DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s communication filed 10/28/2025.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 9 is objected to for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment of the title, the objection to the specification made in the previous office action has been withdrawn.
Due to the amendments to the claims, the claims are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 are therefore being maintained.
Applicant argues on Pages 8-9 of the Remarks that Steinlechner does not teach the limitation “and perform the identification processing in response to detection of the state where the tool is set in place on the work target”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim limitation does not require that the image processing is performed every time there is a state detection of the tool being set in place on the work target. Rather, placement of the tool on the work target resulting in image processing one time would read on the claim limitation. In ¶ 29-32 of Steinlechner, the grayscale image is captured after the tool is placed proximate to the starting point of the work line. The images are then continuously captured to correct the tool as it deviates away from the starting or application point. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered beginning the image processing after the tool is placed on the work target as obvious in view of the teachings of Steinlechner.
The claimed “identification processing of identifying a work target” is being interpreted as equivalent to the image alignment processing for correcting the course of a tool on a target line taught by Steinlechner (See ¶ 36-37 and 43-45 for more context). In an initial state, as discussed in ¶ 29-32, the tool is placed approximate to the work target, which is the initial detection of a state where the tool is set in place on the work target, and the tool begins image processing. In response to this first step, the identification processing is executed to determine the alignment. The processing is continuously performed as the course continues due to the tool deviating from the target line of the workpiece.
Steinlechner is deficient in teaching that the identification processing is performed intermittently. However, the claim does not require that the processing is performed intermittently only in response to detection of the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. Other conditions causing the tool to intermittently perform the identification processing are encompassed by the claim. Furthermore, the identification processing being performed intermittently as generally recited by the claim is taught by the combination of Steinlechner with Rola as discussed on page 7 of this office action.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINLECHNER (US 2014/0293041 A1) in view of ROLA (US 2017/0320183 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, STEINLECHNER discloses a tool system comprising: a tool (¶ 27, Fig. 9: The tool is a hand operated saw.)
including a motor configured to be activated with power supplied from a power source, (¶ 27, 42: The tool is electrical and motorized and operated by an on/off switch. It would inherently include a power source for operating the tool’s motor as well as the control means and imaging sensors.)
the tool being a portable tool; (¶ 42-43, Fig. 9: The tool is hand operated and portable.)
a camera provided for the tool and configured to generate a captured image; (¶ 29, 43: An imaging sensor is integrated with the tool, such as a CCD camera.)
and a processor configured to… perform identification processing of identifying a work target based on the captured image, (¶ 29, 43-45: The captured images are of a work piece and the images are processed to identify a target line on the work piece.)
wherein the processor is configured to detect a state where the tool is set in place on the work target (¶ 29-32, 36-37, 45: The target line is identified in the image data and the tool is determined to be set in place on the target line of the work piece. If there is any deviation, a control means guides the tool back to the center line.)
and perform the identification processing in response to detection of the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 29-32: A grayscale image is captured in response to the tool being placed proximate to the starting point of the work line and images are captured over the course of application of the tool to the target work line.
Note: The claim limitation does not require that the image processing is performed every time there is a state detection of the tool being set in place on the work target. Rather, the placement of the tool on the work target resulting in image processing one time would read on the claim limitation.
The claimed “identification processing of identifying a work target” is being interpreted as equivalent to the image alignment processing for correcting the course of a tool on a target line taught by STEINLECHNER. In an initial state, the tool is placed approximate to the work target, which is the initial detection of a state where the tool is set in place on the work target, and begins image processing. In response to this first step, the identification processing is executed to determine the alignment. The processing is continuously performed as the course continues.)
STEINLECHNER does not explicitly teach that the image processing is intermittently performed.
However, ROLA, which is similarly directed to a portable tool with an imaging component for identifying elements in a work area, teaches a processing unit configured to intermittently perform identification processing (¶ 59, 64: The camera captures images to identify the target when requested by a controller. This is done when the tool is stationary, when its rotating, or when other conditions are met. The image capturing and identification is therefore done intermittently.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical tool with imaging system for identifying placement of the tool on a work target as taught by STEINLECHNER by intermittently capturing images of the work target as taught by ROLA. Since the references are similarly directed to electrical tools having imagining components for identifying elements in a work area, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by ROLA (¶ 64), this would ensure that an adequate image is captured. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also implemented intermittent image identification and processing to save processing power.
Regarding Claim 13, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA further teaches a tool for use in the tool system of claim 1, the tool comprising: the motor; and the camera. (STEINLECHNER, ¶ 27-29, 42-43: The tool is an electrical tool including a motor and a camera. Also See ROLA, ¶ 7: The tool includes a drive unit and a camera.)
Regarding Claim 14, STEINLECHNER teaches work target identification system comprising: a processor configured to… perform identification processing of identifying a work target (¶ 29, 43-45: The captured images are of a work piece and the images are processed to identify a target line on the work piece.)
based on a captured image generated by a camera, (¶ 29, 43: An imaging sensor is integrated with the tool, such as a CCD camera.)
the camera being provided for a tool, the tool being a portable tool (¶ 42-43, Fig. 9: The tool is hand operated and portable.)
including a motor configured to be activated with power supplied from a power source; (¶ 27, 42: The tool is electrical and motorized and operated by an on/off switch. It would inherently include a power source for operating the tool’s motor as well as the control means and imaging sensors.)
wherein the processor is further configured to detect a state where the tool is set in place on the work target (¶ 29-32, 36-37, 45: The target line is identified in the image data and the tool is determined to be set in place on the target line of the work piece. If there is any deviation, a control means guides the tool back to the center line.)
and perform the identification processing in response to detection of the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 29-32: A grayscale image is captured in response to the tool being placed proximate to the starting point of the work line and images are captured over the course of application of the tool to the target work line.
Note: The claim limitation does not require that the image processing is performed every time there is a state detection of the tool being set in place on the work target. Rather, the placement of the tool on the work target resulting in image processing one time would read on the claim limitation.
The claimed “identification processing of identifying a work target” is being interpreted as equivalent to the image alignment processing for correcting the course of a tool on a target line taught by STEINLECHNER. In an initial state, the tool is placed approximate to the work target, which is the initial detection of a state where the tool is set in place on the work target, and begins image processing. In response to this first step, the identification processing is executed to determine the alignment. The processing is continuously performed as the course continues.)
STEINLECHNER does not explicitly teach that the image processing is intermittently performed.
However, ROLA, which is similarly directed to a portable tool with an imaging component for identifying elements in a work area, teaches a processing unit configured to intermittently perform identification processing (¶ 59, 64: The camera captures images to identify the target when requested by a controller. This is done when the tool is stationary, when its rotating, or when other conditions are met. The image capturing and identification is therefore done intermittently.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical tool with imaging system for identifying placement of the tool on a work target as taught by STEINLECHNER by intermittently capturing images of the work target as taught by ROLA. Since the references are similarly directed to electrical tools having imagining components for identifying elements in a work area, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by ROLA (¶ 64), this would ensure that an adequate image is captured. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also implemented intermittent image identification and processing to save processing power.
Regarding Claim 15, STEINLECHNER teaches a work target identification method comprising: an identification processing step including… performing identification processing of identifying a work target (¶ 29, 43-45: The captured images are of a work piece and the images are processed to identify a target line on the work piece.)
based on a captured image generated by a camera, (¶ 29, 43: An imaging sensor is integrated with the tool, such as a CCD camera.)
the camera being provided for a tool, the tool being a portable tool (¶ 42-43, Fig. 9: The tool is hand operated and portable.)
including a motor configured to be activated with power supplied from a power source; (¶ 27, 42: The tool is electrical and motorized and operated by an on/off switch. It would inherently include a power source for operating the tool’s motor as well as the control means and imaging sensors.)
and a set state detection step including detecting a state where the tool is set in place on the work target, (¶ 29-32, 36-37, 45: The target line is identified in the image data and the tool is determined to be set in place on the target line of the work piece. If there is any deviation, a control means guides the tool back to the center line.)
wherein the identification processing step includes performing the identification processing in response to detection of the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 29-32: A grayscale image is captured in response to the tool being placed proximate to the starting point of the work line and images are captured over the course of application of the tool to the target work line.
Note: The claim limitation does not require that the image processing is performed every time there is a state detection of the tool being set in place on the work target. Rather, the placement of the tool on the work target resulting in image processing one time would read on the claim limitation.
The claimed “identification processing of identifying a work target” is being interpreted as equivalent to the image alignment processing for correcting the course of a tool on a target line taught by STEINLECHNER. In an initial state, the tool is placed approximate to the work target, which is the initial detection of a state where the tool is set in place on the work target, and begins image processing. In response to this first step, the identification processing is executed to determine the alignment. The processing is continuously performed as the course continues.)
STEINLECHNER does not explicitly teach that the image processing is intermittently performed.
However, ROLA, which is similarly directed to a portable tool with an imaging component for identifying elements in a work area, teaches a processing unit configured to intermittently perform identification processing (¶ 59, 64: The camera captures images to identify the target when requested by a controller. This is done when the tool is stationary, when its rotating, or when other conditions are met. The image capturing and identification is therefore done intermittently.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical tool with imaging system for identifying placement of the tool on a work target as taught by STEINLECHNER by intermittently capturing images of the work target as taught by ROLA. Since the references are similarly directed to electrical tools having imagining components for identifying elements in a work area, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by ROLA (¶ 64), this would ensure that an adequate image is captured. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also implemented intermittent image identification and processing to save processing power.
Regarding Claim 16, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA further teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing thereon a program designed to cause one or more processors to perform the work target identification method of claim 15. (ROLA, ¶ 40: The control circuit includes a processor and memory. It would have been obvious that the control means of STEINLECHNER would also comprise a processor and memory.)
Regarding Claim 3, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to change settings of the tool based on a working condition associated with the work target identified by the processor. (ROLA, ¶ 39: If the imaging unit determines that a tool member, which is a working condition associated with the work target, is correct, parameters are accordingly changed for a drive unit. If it is not correct, the settings of the tool are changed by preventing operation of the tool.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the operation of a tool based on an image processing unit taught by STEINLECHNER by changing the settings of the tool based on a working condition detected by the image sensors as taught by ROLA. As taught by ROLA (¶ 5-6), “This will prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of the incorrect tool member engaging with the work piece or for the drive unit to operate at one or more incorrect settings” while maintaining efficiency of the tooling system.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINLECHNER (US 2014/0293041 A1) in view of ROLA (US 2017/0320183 A1) and further in view of HENDRON (US 2019/0301131 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 4 depends.
STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA does not teach wherein the processor is configured to, when finding a distance between the tool and the work target falling within a preset range, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target.
STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA does not teach wherein the processor is configured to, when finding a distance between the tool and the work target falling within a preset range, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target.
However, HENDRON, which is similarly directed to actuating a machine tool based on determining whether it is in a correct position, teaches wherein the processor is configured to, when finding a distance between the tool and the work target falling within a preset range, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 74: The distance between a tool and a work surface is measured using a distance sensor in order to determine if the tool is too far or too close to the surface. A determination that the tool is positioned correctly is made in order to actuate the tool.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination that a tool is in place on a work target taught by STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA by considering the distance of the tool from the work target as determined by a distance sensor as taught by HENDRON. Since the references are similarly directed to determining the correct position of a tool on a work target, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by HENDRON (¶ 74), such an implementation would aide in actuation of the device at the correct position.
Regarding Claim 5, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA and HENDRON further teaches further comprising a distance sensor configured to measure the distance between the tool and the work target, wherein the processor is configured to, when finding the distance measured by the distance sensor falling within the preset range, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (HENDRON, ¶ 74: A determination is made whether a tool is positioned too far or too close to a work surface using a distance sensor. Therefore, there is a range that the distance should fall in for the determination to be made that the tool is correctly positioned.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 4 applies to claim 5.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINLECHNER (US 2014/0293041 A1) in view of ROLA (US 2017/0320183 A1) and further in view of THOMPSON (US 2020/0282501 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 6 depends.
STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA does not teach wherein the processor is configured to, when finding the tool taking a predetermined orientation, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target.
However, THOMPSON, which is directed to determining the orientation of a power tool, teaches wherein the processor is configured to, when finding the tool taking a predetermined orientation, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 18, 25, 29, 30, Fig. 1: Based on determining a tool is in a desired orientation, namely orthogonal to the work target, the tool is detected to be in a state where the tool is set in place on the work target.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination that a tool is in place on a work target taught by STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA by considering the orientation of the tool as determined by sensors, such as motion sensors as taught by THOMPSON. Since THOMPSON is similarly directed to determining that a tool is set in a correct place on a work target, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by THOMPSON (¶ 37), such an implementation would have allowed “for more convenient and accurate use of the tool 102 by the user.”
Regarding Claim 7, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA and BOCHI further teaches further comprising a motion sensor configured to detect the tool's orientation, wherein the processor is configured to, when finding the tool's orientation detected by the motion sensor to be the predetermined orientation, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 18, 25, 29, 30, Fig. 1: The tool is detected to be in a state where the tool is set in place on the work target when it is in a desired orientation, namely orthogonal to the work target. The orientation of the tool is determined using motion sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, and gravity sensors.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 6 applies to claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINLECHNER (US 2014/0293041 A1) in view of ROLA (US 2017/0320183 A1) and further in view of RIVERS (US 2023/0074668 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 8 depends.
STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA does not teach wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the captured image is stabilized or not and in response to a decision that the captured image be stabilized, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target.
However, RIVERS, which is directed to imaging related to machine tools, teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the captured image is stabilized or not and in response to a decision that the captured image be stabilized, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 65, 195-197, 211, 215: A tilt, or instability, of a machine tool is determined by identifying variations between pixels of a first captured image and a second captured image. The tool is determined to be misaligned based on the differences and the tool is restabilized responsive to the determination.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination that a tool is in place on a work target taught by STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA by considering the stability of the tool as identified between differences in image data as taught by RIVERS. Since the references are similarly directed to determining the correct position of a tool on a work target, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by RIVERS (¶ 3, 75), such an implementation would have enabled accurate and robust determination of the position of a toll on a target object.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINLECHNER (US 2014/0293041 A1) in view of ROLA (US 2017/0320183 A1) and further in view of BOCHI (US 2007/0196784 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 10 depends.
STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA does not teach wherein the processor is configured to, when sensing the tool be pressed against the work target, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target.
However, BOCHI, which is directed to a dental drill, teaches wherein the processor is configured to, when sensing the tool be pressed against the work target, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 30-31: A drill is determined to be set in place when in contact with a surface, i.e. a work target, as determined by a pressure sensor.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination that a tool is in place on a work target taught by STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA by considering whether the tool is pressed against the work target as suggested by BOCHI. While BOCHI is directed to a medical application, the technical solution would have been considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art concerned with determining whether a tool is placed on a working target. The references are also all directed to the operation of portable electrical tools regardless of their specific applications. Furthermore, as taught by BOCHI (¶ 30), such an implementation would allow an operator of the tool to automatically activate the tool without the need for manual operation.
Regarding Claim 11, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA and BOCHI further teaches further comprising a pressure sensor configured to detect a pressure applied to the tool, wherein the processor is configured to, when finding the pressure detected by the pressure sensor equal to or greater than a threshold pressure, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (BOCHI, ¶ 31: When the pressure sensed by a pressure sensor is above a threshold, a tool is determined to be in place with the work target and the tool is activated.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 10 applies to claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEINLECHNER (US 2014/0293041 A1) in view of ROLA (US 2017/0320183 A1) and further in view of HASHIMOTO (US 2021/0205974 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 12 depends.
STEINLECHNER further teaches wherein the tool further includes an operating unit configured to activate the motor, the operating unit has an initial position and an ON position and is configured to activate the motor when pressed down to the ON position, (¶ 42: “Provided on the main hand grip 46 is an operating switch 56 by means of which the hand operated jigsaw 9 can be switched on and off”. The electrical tool is turned on and off using an operating switch.)
STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA does not teach and the processor is configured to, when finding the operating unit pressed halfway between the initial position and the ON position, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target.
However, HASHIMOTO, which is directed to operation of a portable tool, such as a power drill, teaches and the processor is configured to, when finding the operating unit pressed halfway between the initial position and the ON position, detect the state where the tool is set in place on the work target. (¶ 287, 294, 314: A user is determined to be only half-pressing a trigger switch based on an operation amount threshold while aligning a tool with a work target. The tool is therefore determined to be in place when an operation unit, such as a trigger switch, is half-depressed.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination that a tool is in place on a work target taught by STEINLECHNER in view of ROLA by considering whether a trigger switch is halfway pressed as suggested by HASHIMOTO. Since the references are similarly directed to operating portable power tools, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by HASHIMOTO (¶ 314), such an implementation “ensures that only a properly performed drilling operation is reproduced and can therefore further improve usability”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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 RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118