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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on July 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Wexler does not store the distance measurement as a value for carpentry planning purposes or enable a tool to use the information from memory (Arguments, pages 8-10). Examiner disagrees.
The stated limitation is held to be merely functional language that the apparatus of Riley in view of Wexler and Stock is capable of performing. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Wexler explicitly teaches the distance measurements being stored in memory (Paragraph [0100], [0402]-[0434], memory of 110, including database 3210), and processing circuitry (processor 210) configured to update graphics of the interactive touch screen display (Paragraph [0098]-[0102], [0117]-[0120], feedback outputting unit 230 of 110 displaying sensor information to user) based on the carpentry planning value (Paragraphs [0402]-[0434],[0437], physical distance measurements detected by distance module being visually communicated to user through wearable apparatus; see also Paragraph [0121], [0417], wherein stored data can be retrieved/extracted from memory). Additionally, Stock teaches using wearable devices with external power tools. In the instant case, a user is capable of using the external power tool (saw or drill) taught in Stock to cut or drill a piece of wood based on a room dimension/carpentry value measured via the laser measurement module of Wexler. For these reasons, Examiner maintains the apparatus of Riley in view of Stock and Wexler is capable of performing the recited function.
In the event Applicant disagrees, Examiner submits Riley (US Publication No. 2018/0059810) in view of Thierman (US Publication No. 2011/0288816) and Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536) teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein Thierman explicitly teaches calculating carpentry measurements using a laser measurement module (see Paragraph [0060]). For these reasons, and the reasons detailed below, claim 2 is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 5-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US Publication No. 2018/0059810) in view of Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797) and Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536)
Regarding claim 2, Riley discloses an apparatus (Figure 1, modular core device 100), comprising: a sealed dockable core retainer 118; see also Paragraphs [0025] and [0031]) including:
an interactive touch screen display (display 112) being circular or square in shape (see Figure 4);
a battery (battery 122);
a memory (memory 106);
a additional function devices 120; see Paragraph [0031]);
an electrical connector (communication interface 114; see Paragraph [0028]) configured to electrically connect to an external mounting housing 102; Paragraph [0022], mount housing being various tools, including strap, band, lanyard, necklace, etc.; see also Figures 11-12);
a magnetic docker (attachment interface 116, Paragraphs [0028]-[0031], 116 engaging with 136 of 102 through magnetic force) configured to attach the apparatus (100) to the external tool (102),
wherein the electrical connector (114) provides the apparatus (100) with electricity (NOTE: “electricity” being interpreted as “electrical signals/data”, specifically considering the specification does not provide any support for the electrical connector providing power from the external power tool to the apparatus) from the external tool (102) (Paragraph [0027], 100 receiving signals from 102 through 114 to detect type of 102 to which it is connected); and
processing circuitry (processor 104) configured to:
detect connection of the apparatus (100) to the external tool (102) via the magnetic docker (116), and
update graphics of the interactive touch screen display (112) based on a functional type of the external tool (Figures 1-4 and Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0028]-[0030], [0049]-[0053], magnets positioned on modular device core 100 to guide attachment of modular device core 100 to mounting housing 102 to result in physical and communicative coupling of the communication interfaces 114, 130, further resulting in the graphical interface displayed by the modular device core 100 to be modified by the processor/memory based on type of mounting housing 102 connected),
wherein the processing circuitry (104), interactive touch screen display (112), and measurement module (120) are disposed entirely within the sealed dockable laser measurement tool (118), and
wherein the sealed dockable measurement tool (118) is configured to allow for a separable connection to be made between the measurement module (120) and the external tool (102; where 120 is separably connected with 102 via separable connection between 118 and 102).
Riley does not disclose a sealed dockable laser measurement tool, wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool comprises: a laser measurement module configured to measure and store at least one dimension of a room in the memory as a carpentry planning value, the at least one dimension of the room being defined by a first distance between a first structure and a second structure or a second distance between a third structure and the laser measurement module, and processing circuitry configured to update graphics of the interactive touch screen display based on the carpentry planning value.
However, Wexler teaches a sealed dockable laser measurement tool (Figures 1D, 2, 5A-5B, wearable apparatus 110) comprising: a memory (Paragraph [0100], [0114]-[0115], [0121], [0402]-[0434], memory 550 of 110, including database 3210); and a laser measurement module (Figures 5A-5B, 32 and Paragraphs [0402]-[0434], distance module 3204 of apparatus 110) configured to measure and store at least one dimension of a room in the memory (memory 550 of 110; 3210) as a carpentry planning value (Paragraphs [0100], [0402]-[0434], distance module 3204 being a LIDAR system employing lasers configured to determine a measurement of a physical distance to an object -- thus, functionally capable of taking a distance measurement for the purposes of carpentry), the at least one dimension of the room being defined by a first distance between a first structure and a second structure or a second distance between a third structure and the laser measurement module (Paragraph [0410], “LIDAR systems may also include a scanning mechanism so that the incident laser may scan over multiple points on the target person or object, and may generate 3-D point clouds that include object distance or depth information. Mechanical LIDAR systems are well known in the art and include mechanical scanning mechanisms to acquire distance information at multiple points of coverage, and may be incorporated as part of wearable apparatus 110.” See also Paragraphs [0409]-[0411]), and processing circuitry (processor 210) configured to update graphics of the interactive touch screen display (Paragraph [0098]-[0102], [0117]-[0120], feedback outputting unit 230 of 110 displaying sensor information to user) based on the carpentry planning value (Paragraphs [0402]-[0434],[0437], physical distance measurements detected by distance module being visually communicated to user through wearable apparatus; see also Paragraph [0121], [0417], wherein stored data can be retrieved/extracted from memory).
Because Riley suggests the additional function device 120 of the modular device core 100 can be a variety of sensors (see Paragraph [0031]), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the laser measuring sensor of Wexler within the sealed dockable measurement tool of Riley. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the apparatus by allowing the apparatus to detect/measure distances between an object and the wearable device (see Paragraphs [0402]-[0437] in Wexler).
Riley in view of Wexler does not teach wherein the external tool is an external power tool, wherein at least one of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool and the external power tool is configured to use the carpentry planning value to perform a power tool operation.
However, Stock teaches an apparatus (mobile sensor device 12) configured to be attached to an external tool (Figure 7, hand-held power tool 18, 18’, and 18’’), wherein the external tool is an external power tool (see Paragraphs [0051]-[0055] and Figure 7; see also Paragraph [0006]), wherein at least one of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool and the external power tool (see Paragraphs [0051]-[0055] and Figure 7; see also Paragraph [0006]) is configured to use a carpentry planning value (distance measurement) to perform a power tool operation (Paragraph [0006], user capable of using the saw to cut lumber or using a power drill to drill a hole based on a distance measurement).
Because both Riley and Stock teach mounting a wrist-worn display apparatus to various devices, including power tools (see Figures 3-4 and 11-12 in Riley; see Figure 7 in Stock), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the mounting housing of Riley as modified by Wexler for the power tools of Stock according to known methods to yield the predictable results of mounting a wrist-worn sensing apparatus with an external tool to utilize sensors within the sensing apparatus in conjunction with functions of the tool. Doing so would have also expanded the functionality of the modular device core of Riley as modified by Wexler by allowing the sensor(s) to take measurements and adjust operating parameters relating to a power tool (see Paragraph [0051] in Stock).
Regarding the functional limitation “wherein at least one of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool and the external power tool is configured to use the carpentry planning value to perform a power tool operation,” because the structure of the apparatus of Riley as modified by Wexler and Stock is identical to the claimed structure, the apparatus of Riley as modified by Wexler and Stock is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, a user is capable of using the external power tool (saw or drill) taught in Stock to cut or drill a piece of wood based on a room dimension/carpentry value measured via the laser measurement module of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool taught in Wexler.
Regarding claim 5, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool (118, as modified by Wexler and Stock) further includes an antenna (Figure 1 and Paragraph [0031], additional function device 120 being an RFID radio, Bluetooth radio, or Wi-Fi radio).
Regarding claim 6, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the processing circuitry (comprised of 104 and 106) and the antenna (120) are further configured to implement near field communication (NFC), Bluetooth and/or WiFi (see Paragraph [0031] and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool (118, as modified by Wexler and Stock) further includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor (Figure 1 and Paragraph [0031], additional function device 120 being an accelerometer, a gyro sensor, or an angle or orientation sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool (118, as modified by Wexler and Stock) further includes a gyroscope (Figure 1 and Paragraph [0031], additional function device 120 being a gyro sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Wexler) wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool (110) that comprises a video camera (Paragraph [0099]; image sensor 220; Paragraph [0329], data capture module 2601).
Because Riley suggests the additional function device 120 of the modular device core 100 can be a variety of sensors (see Paragraph [0031]), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the video camera of Wexler to the apparatus of Riley as previously modified by Wexler and Stock. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the apparatus by allowing the apparatus to capture images and videos (see Paragraphs [0099], [0329]-[0331], [0346] in Wexler).
Regarding claim 12, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Stock) wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool (housing of 12) further includes a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a torque sensor, a motor control sensor, a speed control sensor, a humidity sensor, and/or a hall effect sensor (Figure 5 and Paragraph [0039], base unit 14 within 12 being a magnetic field sensor, movement sensor, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, humidity sensor, etc.).
Because Riley suggests the additional function device 120 of the modular device core 100 can be a variety of sensors (see Paragraph [0031] in Riley), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the temperature sensor of Stock to the apparatus of Riley as previously modified by Wexler and Stock. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the apparatus by allowing the apparatus to detect/measure temperature (see Paragraph [0039] in Stock).
Regarding claim 13, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool (118, as modified by Wexler and Stock) further includes a measurement sensor (Figure 1 and Paragraph [0031], additional function device 120 being a fitness tracking device (e.g., step tracking device, heart rate or pulse monitor or tracking device, power meter, etc.)), an optical sensor and/or a magnetometer.
Regarding claim 15, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, and further teaches (in Stock) wherein the external power tool is a drill (Paragraph [0052] and Figure 7, third hand-held power tool 18″ in this case is realized as a battery-powered screwdriver).
Regarding claim 16, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, and further teaches (in Stock) wherein the external power tool is one of: a fluid pump, grease gun, torque wrench, saw, nailer, vacuum, and blower (Paragraph [0006], “A “hand-held power tool” in this case is to be understood to mean, in particular, a machine for performing work on workpieces, but advantageously a power drill, a hammer drill and/or percussion hammer, a saw, a plane, a screwdriver, a router, a sander, an angle grinder, a garden appliance and/or a multifunction tool”).
Regarding claim 18, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the interactive touch screen display (112) has a circular shape (see Figure 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US Publication No. 2018/0059810), Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797), Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536), and in further view of Mistry (US Publication No. 2014/0139637).
Regarding claim 3, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein (in Riley) the interactive touch screen display (112) is circular in shape (see Figure 4), but does not explicitly teach wherein the interactive touch screen display is between 1 inch and 3 inch in diameter.
However, Mistry teaches an interactive touch screen display (circular display 110) is circular in shape (see Figure 1) and is between 1 inch and 3 inch in diameter (see Figure 4A and Paragraph [0106]).
Because Riley suggests the display may be a different shape and/or size (see Paragraph [0039] in Riley), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the size and shape of the modular core device of Riley as modified by Wexler and Stock to the size and shape taught in Mistry, considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant (see MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Here, the apparatus of Riley as modified by Stock and Wexler would perform the same function if modified to be the shape disclosed in Mistry.
Additionally, the stated limitation of “between 1 inch and 3 inch in diameter” is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range of dimensions to allow a user to effectively view and interact with the display.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US Publication No. 2018/0059810), Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797), Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536), and in further view of Mooring (US Publication No. 2012/0092822).
Regarding claim 4, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, but does not teach wherein the interactive touch screen display is square in shape and has an area between 1 square inch and 9 square inches.
However, Mooring teaches wherein an interactive touch screen display (Figures 1-3, optical display 240) is square in shape (see Figures 1-3) and has an area between 1 square inch and 9 square inches (see Paragraph [0074] and Figure 2B).
Considering Riley suggests the display may be a different shape and/or size (see Paragraph [0039] in Riley), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the size and shape of the modular core device of Riley as modified by Wexler and Stock to the size and shape taught in Mooring, because a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant (see MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Here, the apparatus of Riley as modified by Wexler and Stock would perform the same function if modified to be the shape disclosed in Mooring.
Additionally, the stated limitation of “between 1 square inch and 9 square inches” is held to be merely a selection of optimal working parameters established through routine experimentation, and thus obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range of dimensions to allow a user to effectively view and interact with the display.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US Publication No. 2018/0059810), Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797), Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536), and in further view of Kauth (DE Publication No. 102015226734).
Regarding claim 19, Riley in view of Wexler and Stock teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and suggests (see Paragraphs [0020], [0038], and [0051] in Stock), but does not explicitly teach wherein the interactive touch screen display provides a user with an ability to control a plurality of features of the external power tool.
However, Kauth teaches wherein an interactive touch screen display (Figure 5, display 510) provides a user with an ability to control a plurality of features of the external power tool (see bottom half of pages 4 and 7 and Figures 1-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the display of Riley as modified by Wexler and Stock to be capable of controlling the operation of the connected power tools as taught in Kauth. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the apparatus, by allowing the apparatus to act as a universal, modularized control device for a variety of power tools through the display, eliminating the need for the power tools to include a built-in control unit, and ultimately reducing repair/manufacturing costs (see page 2 in Kauth).
Alternatively, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley (US Publication No. 2018/0059810) in view of Thierman (US Publication No. 2011/0288816) and Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536).
Regarding claim 2, Riley discloses an apparatus (Figure 1, modular core device 100), comprising: a sealed dockable core retainer 118; see also Paragraphs [0025] and [0031]) including: an interactive touch screen display (display 112) being circular or square in shape (see Figure 4); a battery (battery 122); a memory (memory 106); a additional function devices 120; see Paragraph [0031]); an electrical connector (communication interface 114; see Paragraph [0028]) configured to electrically connect to an external mounting housing 102; Paragraph [0022], mount housing being various tools, including strap, band, lanyard, necklace, etc.; see also Figures 11-12); a magnetic docker (attachment interface 116, Paragraphs [0028]-[0031], 116 engaging with 136 of 102 through magnetic force) configured to attach the apparatus (100) to the external tool (102), wherein the electrical connector (114) provides the apparatus (100) with electricity (NOTE: “electricity” being interpreted as “electrical signals/data”, specifically considering the specification does not provide any support for the electrical connector providing power from the external power tool to the apparatus) from the external tool (102) (Paragraph [0027], 100 receiving signals from 102 through 114 to detect type of 102 to which it is connected); and processing circuitry (processor 104) configured to: detect connection of the apparatus (100) to the external tool (102) via the magnetic docker (116), and update graphics of the interactive touch screen display (112) based on a functional type of the external tool (Figures 1-4 and Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0028]-[0030], [0049]-[0053], magnets positioned on modular device core 100 to guide attachment of modular device core 100 to mounting housing 102 to result in physical and communicative coupling of the communication interfaces 114, 130, further resulting in the graphical interface displayed by the modular device core 100 to be modified by the processor/memory based on type of mounting housing 102 connected), wherein the processing circuitry (104), interactive touch screen display (112), and measurement module (120) are disposed entirely within the sealed dockable measurement tool (118), and wherein the sealed dockable measurement tool (118) is configured to allow for a separable connection to be made between the measurement module (120) and the external tool (102; where 120 is separably connected with 102 via separable connection between 118 and 102).
Riley does not disclose a sealed dockable laser measurement tool, wherein the sealed dockable laser measurement tool comprises: a laser measurement module configured to measure and store at least one dimension of a room in the memory as a carpentry planning value, the at least one dimension of the room being defined by a first distance between a first structure and a second structure or a second distance between a third structure and the laser measurement module, and processing circuitry configured to update graphics of the interactive touch screen display based on the carpentry planning value.
However, Thierman teaches a sealed dockable laser measurement tool (apparatus 1710) comprising: a memory (Paragraph [0012], [0057], [0084], [0107], memory of device); and a laser measurement module (source 1720) configured to measure and store at least one dimension of a room in the memory (memory of device) as a carpentry planning value (see Paragraph [0060]), the at least one dimension of the room being defined by a first distance between a first structure and a second structure or a second distance between a third structure and the laser measurement module (see Figures 1-3), and processing circuitry (Paragraph [0042]-[0043], [0083]-[0084], [0107], processing circuitry) configured to update graphics of the interactive touch screen display (Paragraph [0042]-[0043], [0083]-[0084], [0107], processing circuitry configured to display measurement) based on the carpentry planning value (see Paragraph [0060]).
Because Riley suggests the additional function device 120 of the modular device core 100 can be a variety of sensors (see Paragraph [0031]), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the laser measuring sensor of Thierman within the sealed dockable measurement tool of Riley. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the apparatus by allowing the apparatus to detect/measure distances between an object and the wearable device (see Paragraphs [0047], [0074], [0082]-[0086] in Thierman).
Riley in view of Thierman does not teach wherein the external tool is an external power tool, wherein at least one of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool and the external power tool is configured to use the carpentry planning value to perform a power tool operation.
However, Stock teaches an apparatus (mobile sensor device 12) configured to be attached to an external tool (Figure 7, hand-held power tool 18, 18’, and 18’’), wherein the external tool is an external power tool (see Paragraphs [0051]-[0055] and Figure 7; see also Paragraph [0006]), wherein at least one of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool and the external power tool (see Paragraphs [0051]-[0055] and Figure 7; see also Paragraph [0006]) is configured to use a carpentry planning value (distance measurement) to perform a power tool operation (Paragraph [0006], user capable of using the saw to cut lumber or using a power drill to drill a hole based on a distance measurement).
Because both Riley and Stock teach mounting a wrist-worn display apparatus to various devices, including power tools (see Figures 3-4 and 11-12 in Riley; see Figure 7 in Stock), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the mounting housing of Riley as modified by Thierman for the power tools of Stock according to known methods to yield the predictable results of mounting a wrist-worn sensing apparatus with an external tool to utilize sensors within the sensing apparatus in conjunction with functions of the tool. Doing so would have also expanded the functionality of the modular device core of Riley as modified by Thierman by allowing the sensor(s) to take measurements and adjust operating parameters relating to a power tool (see Paragraph [0051] in Stock).
Regarding the functional limitation “wherein at least one of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool and the external power tool is configured to use the carpentry planning value to perform a power tool operation,” because the structure of the apparatus of Riley as modified by Thierman and Stock is identical to the claimed structure, the apparatus of Riley as modified by Thierman and Stock is considered to be as capable of performing the function as the claimed invention, absent any claimed structural difference. See MPEP § 2114 I & II, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function... A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, a user is capable of using the external power tool (saw or drill) taught in Stock to cut or drill a piece of wood based on a room dimension/carpentry value measured via the laser measurement module of the sealed dockable laser measurement tool, as taught in Thierman (see Paragraph [0060] in Thierman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights