DETAILED ACTION
Claims 7-16 are currently presented for examination.
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 Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims are Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
The claim amendments show that the invention is performed with physical devices and is no longer an abstract idea.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 102 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
See updated 103 rejection below that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues there is no projecting of an image onto an actual physical component of a fence panel as required in the claimed embodiment.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as this is not required by the claim. When looking at the antecedence of the claim, a display receives a visual representation of a fence run. This shows that the display is responsible for displaying the fence run. Then a dynamically updated visual representation is received, which can also be shown on the display when looking at the previous limitations. The received instructions that contain the component that is projected, is part of the dynamically updated visual representation, which is still tied back to the display. There are no fence panels outside of the display that are present in the claim. If applicant wants the claims to be interpreted as argued, the claim should be amended to clearly point out what fence portions and components are part of the display and what is physical.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
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.
Claims 7, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert USPPN 2015/0363950, in view of Abri et al. USPPN 2012/0257174 (hereinafter Abri)
Regarding claim 7, Gilbert teaches receiving, via a display, a visual representation of a fence run including a plurality of fence panels; (Figures 4-8, [0044], a portion of the fence run with a plurality of panels is received to show on the display)
providing input of fence run characteristics for the custom fence and/or modifying the fence run characteristics via a first user interface; (Figure 3, [0041]-[0044], a user interface is presented to take in inputs for the fence; Figures 1 and 2, inputs about the fence characteristics are received)
receiving a dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run based at least in part on changes made to the fence run characteristics; (Figure 2, [0036], the drawing is adjusted in real time as items are added and/or re-positioned)
receiving instructions for building a fence panel shown in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run, the instructions including an image of a component of the fence panel of the fence run of the custom fence; and (Figure 8, a list of what components are used to build (instructions) the fence and an image of the fence panel is shown)
projecting, …, the image onto the component of the fence panel in an unfinished state to facilitate the fabrication of the custom fence. (Figures 4-7 the fence panels in an unfinished state are shown)
Gilbert does not explicitly teach a projector
Abri teaches a projector ([0019], the information required is projected onto the projection surface)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Gilbert with Abri as the references deal with display devices, in order to implement a system that uses a projector that moves on rails and can move based on hand movements, to project the required image. Abri would modify Gilbert by implementing a system that uses a projector that moves on rails and can move based on hand movements, to project the required image. The benefit of doing so is the steering device can thus provide at all times an arrangement and alignment, which are optimal from the ergonometric viewpoint, of the projection surface by the carrier apparatus. (Abri [0113])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 7. Gilbert also teaches wherein the image includes marking locations, hole locations, and cut locations for the component of the fence panel. (Figures 5 and 6, locations of each component, post hole locations, and locations where the fence is cut to include gates and posts are shown)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 7. Gilbert also teaches wherein the component of the fence panel is a fence post, a fence rail, a fence trim piece, or a fence board. (Figures 5 and 6, [0021], [0027], fence posts, segments of fence boards are used; Figures 4 and 8, fence rail and trim is shown)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 7. Gilbert also teaches wherein the component of the fence panel is located on a work surface and adjacent to a reference surface of a rail affixed to the work surface. (Figures 4-8, the fence panels are located on the rail surface and adjacent to the house and post rail that are also affixed to the work surface, the fence is connected to the house with a rail)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 7. Gilbert teaches the component of the fence panel (Figures 4-8, the component is the fence panel)
Gilbert does not explicitly teach wherein the projector is mounted on rails such that it can move laterally with respect to the component …
Abri teaches wherein the projector is mounted on rails such that it can move laterally with respect to the component … (Fig 1, [0108]-[0109], [0112], The projector is able to move in vertical and horizontal directions with respect to the component)
See motivation of claim 13
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 13. Gilbert teaches the component of the fence panel (Figures 4-8, the component is the fence panel)
Gilbert does not explicitly teach wherein the projector moves laterally along the rails in response to a hand moving along the component …
Abri teaches wherein the projector moves laterally along the rails in response to a hand moving along the component … ([0026]-[0027], [0113], in response to gestures by the staff, the projector moves along the component)
See motivation of claim 13
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Abri and in further view of Doherty et al. USPPN 2020/0250354 (hereinafter Doherty)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gilbert and Abri the limitations of claim 7. The combination of Gilbert and Abri does not explicitly recite further comprising providing input of fence building equipment via a second user interface.
Doherty teaches further comprising providing input of fence building equipment via a second user interface. (Figures 1 and 2, [0038], the equipment data is provided through a user interface from a user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Gilbert and Abri with Doherty as the references deal with construction data including fences and display of data, in order to implement a system that takes in fence building equipment via a second user interface. Doherty would modify Gilbert and Abri by implementing a system that takes in fence building equipment via a second user interface. The benefit of doing so is the system can determine the equipment that is capable of completing the construction tasks. (Doherty Abstract)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Abri, and in further view of Tsehayae et al. System model for analysing construction labour productivity (hereinafter Tsehayae)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 7. The combination of Gilbert and Abri does not explicitly recite further comprising providing input of a skill level via a second user interface.
Tsehayae teaches further comprising providing input of a skill level via a second user interface. (Figure 1, Table 1, Input parameters quantification Pages 207-210, the skill level of the user that is doing the construction is an input)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Gilbert and Abri with Tsehayae as the references deal with construction data including fences and display of data, in order to implement a system that takes in skill level via a second user interface. Tsehayae would modify Gilbert and Abri by implementing a system that takes in skill level via a second user interface. The benefit of doing so is the system can more accurately determine construction labor productivity. (Tsehayae Conclusion)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Abri, and in further view of Siemionow et al. USPPN 2019/0053855 (hereinafter Siemionow)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 13. Gilbert and Abri does not explicitly teach wherein the image is a full image and projecting the full image onto the component includes projecting a portion of the full image onto the component, where the portion of the full image scrolls through an entirety of the full image as the projector moves laterally along the rails.
Siemionow wherein the image is a full image and projecting the full image onto the component includes projecting a portion of the full image onto the component, (Figures 2B, 3A-3B and 4A, [0085] The full image (spine and hips) and a portion of the image (spine) are projected)
where the portion of the full image scrolls through an entirety of the full image as the projector moves laterally along the rails. ([0055]-[0060], [0073], by tracking markers as the projection system moves, the correct image is scrolled through as the projection system moves)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Gilbert and Abri with Siemionow as the references deal with display devices, in order to implement a system that scrolls through an image as a projector is moved. Siemionow would modify Gilbert and Abri by scrolling through an image as the projector is moved. The benefit of doing so is the system can provide the correct image that is in accordance with the current position of the projector. (Siemionow [0013])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Abri, and in further view of Livesey et al. USPAT 6,492,993 (hereinafter Livesey)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gilbert and Abri teaches the limitations of claim 7. The combination of Gilbert and Abri does not explicitly teach wherein projecting the image onto the component includes adjusting the image to compensate for a thickness of the component.
Livesey teaches wherein projecting the image onto the component includes adjusting the image to compensate for a thickness of the component. (Figure 3, Column 7 Lines 32-45, Column 10 Lines 42-67, the thickness of the image is adjusted, which adjusts the overall image)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Gilbert and Abri with Livesey as the references deal with fence design, in order to implement a system that updates an image based on thickness. Livesey would modify Gilbert and Abri by implementing a system that adjusts an image based on thickness. The benefit of doing so is the image is continually updated during the design development. (Livesey Column 7 Lines 32-45)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knudsen USPPN 2010/0229415: Also teaches the use of a projector in the fence making process
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188