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
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the additional/modified claim language by the amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection. Examiner has augmented the prior art rejections in light of Applicant's amendments and/or arguments, as indicated below.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant's argument that "fastener driving unit" is not subject to 112(f) interpretation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point out that the recitation of language such as “fastener driving unit configured to drive the one or more fasteners” includes a generic placeholder (i.e., fastener driving unit) and is coupled with functional language and does not provide sufficient structure to perform the recited function. A “fastener driving unit” does not necessarily indicate the structure necessary to perform the recited function and could imply a number of different devices to accomplish the provided function without clearly defining what the claimed structure of the “fastener driving unit” is.
Moreover, regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that the cited combination of prior art fails to teach “divide the hole pattern into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of the one or more holes in the tie plate”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). In the instant case, Ollendick teaches hole pattern, a controller and tie plate and insertion operation of fasteners into the holes. Jonas is being relied upon for its teaching to divide work area into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of work area. The combination of the insertion operation of fasteners into the multiple holes taught by Ollendick and work zones taught by Jonas is being relied upon for the rejection of claim 4. Doing so would allow the fastening system to divide the work area around the tie plate according to the nature of the task.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the controller is configured to determine features based on the image information, wherein the features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature,
wherein the controller is configured to determine a spiking pattern based at least in part on the features….”.
Based on the claim language, the claim should read, “wherein the controller is configured to determine one or more features based on the image information, wherein the one or more features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature,
wherein the controller is configured to determine a spiking pattern based at least in part on the one or more features ….”.
Regarding claim 13, it is objected for the same reasons as provided in the objection of claim 1
mutandis mutatis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastener driving unit”.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to a review of the original specification,
Fig 29-30, para 0301-0303 cites the corresponding structure of the fastener driving unit having the hardware components for implementing the fastener driving unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollendick (US 20190226154 A1) in view of Fujiki (US 20130101221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ollendick teaches a fastener system, comprising:
a controller including one or more processors (para 0304 wherein “[0304] Activation of screwjack 1610, under command of control 314, causes the rod 1612 and the adapter 1614 to extend downwardly”), and the tie plate having one or more holes shaped to receive one or more fasteners (Fig 73, 020 wherein tie plate with holes are provided) and
a fastener driving unit configured to drive the one or more fasteners into the one or more holes in the tie plate (Fig 95-96, Para 0300-0304, wherein robot 1450 drive the spikes into the tie plate holes; “Upon delivery of the spike or spikes 158, the robotic arm 1456 downwardly displaces each spike 158 a short distance to set the tip of the spike through the associated aperture 139 into the associated predrilled aligned bore 128 in the tie to essentially set each spike 158 so that its vertical orientation is temporarily retained, as shown in FIG. 96”).,
the controller configured to control movement of the fastener driving unit to move the fastener driving unit to a location corresponding to the one or more holes (Fig 96, 0271 wherein “The three spaced spikes 126 in each holder 1454 are delivered, with the associated holder, to the clamshell shuttles 1461 along transport pathways 1462, where the spikes are positioned in the clamshell shuttles 1461 in spaced vertical alignment with the plate apertures through which the spikes are to be inserted”), and
the controller configured to control the movement of the fastener driving unit to drive the one or more fasteners into one or more holes (para 0304 wherein “[0304] Activation of screwjack 1610, under command of control 314, causes the rod 1612 and the adapter 1614 to extend downwardly until the rounded surface 1616 becomes contiguous with the head 161 of the aligned spike 158 and, thereafter, drives the spike 158 downward until it is fully inserted into associated blind bore 128”).
However, Ollendick fails to explicitly teach obtaining image information associated with a tie plate, wherein the controller is configured to determine features based on the image information, wherein the features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature, wherein the controller is configured to determine a spiking pattern based at least in part on the features, and movement of the fastener driving unit is controlled based on the spiking pattern.
Ollendick teaches using optical sensors to sense the tie plates (Table provided on page 35, 3rd table row; “When a tie is accurately positioned at station 1112 on stationary conveyors 1170, such is sensed and later placed tie plates on the tie are sensed and then the advanced placement of the plated tie adjacent to robots 1450 is sensed”). Ollendick also teaches using camera (0112 wherein “[0112] Conventional camera oversight may be used to verify that the ties are in the correctly spaced and parallel relationship”).
Fujiki teaches obtaining image information associated with a tie plate (para 0006, 0039 wherein “The computer readable program code is configured to localize a tie plate region in an image in a set of tie plate images”; “[0039] An embodiment of the method for detecting anomalies in an image 300 may include localizing, at block 302, a tie plate region in an image in a set of images”),
wherein the features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature (para 0024 wherein “Generally speaking, for different classes of rail tracks and different curvatures that each track has, the spiking patterns are different”).
a spiking pattern based at least in part on the features (para 0024 wherein “Generally speaking, for different classes of rail tracks and different curvatures that each track has, the spiking patterns are different. As a rule of thumb, the higher the track class, the stricter the spiking patterns. Nevertheless, for the same track, a change of spiking pattern (especially a change from a spiking pattern of higher standard to a spiking pattern of lower standard), is usually the signal that something has been wrong (e.g. spikes have been missing)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ollendick’s teachings of having a fastening system for inserting fasteners that uses optical sensors to incorporate Fujiki’s teachings of obtaining image information associated with tie plate to perform operation and having spiking pattern based at least in part on the features including track class and curvature in order to have controller configured to determine features based on the image information, wherein the features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature, wherein the controller is configured to determine a spiking pattern based at least in part on the features, and movement of the fastener driving unit is controlled based on the spiking pattern. Doing so would allow the fasteners to be installed with tie plates properly within the safety standards according to the features of the rail tracks.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ollendick teaches wherein the fastener driving unit is configured to be operably coupled with a fastener magazine that provides the one or more fasteners to the fastener driving unit (Fig 95, 0295 wherein “Adjacent to the trough distal end 1600 is disposed a spike holder 1604, also comprising part of the system 1588. Holder 1604 is slightly sloped from left to right as shown in FIG. 95 and receives spikes 158, head up, sequentially in a slot 1606”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ollendick teaches comprising a sensor configured to capture the image information, wherein the controller is configured to obtain the image information from the sensor (Fujiki, para 0023, 0039 wherein “The data may be captured by a camera mounted on a vehicle that moves on railway tracks”; “[0039] An embodiment of the method for detecting anomalies in an image 300 may include localizing, at block 302, a tie plate region in an image in a set of images”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ollendick teaches wherein the tie plate is configured to secure a wayside structure at a location alongside a route along which the fastener system is configured to move (Fig 67-68, 75, 96, para 271 wherein the tie plate is secured with the spikes along the route traveled by the fastener system; “The three spaced spikes 126 in each holder 1454 are delivered, with the associated holder, to the clamshell shuttles 1461 along transport pathways 1462, where the spikes are positioned in the clamshell shuttles 1461 in spaced vertical alignment with the plate apertures through which the spikes are to be inserted”).
Regarding claim 13, Ollendick teaches a method comprising:
the tie plate having one or more holes shaped to receive one or more fasteners (Fig 73, 020 wherein tie plate with holes are provided);
controlling movement of a fastener driving unit to move the fastener driving unit to a location corresponding to the one or more holes (Fig 96, 0271 wherein “The three spaced spikes 126 in each holder 1454 are delivered, with the associated holder, to the clamshell shuttles 1461 along transport pathways 1462, where the spikes are positioned in the clamshell shuttles 1461 in spaced vertical alignment with the plate apertures through which the spikes are to be inserted”); and
controlling the movement of the fastener driving unit to drive the one or more fasteners into the one or more holes (para 0304 wherein “[0304] Activation of screwjack 1610, under command of control 314, causes the rod 1612 and the adapter 1614 to extend downwardly until the rounded surface 1616 becomes contiguous with the head 161 of the aligned spike 158 and, thereafter, drives the spike 158 downward until it is fully inserted into associated blind bore 128”).
However, Ollendick fails to explicitly teach obtaining image information associated with a tie plate, determining features based on the image information, wherein the features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature, determining a spiking pattern based at least in part on the features, and movement of the fastener driving unit is controlled based on the spiking pattern.
Ollendick teaches using optical sensors to sense the tie plates (Table provided on page 35, 3rd table row; “When a tie is accurately positioned at station 1112 on stationary conveyors 1170, such is sensed and later placed tie plates on the tie are sensed and then the advanced placement of the plated tie adjacent to robots 1450 is sensed”). Ollendick also teaches using camera (0112 wherein “[0112] Conventional camera oversight may be used to verify that the ties are in the correctly spaced and parallel relationship”).
Fujiki teaches obtaining image information associated with a tie plate (para 0006, 0039 wherein “The computer readable program code is configured to localize a tie plate region in an image in a set of tie plate images”; “[0039] An embodiment of the method for detecting anomalies in an image 300 may include localizing, at block 302, a tie plate region in an image in a set of images”),
wherein the features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature (para 0024 wherein “Generally speaking, for different classes of rail tracks and different curvatures that each track has, the spiking patterns are different”).
a spiking pattern based at least in part on the features (para 0024 wherein “Generally speaking, for different classes of rail tracks and different curvatures that each track has, the spiking patterns are different. As a rule of thumb, the higher the track class, the stricter the spiking patterns. Nevertheless, for the same track, a change of spiking pattern (especially a change from a spiking pattern of higher standard to a spiking pattern of lower standard), is usually the signal that something has been wrong (e.g. spikes have been missing)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ollendick’s teachings of having a fastening system for inserting fasteners that uses optical sensors to incorporate Fujiki’s teachings of obtaining image information associated with tie plate to perform operation and having spiking pattern based at least in part on the features including track class and curvature in order to have controller configured to determine features based on the image information, wherein the features comprise at least one of track type, speed limits, or route curvature, wherein the controller is configured to determine a spiking pattern based at least in part on the features, and movement of the fastener driving unit is controlled based on the spiking pattern. Doing so would allow the fasteners to be installed with tie plates properly within the safety standards according to the features of the rail tracks.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 10
mutandis mutatis.
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollendick (US 20190226154 A1) and Fujiki (US 20130101221 A1) in view of Ohno (US 20210387342 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Modified Ollendick also teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the movement of the fastener driving unit to drive the one or more fasteners into the one or more holes (para 0304 wherein “[0304] Activation of screwjack 1610, under command of control 314, causes the rod 1612 and the adapter 1614 to extend downwardly until the rounded surface 1616 becomes contiguous with the head 161 of the aligned spike 158 and, thereafter, drives the spike 158 downward until it is fully inserted into associated blind bore 128”).
However, Ollendick fails to teach determine a hole pattern of the tie plate based on the image information, and control the movement of the fastener driving unit based on the hole pattern of the tie plate.
Ohno teaches determine a hole pattern of the object based on the image information (Fig 4-5, para 0040, 0052-0054 wherein the hole locations are determined based on image data; “[0052] As shown in FIG. 4, the fastening condition DB 23b includes, for each component, fastening condition information in which a fastening hole number, coordinates”; “[0040] In the chuck 11, a fastening-hole recognition camera 11b that takes image of a plurality of fastening holes 3a formed in the main-component 3 and fastening holes 4a formed in respective sub-components 4 is provided”), and control the movement of the fastener driving unit based on the hole pattern of the object (Fig 4-5, para 0075 wherein “[0075] Next, the robot control unit 5 generates a moving path of the nut runner 13 along which the nut runner 13 needs to move to screw-fasten the sub-component 4 to the main-component 3 at the fastening hole No. i. The moving path can be calculated in accordance with inverse kinematics based on the current position of the nut runner 13 and the position at the destination of the nut runner 13”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ollendick’s teachings to control the movement of the fastener driving unit to drive the fasteners into the holes to incorporate Ohno’s teachings to determine a hole pattern and control the movement of the fastener driving unit based on the hole pattern in order to control the movement of the fastener driving unit based on the hole pattern of the tie plate. Doing so would allow the fastening system to plan efficient route along the one or more hole location to be fastened.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 3
mutandis mutatis.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollendick (US 20190226154 A1), Fujiki (US 20130101221 A1) and Ohno (US 20210387342 A1) in view of Jonas (US 20220048198 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 3 including hole pattern, controller and tie plate.
However, Ollendick fails to teach to divide the hole pattern into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of the one or more holes in the tie plate.
Jonas teaches to divide work area into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of work area (Fig 4A-4D, para 0081 wherein zones are divided based on location of the work area; “[0081] This concept of “zones” will now be described with reference to FIGS. 4A to 4D. FIG. 4A is a schematic illustration of the robot 10 having a working volume W which encompasses a plurality of different work areas A1 to A6. A working volume can also be referred to as a working range and a work area can be referred to alternatively as a station or workstation. The intention is that a different task is performed by the robot 10 in each of the different work areas A1 to A6, for example drilling, welding, assembling, cleaning and so on”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings hole pattern, controller and tie plate to incorporate Jonas’ teachings to divide work area into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of work area in order to divide the hole pattern into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of the one or more holes in the tie plate. Doing so would allow the fastening system to divide the work area around the tie plate according to the nature of the task.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 14 including tie plate.
However, Ollendick fails to teach to divide the hole pattern into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of the one or more holes in the tie plate.
Ohno further teaches determine a hole pattern of the object based on the image information (Fig 4-5, para 0040, 0052-0054 wherein the hole locations are determined based on image data; “[0052] As shown in FIG. 4, the fastening condition DB 23b includes, for each component, fastening condition information in which a fastening hole number, coordinates”; “[0040] In the chuck 11, a fastening-hole recognition camera 11b that takes image of a plurality of fastening holes 3a formed in the main-component 3 and fastening holes 4a formed in respective sub-components 4 is provided”).
Jonas teaches to divide work area into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of work area (Fig 4A-4D, para 0081 wherein zones are divided based on location of the work area; “[0081] This concept of “zones” will now be described with reference to FIGS. 4A to 4D. FIG. 4A is a schematic illustration of the robot 10 having a working volume W which encompasses a plurality of different work areas A1 to A6. A working volume can also be referred to as a working range and a work area can be referred to alternatively as a station or workstation. The intention is that a different task is performed by the robot 10 in each of the different work areas A1 to A6, for example drilling, welding, assembling, cleaning and so on”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of controller and tie plate to incorporate Ohno’s teachings to determine a hole pattern and Jonas’ teachings to divide work area into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of work area in order to divide the hole pattern into one or more zones based at least in part on one or more locations of the one or more holes in the tie plate. Doing so would allow the fastening system to divide the work area around the tie plate according to the nature of the task and plan the task according to the hole locations.
Claim(s) 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollendick (US 20190226154 A1) and Fujiki (US 20130101221 A1) in view of Lawson (US 20030051326 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Ollendick fails to teach comparing the image information associated with the tie plate with one or more designated tie plate designs.
Lawson teaches comparing the image information associated with the object with one or more designated object designs to identify the object (para 0035 wherein “[0034] The image produced by the video camera 30 is relayed to the control system 22 where a digital pattern recognition program of the type known in the machine vision art is used to determine the location of the valve stem aperture 26 relative to the gauging station 14 and/or the type of wheel rim and/or size of wheel rim located at the gauging station”)
wherein the controller is configured to determine a location of a hole in the object not captured in the image information based on the identity of the object (para 0035 wherein the aperture is determined based on other physical features captured by the image; “[0035] It is possible for the pattern recognition software to be configured to determine the location and/or alignment of the aperture 26, at least in part, by identifying physical features of the rim 12 other than the aperture itself. For example, features such as the spoke pattern and/or the diameter of the rim 12 can be used to identify the rim as being an example of one of several types and/or sizes of rims recognized by the software”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of having a fastening system using image information to incorporate Lawson’s teachings of comparing the image information associated with the object with one or more designated object designs and determine a location of a hole in the object not captured in the image information based on the identity of the object. Doing so would allow the controller to identify the hole location more efficiently by using minimal image information and plan the fastening task accordingly.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 13. However, Ollendick fails to teach comparing the image information associated with the tie plate with one or more designated tie plate designs.
Lawson teaches comparing the image information associated with the object with one or more designated object designs (para 0035 wherein “[0034] The image produced by the video camera 30 is relayed to the control system 22 where a digital pattern recognition program of the type known in the machine vision art is used to determine the location of the valve stem aperture 26 relative to the gauging station 14 and/or the type of wheel rim and/or size of wheel rim located at the gauging station”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of having a fastening system using image information to incorporate Lawson’s teachings of comparing the image information associated with the object with one or more designated object designs. Doing so would allow the controller to identify the correct component and plan the fastening task accordingly.
Claim(s) 7-8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollendick (US 20190226154 A1) and Fujiki (US 20130101221 A1) in view of Osterwood (US 20160227193 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 6 including sensor. However, Ollendick fails to teach wherein the sensor is one or more of an infrared camera, a stereoscopic camera, or a digital video camera.
Osterwood teaches having a sensor that is one or more of an infrared camera, a stereoscopic camera, or a digital video camera as part of planning robot tasks (para 0004 wherein “[0004] Embodiments of the present invention include combination stereo-vision/laser range-finding sensors suitable for use in robotics, navigation, machine vision, manufacturing, and other applications”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of having a fastening system using a sensor to incorporate Osterwood’s teachings of having a sensor that is a stereoscopic camera. Doing so would allow planning paths during fastening operation using the image data from the sensor.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 6 including controller and image information. However, Ollendick fails to teach the controller is configured to analyze the image information and identify one or more vegetation features within a field of view of the sensor.
Fujiki further teaches analyze the image information and identify features within a field of view of the sensor (para 0035 wherein “[0035] During the online mode, a new instance, or, a target image will be classified into either a normal instance or an anomaly. Specifically, at partitioning operation 218, the target image is first partitioned into a plurality of image local units. Then, at extracting operation 220, image features are extracted from each local unit”).
Osterwood teaches using image information and mapping environment features including vegetation (para 0002-0003 wherein “[0002] Three dimensional (3D) sensing is useful in many domains and environments. It allows robots, autonomous vehicles, and remotely operated vehicles to safely navigate and traverse terrain, avoiding static obstacles like trees… 3D sensing also enables mapping of a robot's local environment and larger scale mapping of larger surrounding areas”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of having a fastening system using image information to incorporate Fujiki’s teachings to analyze the image information and identify features and Osterwood’s teachings of using image information and mapping environment features including vegetation in order to analyze the image information and identify one or more vegetation features. Doing so would allow planning paths while avoiding vegetation during fastening operation.
Regarding claim 19, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Modified Ollendick also teaches obtaining the image information from a sensor configured to capture the image information (Fujiki, para 0023 wherein “The data may be captured by a camera mounted on a vehicle that moves on railway tracks”).
However, Ollendick fails to teach analyzing the image information and identify one or more vegetation features within a field of view of the sensor.
Fujiki further teaches analyze the image information and identify features within a field of view of the sensor (para 0035 wherein “[0035] During the online mode, a new instance, or, a target image will be classified into either a normal instance or an anomaly. Specifically, at partitioning operation 218, the target image is first partitioned into a plurality of image local units. Then, at extracting operation 220, image features are extracted from each local unit”).
Osterwood teaches using image information and mapping environment features including vegetation (para 0002-0003 wherein “[0002] Three dimensional (3D) sensing is useful in many domains and environments. It allows robots, autonomous vehicles, and remotely operated vehicles to safely navigate and traverse terrain, avoiding static obstacles like trees… 3D sensing also enables mapping of a robot's local environment and larger scale mapping of larger surrounding areas”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of having a fastening system using image information from sensor to incorporate Fujiki’s teachings to analyze the image information and identify features and Osterwood’s teachings of using image information and mapping environment features including vegetation in order to analyze the image information and identify one or more vegetation features. Doing so would allow planning paths while avoiding vegetation during fastening operation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollendick (US 20190226154 A1) and Fujiki (US 20130101221 A1) in view of Ren (CN108468256A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ollendick teaches wherein the fastener driving unit is configured to be operably coupled with a supporting frame of a vehicle system having a propulsion system (At least in fig 67-68, 75 para 0193 wherein the power drive 1010 drives the construction system including the fastener system along the route).
However, Ollendick fails to explicitly teach the vehicle is configured to move the fastener driving unit along a route toward the tie plate.
Ren teaches a vehicle configured to move the fastener driving unit along a route toward the tie plate (Fig 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of having the fastener driving system coupled with a supporting frame of a vehicle system to incorporate Ren’s teachings of a vehicle configured to move the fastener driving unit along a route toward the tie plate in order to have fastener driving unit configured to be operably coupled with a supporting frame of a vehicle system configured to move the fastener driving unit along a route toward the tie plate . Doing so would allow the fastener driving unit to reach the tie plates along the rails for fastener installation.
Claim(s) 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollendick (US 20190226154 A1) and Fujiki (US 20130101221 A1) in view of Corkum (US 20190368865 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ollendick teaches all the limitations of claim 1 including the image information and controller.
However, Ollendick fails to explicitly teach the image information is two- dimensional image information and generate three-dimensional image information based at least in part on the two-dimensional image information.
Corkum teaches the image information is two- dimensional image information and generate three-dimensional image information based at least in part on the two-dimensional image information (para 0014 wherein “ The system can then interpret a distance from a point or surface in the field to the camera (or to the optical emitter) based on a geometry of this light detected in a 2D color image and compile both this distance value and features extracted from the 2D image into a 3D image, such as a 3D point cloud or color depth map, thereby enabling the color camera to record data representing an additional dimension”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ollendick’s teachings of having the image information and controller to incorporate Corkum’s teachings of having the image information as two- dimensional image information and generate three-dimensional image information based at least in part on the two-dimensional image information. Doing so would allow the fastener driving unit to install the fasteners more accurately using the additional dimension of the 3D image information including distance information.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 11
mutandis mutatis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is/are 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 and pending resolution of any objections.
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 SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657