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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed October 17, 2024 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed July 17, 2024. Claims 2-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are currently pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 6-8, “the at least one dimension of a room being defined by a distance between a first structure and a second structure or the distance between a first structure and the laser measurement module” should likely read --the at least one dimension of [[a]] the room being defined by a first distance between a first structure and a second structure or [[the]] a second distance between a third structure and the laser measurement module-- to avoid improper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536) and Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797).
Regarding claim 2, Riley discloses an apparatus (Figure 1, modular core device 100), comprising: a sealed container (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); an electrical connector (communication interface 114; see Paragraph [0028]) configured to electrically connect to an external tool (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); processing circuitry (comprised of processor 104 and memory 106) 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).
Riley does not teach wherein the external tool is an external power tool.
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]).
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 and 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 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 by allowing the sensor(s) to take measurements and adjust operating parameters relating to a power tool (see Paragraph [0051] in Stock).
Riley in view of Stock does not teach wherein the sealed container comprises a laser measurement module configured to measure and store at least one dimension of a room as a room measurement, and processing circuitry configured to update graphics of the interactive touch screen display based on a room measurement.
However, Wexler teaches wherein a sealed container (Figures 1D, 2, 5A-5B, wearable apparatus 110) comprises a laser measurement module (Figures 5A-5B, 32 and Paragraphs [0402]-[0434], distance module 3204 of memory 550, 3200 of apparatus 110) configured to measure and store at least one dimension of a room as a room measurement (Paragraphs [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 mapping the dimensions of a room), the at least one dimension of the room being defined by a distance between a first structure and a second structure or the distance between a first 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 a room measurement (Paragraphs [0402]-[0434],[0437], physical distance measurements detected by distance module being visually communicated to user through wearable apparatus).
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 to the apparatus of Riley as modified by Stock. 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).
Regarding claim 5, Riley in view of Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed container (118) 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 Stock and Wexler 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 Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed container (118) 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 Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed container (118) further includes a gyroscope (Figure 1 and Paragraph [0031], additional function device 120 being a gyro sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Riley in view of Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Wexler) wherein the sealed container (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 Stock and Wexler. 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 Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Stock) wherein the sealed container (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 Stock and Wexler. 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 Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the sealed container (118) 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 Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, and further teaches (in Stock) wherein the 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 Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, and further teaches (in Stock) wherein the 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 Stock and Wexler teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, and further teaches (in Riley) wherein the interactive touch screen (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), Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536), Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797), and in further view of Mistry (US Publication No. 2014/0139637).
Regarding claim 3, Riley in view of Stock and Wexler 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 Stock and Wexler 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), Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536), Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797), and in further view of Mooring (US Publication No. 2012/0092822).
Regarding claim 4, Riley in view of Stock and Wexler 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 Stock and Wexler 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 Stock and Wexler 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), Stock (US Publication No. 2017/0180536), Wexler (US Publication No. 2018/0115797), and in further view of Kauth (DE Publication No. 102015226734).
Regarding claim 19, Riley in view of Stock and Wexler 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 provides a user with the ability to control a plurality of features of the power tool.
However, Kauth teaches wherein an interactive touch screen (Figure 5, display 510) provides a user with the ability to control a plurality of features of the 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 Stock and Wexler 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2024 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Wexler only teaches wherein the LIDAR system is configured to measure a distance between a user and a structure, as opposed to a distance between a structure and the laser measurement module (Arguments, pages 8-9). Examiner disagrees. The LIDAR system in Wexler calculates a distance between a structure and the LIDAR system by emitting a laser light, and detecting a reflection of the laser light. Wexler suggests the distance is between the user and the object, because the user is wearing the LIDAR system, when, in actuality, the calculated distance is between the structure and the laser measurement module (see Paragraphs [0409]-[0411]).
In response to Applicant's argument that the LIDAR system of Wexler is not configured to map distances and geometries of the physical confines of a room in which a power tool is operated (Arguments, pages 9-10), 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.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains rejections to claims 2-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Strasser (US Publication No. 2004/0215395) and Windolf (US Patent No. 10736644) also teach a laser measurement unit similar to Wexler and the claims device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Adrian Scott Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3907. 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.
/G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights