memory” and “processor”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claim does not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, it recites a product and thus falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claims 1 and 15. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claims 1 and 15 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that the claim recites addition elements “medium” and “processor”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claim does not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “a storage medium…” which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter); and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). The examiner suggests an amendment to the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” to limit the scope to only the statutory media in order to meet 35 U.S.C. 101 requirements. Any amendment to claim and/or specification should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Warren et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,449,654 B1) teaches an inspection system for inspecting a printed circuit board (see figures 3 and 18).
Hunter et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0018768 A1) teaches a system for estimating and approving printed circuit board physical outline (see figure 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
8/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights