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
In response to applicant’s amendment received on 1/28/26, all requested changes to the specification and claims have been entered. Claims 1-21 were previously and are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/18/25.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a “computer program”. A computer program is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” and therefore the claim is considered non-statutory (see MPEP 2106.03(I)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 20 recites a “computer-readable medium” which is not defined in the claim or specification as specifically excluding, and therefore considered to encompass, subject matter such as a “signal” or “carrier wave”. A signal or carrier wave is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” and therefore the claim is considered non-statutory. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-11 and 18-21 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 the limitation "the identified bracket connection" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The preceding limitation discloses “the bracket and the configuration of the supported member and the supporting member together forming a bracket connection”, however the bracket connection is not disclosed as being “identified” as is indicated by the limitation in question. The limitation is then repeated in dependent claims 6-8.
Claims 2-11 and 18-21 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon rejected claim 1 above.
Additionally, regarding claims 3, 18 and 21, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8-10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0109083 to Fenker.
Regarding claim Fenker discloses a computer-implemented method, implemented on a mobile terminal for deciding on a bracket connection (Fig. 1, elements 14 and 16; paragraphs 39 and 45, wherein the combination of auxiliary assembly apparatus (14) and controller (16) correspond to the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “mobile terminal”), comprising:
selecting one of a specific bracket type (paragraphs 02, 24-27, 38 and 47-48, wherein an electrical component is identified or selected from all possible components based on image evaluation or scanning a barcode. The electrical component comprising a connector for supporting members such as a wire, cable or switch cabinet corresponds to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “bracket” which is disclosed in the specification as “typically used as an intermediate component for fixing one constructional component to another constructional component” (page 1, lines 11-13) and “Within the context of this application the term "bracket" should be interpreted broadly to cover all connecting hardware which is intended to connect one structural member to another structural member. Such hardware components, all to fall within the "bracket" definition of this application, can be referred to by various terms such as "connectors", "ties", "angles", etc. when used in building constructions.” (page 5, lines 4-9). Thus an electrical component with connectors corresponds to a “bracket” and the wires/cables or switch cabinet that it connects with correspond to the BRI of a “constructional component” or “structural member” used in the building/assembly of switch cabinet constructions) OR a specific configuration of a supported member and a supporting member (alternative limitation not required to be disclosed by the prior art if the other alternative is disclosed, MPEP 2143.03 “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)”)
identifying, based on the selected bracket type if such is selected, at least one configuration of a supported member and a supporting member associated with the selected bracket type (paragraph 49, wherein based on the connector the correct configuration of supporting/supported wire/cable and cabinet members is identified), OR, based on the selected specific configuration of a supported member and a supporting member if such is selected, at least one bracket type being associated with the configuration of the supported member and the supporting member (alternative limitation not required to be disclosed by the prior art if the other alternative is disclosed, MPEP 2143.03),
the bracket and the configuration of the supported member and the supporting member together forming a bracket connection (paragraphs 49-51, wherein the connector and of wires and switch cabinet (i.e. supported/supporting members) are assembled to form the desired “bracket connection”), and
determining one or more properties of the identified bracket connection (paragraphs 28-31 and 52, wherein properties such as an error or deviation in position of the bracket connection are determined).
Regarding claim 2, Fenker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of selecting a specific bracket type is performed by a user scanning a bracket bar code (paragraphs 24-27 and 47, wherein the component/connector is identified/selected by a user can scanning a barcode).
Regarding claim 3, Fenker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of selecting a specific bracket type is performed by a user inputting a specific bracket ID, such as a bracket article number (paragraphs 24-27 and 47, wherein the component/connector is identified/selected by a user by inputting a numeral code or barcode (i.e. encoded number)).
Regarding claim 4, Fenker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of selecting a specific bracket type is performed by a user recording image data of an existing bracket, and determining the specific bracket type from said image data (paragraphs 24-27 and 47, wherein the component/connector is identified/selected by a user capturing an image where it is recognized based on shape, contour or color) .
Regarding claim 5, Fenker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of selecting a specific configuration of the supported member and the supporting member is performed by a user recording image data of an existing configuration, and determining the specific configuration from said image data (“selecting a specific configuration of the supported member and the supporting member “ is an alternative limitation in parent claim 1 and is thus not required to be disclosed by the prior art since the other alternative is disclosed, MPEP 2143.03 “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009)”).
Regarding claim 6, Fenker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising presenting said one or more properties of the identified bracket connection properties to a user (paragraphs 31, 44 and 52, wherein when an error symbol associated with, for example a deviation property, is presented to the user via display of the smart glasses).
Regarding claim 8, Fenker discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more properties of the identified bracket connection bracket connection properties comprise a fastening configuration (paragraph 52, wherein properties such as an error or deviation in position of the bracket connection are determined corresponding to a “fastening configuration” property).
Regarding claim 9, Fenker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising presenting a determined bracket connection to a user (paragraphs 15-23, wherein a desired configuration of the assembly, corresponding to “a determined bracket connection” is presented to the user via augmented reality).
Regarding claim 10, Fenker discloses the method of claim 9, wherein presenting the determined bracket connection is performed using augmented reality, adding a graphical model of the identified bracket type to the image of the support members configuration, OR adding a graphical model of the support members configuration to the image of the bracket type (paragraphs 15-23, wherein a desired configuration of the assembly including an added graphical model of the wires is presented to the user via augmented reality).
Regarding claim 18, Fenker discloses a data processing apparatus, such as a mobile terminal or device, comprising a processor adapted to perform the method according to claim 6 (Fig. 1, element 16; paragraphs 40-45, wherein the controller (16) comprises a processor adapted to perform the method of claim 6).
Regarding claim 19, Fenker discloses a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer or processor, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 6 (paragraph 45, wherein instructions stored in a memory cause a processor of the controller to carry out the method of claim 6).
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 7, 11, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0109083 to Fenker in view of USPN 7,851,758 to Scanlon et al. (“Scanlon”).
As to claim 7, Fenker discloses the method of claim 6.
Fenker does not disclose expressly wherein the one or more properties of the identified bracket connection properties comprise a maximum load capability of the bracket connection.
However, Scanlon discloses a process that includes presenting properties of identified electrical components/connectors (i.e. bracket connections) to a user that includes a maximum load capability of those connectors (Figs. 14-17; column 3, lines 21-38; column 4, lines 41-44; column 17, line 41 – column 19, line 21, wherein a max allowed load capability is calculated based on input data and presented to a user, see figure 17).
Fenker & Scanlon are combinable because they are from the same art of analyzing electrical components/connectors (i.e. “bracket connections”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique of presenting properties of electrical components/connectors to a user that includes maximum load capability, as taught by Scanlon, into the process of determining properties of a bracket connections disclosed by Fenker.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide safety information and prevent potential unsafe conditions (Scanlon, column 1, line 56 – column 2, line 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Scanlon with Fenker to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, Fenker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising inspecting and evaluating a bracket connection by:
recording an image of an existing bracket connection (paragraph 52, wherein an image of an assembled/existing bracket connection is recorded)
determining the bracket type and support member configuration from said recorded image, the bracket type and support member configuration together forming a determined bracket connection (paragraphs 47-52, wherein the desired configuration is determined from e-CAD based on the image of the assembled components of the image), and
determining a paragraph 52, wherein properties such as an error or deviation in position of the bracket connection are determined).
Fenker does not disclose expressly determining a possible load capability of the determined bracket connection.
However, Scanlon discloses a process that includes capturing images of electrical components/connectors (i.e. bracket connections) and determining the possible load capability of those connections (Figs. 14-17; column 3, lines 21-38; column 4, lines 41-44; column 17, line 41 – column 19, line 21, wherein a max load or load percentage capability is calculated based on input data and presented to a user, see figure 17).
Fenker & Scanlon are combinable because they are from the same art of analyzing electrical components/connectors (i.e. “bracket connections”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique of capturing images of electrical components/connectors (i.e. bracket connections) and determining the possible load capability of those connections, as taught by Scanlon, into the process of determining properties of bracket connections disclosed by Fenker.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide safety information and prevent potential unsafe conditions (Scanlon, column 1, line 56 – column 2, line 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Scanlon with Fenker to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fenker and Scanlon discloses the method of claim 11. Fenker further discloses a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer or processor, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 11 (Fenker, paragraph 45, wherein instructions stored in a memory (i.e. computer-readable medium) cause a processor of the controller to carry out the method).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Fenker and Scanlon discloses the method of claim 11. Fenker further discloses a data processing apparatus, such as a mobile terminal or device, comprising a processor adapted to perform the method according to claim 11 (Fenker, Fig. 1, element 16; paragraphs 40-45, wherein the controller (16) comprises a processor adapted to perform the method).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
It’s specifically noted that the article “IDEA Connections User Guide” appears to also be a potential 102(a)(1) reference for at least independent claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri).
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661