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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “predetermine” should be changed to “predetermined”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites dividing the length of the gap and determining the number of dots based on the gap width which are abstract ideas. The claim(s) recite(s) acquiring an image and performing measurements which are data gathering and therefore an insignificant extra solution activation to the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(g).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “performing the dispense operation” which lacks antecedent basis. This would merely be applying the abstract idea and would not amount to a particular practical application. The claim simply adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the other limitations of the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities as stated above.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites acquiring of the image and measuring a difference between a first and second components. As shown above, these are insignificant extra solution activities. Bloom, discussed below, demonstrates that this is well understood, routine, and conventional. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires "performing the dispense operation for each segment" while Claim 8 requires "performing no action". Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-8 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. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the length of the gap" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as requiring “performing a measure command to measure a length of a gap between the first feature of the first component and the second feature of the second component; dividing the length of the gap into segments”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “dividing the length of the gap into segments to determine a gap width for each segment”. It is unclear how dividing the length of the gap into segments could result in a determination of gap width for each segment. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be treated as “dividing the length of the gap into segments; determining a gap width for each segment”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dispensing unit" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a dispensing unit”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dispense operation" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a dispense operation”.
Claims 3 and 6 recite the limitation "the gantry". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a gantry”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the smallest picture element the vision system can uniquely identify" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a smallest picture element a vision system can uniquely identify”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the actual gap width" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “an actual gap width”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 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, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Bloom (US 2014/0094963). Bloom teaches a computer readable medium for carrying out the method of: depositing material on a substrate ([0002]) with a dispensing system including a dispensing unit and a vision system gantry configured to obtain one or more images of the substrate ([0012]) having two adjacent features, corresponding the claimed first and second features, prior to performing the dispense operation (a pair of edges, [0087]; a reference edge and a physical edge, [0041]; two edges, [0031]). Bloom teaches acquiring an image of a first feature of a first component and an adjacent second feature of a second component ([0013-0015]; a pair of edges, [0087]; two edges [0031]). Bloom teaches performing a dispense operation relative to the two edges, for example dispensing the center between the two edges ([0031]). Bloom also teaches non-straight edges may be similarly dispensed although more measurement points may be required and/or dimensional information about the edge supplied ([0033]).
The prior art does not teach performing a measure command to measure a length of a gap between the first feature of the first component and the second feature of the second component; dividing the length of the gap into segments; determining a gap width for each segment; based on the gap width, determining a number of dots to be dispensed by the dispensing unit for each segment; and performing the dispense operation for each segment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights