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 1-26 filed on 12/16/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202311092297.4, filed on 8/28/2023; Application No. CN202311362024.7, filed on 10/19/2023; Application No. CN202311543314.1, filed on 11/16/2023; and Application No. CN202410787060.6, filed on 6/18/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 12/16/2024, 2/26/2025, 12/19/2025, and 8/7/2026 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/16/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 12/16/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “determining a machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes simply determining a machined region based on a received value which is a limitation that can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites, “controlling a target page to display the machined region.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply displays a result of the determined data which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally claim 1 recites, “obtaining a coordinate of at least one measurement point, wherein the coordinate of the at least one measurement point corresponds to a target position on a surface of a machined material;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering machined data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claims 25 and 26 are substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above. Claim 25 differs from claim 1 in that it includes the additional limitations of, “a computer numerical control system”, “at least one data processor” and “at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 3-6, 9, 11, 15-16, 18-19, and 23, include additional limitations of; determining a machined region based on a determined line segment, determining and connecting vertex points, determining horizontal/longitudinal coordinates of vertices, sequentially connecting measurement points, deleting a coordinate of a measurement point, determining first and second machined regions based on coordinates of measurement points, determining movement/limitation regions for a machining member, determining a starting point of a machine and drawing a mapping point based on the starting point position, determining a starting point in response to a target instruction, drawing a mapping point corresponding to a secondary mapping point, and determining a calibration plane for a light source; which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes a plurality of limitations that can each reasonably be performed in the human mind/with pen and paper and thus, fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claims 11, 15, and 23, each includes additional limitations of displaying resulting data or providing corrected calibration parameters, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 6, 10, and 17, each include limitations of obtaining data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, claims 2,7-8, 12-14, and 21-22, each include various limitations describing aspects of the display or various components of the system and their generic functions, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering machined data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
***Examiner’s Note: incorporating the limitations of claims 20 or 24 in their entirety provide limitations which represent significantly more than judicial exception as control actions are initiated in response to the abstract concepts.***
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 1-24 and 26 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.
Claim 1 recites, “controlling a target page to display the machined region.”. It is unclear what a “target page” refers to in the context of the present limitation as it is not sufficiently defined in the specification nor is it term of the art that has a general definition. Is this referring to a display that shows a page of specific information? Is this referring to a plurality of possible screens on a display that can be selected? In order to further prosecution, any prior art that performs any sort of display will be interpreted to read upon the present limitation.
Claims 2-24 and 26 each depend upon claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 2 recites, “corresponding the positioning light spot to the target position on the surface of the machined material.”. It is unclear as to what “corresponding” a positioning light spot means in the context of the claim. In order to further prosecution, any prior art that moves a device to a target spot on an object to be machined will be interpreted to read upon the present limitation.
Claim 3 recites, “determining at least one line segment based on coordinates of more than two measurement points;”. By definition, a line is defined by two endpoints, any additional points that are not inherently colinear could result in a nonlinear segment. There appears to be a lack of additional support that can determine and ensure that the collection of coordinates result in a line segment. In order to further prosecution, any number of points used to determine a line segment will be interpreted to read upon this claim.
Claims 4-7 each depend upon this claim and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 9 recites, “deleting a coordinate of a measurement point corresponding to a first operation instruction based on the first operation instruction.”. This is confusing as it’s not clear what triggers the deletion of the coordinate of a measurement point for the first operation instruction. Is this in response to after performing the first operation instruction, deleting a measured coordinate during a measurement period? Is this deletion prior to execution of the first operation instruction such that a machine does not act on a specific coordinate instruction? In order to further prosecution, any prior art that deletes a measured value or operation instruction will be considered to read upon the present limitation.
Claim 11 recites, “determining a first machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point;” and “determining a second machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point;”. Here it is unclear how multiple machined regions can be determined based on a singular measurement point without providing further context as the processing that takes place to achieve this result. In order to further prosecution, any prior art that can determine multiple machined regions will be interpreted to read upon the present limitation.
Dependent claims 12 and 14 each depend upon claim 11 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 16 recites, “the mapping point is configured to obtain the target page where more than two mapping points are distributed on.”. Here, it’s unclear how a mapping point is configured to obtain a “target page” as earlier, it appears that the “target page” is a screen that shows a machined region that is determined from obtained measurement points. As such, it is unclear if the identified target page is different from the target page from claim 1, or are they the same target page. And further, is the target page generated from obtained measurement points or the mapping points of claim 16. In order to further prosecution, any prior art that displays mapping points on a screen will be interpreted to read upon the present limitation.
Claim 19 includes similar limitations and is thus rejected using the same rationale as presented above. Claim 20 depends upon rejected claim 19 and is thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (US PGPUB 20180024525).
Regarding Claims 1 and 25-26; Inoue teaches; A method of measuring a machined region, comprising: (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0045]-[0047]; disclose a system and method for measuring regions of a machined workpiece)
obtaining a coordinate of at least one measurement point, wherein the coordinate of the at least one measurement point corresponds to a target position on a surface of a machined material; (Inoue; at least paragraph [0050]; discloses wherein the system and method includes obtaining a target surface point chosen by an operator, and determining a coordinate of the target surface point)
determining a machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point; and (Inoue; at least paragraph [0055]; disclose determining a machined region of the based on the coordinate of the at least target measurement point)
controlling a target page to display the machined region. (Inoue; at least paragraph [0056]; disclose displaying a list of the measurement items determined from the coordinates).
Regarding Claim 3; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point comprises: determining at least one line segment based on coordinates of more than two measurement points; and determining the machined region based on the at least one line segment. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0045]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 4; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 3, wherein determining the at least one line segment based on the coordinates of more than two measurement points comprises: determining a first vertex and a second vertex based on a first measurement point and a second measurement point; and connecting the first vertex to the first measurement point and the second measurement point, and connecting the second vertex to the first measurement point and the second measurement point. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0045]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 6; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 3, wherein determining the at least one line segment based on coordinates of more than two measurement points comprises: storing the coordinates of more than two measurement points to a storage queue; and sequentially connecting two or more measurement points to obtain the at least one line segment based on orders of entry of the coordinates of more than two measurement points into the storage queue. (Inoue; at least paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 7; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 3, wherein the at least one line segment comprises a straight line segment and/or a curved line segment. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0046]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 8; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the target page to display the machined region comprises: setting up a coordinate system on the target page to obtain a coordinate range of the machined region under the coordinate system; and adding a logo to the target page to distinguish the machined region from the target page. (Inoue; at least paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 10; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the coordinate of the at least one measurement point comprises: obtaining a coordinate of at least one new measurement point based on a second operation instruction. (Inoue; at least paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 11; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 1, further comprising two or more machined regions, wherein determining the machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point comprises: determining a first machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point; displaying the first machined region on a preview page; determining a second machined region based on the coordinate of the at least one measurement point; and displaying the second machined region on the preview page. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding Claim 12; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 11, wherein controlling the target page to display the machined region comprises: displaying a region corresponding to the first machined region and a region corresponding to the second machined region on the target page based on relative position relationships of the first machined region and the second machined region on the preview page. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 15; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is applied to a computer numerical control machine or an intelligent device communicated to the computer numerical control machine, wherein the computer numerical control machine comprises a movable head, the movable head comprises a machining member and a positioning member, and the machining member and the positioning member are mounted at different positions of the movable head; wherein the method further comprises: determining a first movement region corresponding to the machining member and a second movement region corresponding to the positioning member based on a movable range of the movable head; determining a limitation region on the target page based on the first movement region and the second movement region; and generating a corresponding prompt message when the machined region is overlapped with the limitation region. (Inoue; at least paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 16; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 1, wherein after controlling the target page to display the machined region, the method further comprises: determining a position of a starting auxiliary point of a machined element; drawing a mapping point on the target page based on the position of the starting auxiliary point to obtain a distribution of the mapping point on the target page, wherein the distribution of the mapping point on the target page is configured to indicate a placement of the machined element; and indicating a specific display position of the machined element based on a relative position relationship of the mapping point and the machined element. (Inoue; at least paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 17; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 16, wherein determining the position of the starting auxiliary point of the machined element comprises: extracting a moving distance of a light source to obtain position information of the light source; and obtaining the position of the starting auxiliary point based on the position information of the light source. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 18; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 17, wherein obtaining the position of the starting auxiliary point based on the position information of the light source comprises: synchronously displaying a position of a light spot mapped to the target page based on the position information of the light source; and determining the position of the starting auxiliary point in response to a target instruction. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0051]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 24; Inoue teaches; A computer numerical control machine, comprising: a movable head and a light emitting assembly; a communication assembly, configured to receive a machining file and a signal corresponding to the specific display position obtained by the method as claimed in claim 16; and a controller, configured to control the movable head to machine material based on the machining file, and control the light emitting assembly to emit light to indicate the specific display position based on the signal corresponding to the specific display position. (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0034] and [0056]-[0059]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 13, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US PGPUB 20180024525) in view of Hofmann (US PGPUB 20060016957).
Regarding Claim 2; Inoue teaches; The method according to claim 1, wherein before obtaining the coordinate of the at least one measurement point, wherein the coordinate of the at least one measurement point corresponds to the target position on the surface of the machined material, the method further comprises: driving a movable head in a computer numerical control machine, wherein the movable head is configured to move to machine the surface of machined material, and (Inoue; at least paragraphs [0034] and [0041]-[0044])
Inoue appears to be silent on; configured to eject a positioning light spot; and corresponding the positioning light spot to the target position on the surface of the machined material.
However, Hofmann teaches; configured to eject a positioning light spot; and corresponding the positioning light spot to the target position on the surface of the machined material. (Hofmann; at least paragraph [0047]; disclose a numerical controller machining system and method which includes a laser projection system which emits a light on the surface of a machined element and wherein the laser is controlled to project the one or more images on the machined element according to control programs containing target positioning information).
Inoue and Hofmann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, numerical controller machining systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of positioning and emitting a light on a target area of a machined element as taught by Hofmann with the known system of a numerical controller coordinate detecting and control system as taught by Inoue in order to reduce inaccuracies and also save time when manufacturing machined objects as taught by Hofmann (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 13; the combination of Inoue and Hofmann teach; The method according to claim 1, further comprising: superimposing a machined element onto the machining region after the machining region is displayed on the target page; and machining the machined element at the target position on a surface of the machined material based on a relative position of the machined element and the machining region. (Hofmann; at least paragraphs [0012]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 21; the combination of Inoue and Hofmann teach; The method according to claim 16, wherein indicating the specific display position of the machined element based on the relative position relationship of the mapping point and the machined element comprises: obtaining coordinate information of an accommodation block corresponding to the machined element; and traversing each side of the accommodation block by a light spot that is formed by a light beam emitted from a light source based on the coordinate information of the accommodation block, to indicate the specific display position of the machined element. (Hofmann; at least paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding Claim 22; the combination of Inoue and Hofmann teach; The method according to claim 17, wherein the light source comprises a laser emitting light source and a visible light emitting light source. (Hofmann; at least paragraph [0036]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US PGPUB 20180024525) in view of Kimura et al. (US PGPUB 20170371316).
Regarding Claim 9; Inoue appears to be silent on; The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the coordinate of the at least one measurement point, comprises: deleting a coordinate of a measurement point corresponding to a first operation instruction based on the first operation instruction.
However, Kimura teaches; The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the coordinate of the at least one measurement point, comprises: deleting a coordinate of a measurement point corresponding to a first operation instruction based on the first operation instruction. (Kimura; at least Figs. 8 and 11a-11c; paragraphs [0092]-[0093]; disclose a numerical controller system and method which comprises deleting coordinates of measurement points based on operation instructions).
Inoue and Kimura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, numerical controller machining systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of deleting coordinate instructions as taught by Kimura with the known system of a numerical controller coordinate detecting and control system as taught by Inoue in order to reduce man-hours for editing control programs as taught by Kimura (paragraph [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The office would like to first note that each of the identified claims have outstanding 112 and 101 rejections that must be resolved prior to consideration of allowance.
Claims 5, 14, 19, 20, and 23 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haas et al. (US PGPUB 20210325164): disclose a coordinate measuring machine system and method for determining coordinates of various measuring points on a manufactured item.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights