DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling an amendment on 1/22/2026.
The application has claims 1-12, 14-20 present. Claim 13 has been cancelled. All the claims present have been examined.
Previous rejections have been withdrawn as necessitated by the claim amendments.
This action is Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14, 16-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPheely et al. (US 20060177119), in view of CZINKI ALEXANDER (WO2009100947A2) English translation Hereinafter CZINKI.
In regards to claims (1 and 10), McPheely teaches a method, comprising: providing a plurality of image acquisition units and a plurality of error detection units at a production environment (see abstract and at least para 42: cameras and sensors), wherein the production environment comprises a plurality of work zones, wherein each of the work zones is assigned at least one of the image acquisition units and at least one of the error detection units (see abstract and at least para 42: teaches having multiple sections/zones and cameras and sensors for the zones); configuring a control unit to detect a signal of at least one of the error detection units and based on detection of the signal to detect whether an error in the production has occurred in the work zone to which the error detection unit is assigned (see at least para 42-43: PLC controller for the system which uses the cameras and sensors); and in response to detection of the error in the work zone, providing image data detected by an image acquisition unit assigned to the work zone to a user via an output unit (see para 44 and 50: a trigger for an event and providing image data associated to the trigger event).
Although McPheely doesn’t specifically mention production plant, it does refer to a production environment with machinery that is monitored (see para 42, 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of McPheely in order to apply them to any production plant and environment, since a person would have recognized the that enhances the system to allows to monitor and diagnose production processes on a manufacturing plant scale with less resources and computing equipment.
McPheely doesn’t specifically mention modular functional units; each modular functional unit comprises a standardized interface, is mechanically connected or electrically connected to another modular functional unit, and is assigned exactly one work zone;
CZINKI teaches modular functional units; each modular functional unit comprises a standardized interface, is mechanically connected or electrically connected to another modular functional unit, and is assigned exactly one work zone (see at least para 1-2, 32, 41, 52-53: 58, 72, 76: teaches modular units with standardized interfaces and also teaches using the different identified size and orientations placing units at certain locations based on positions and sizes. See para 41 “stations are standardized with respect to their energy interfaces and/or mechanical and/or information technology interfaces to such an extent that the manufacturing stations can be used at several or any location within the system and connected to the plant”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of CZINKI with the teachings of McPheely for modular units with standardized interfaces, since a person would have recognized the that enhances the system to allows to arrange the units as needed on different work zones (ease of modification, individual configuration of the system, and (re)usability (para 18-19, 41).
In regards to claim 2, McPheely teaches the image data acquired by the image acquisition unit are stored in a circular buffer, wherein the image data in the circular buffer are overwritten by new image data after a predetermined time period has elapsed (see para 51: ring/circular buffer).
In regards to claim 3, although McPheely doesn’t specifically teach wherein the predetermined time period is at most approximately 1 hour. McPheely does teaches that it allows user to set predetermine times associated to the recording times (see at least para 51, 61: teaches setting record times as desired by user with a range from a few seconds to hour).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of McPheely for setting specific times for the recording of video associated with the error detection, since a person would have recognized the that enhances the system by providing benefits for video recording, particularly in scenarios where storage space is limited or instant access to recent footage is critical.
In regards to claim 4, McPheely teaches wherein the image data provided via the output unit to the user comprise the image data which have been recorded during the predetermined time period before the time at which the error in the work zone was detected (see para 51, 61: teaches pre-event recording).
In regards to claim 6, McPheely teaches wherein an identification of the work zone in which the error has occurred is provided with the image data via the output unit to the user (see para 51 and 61: teaches name of the zone).
In regards to claim 7, McPheely teaches wherein each image acquisition unit and each work zone is assigned its own unique identifier, and the unique identifier of the work zone in which the error has occurred and the respective unique identifier of each image acquisition unit assigned to the work zone are provided to the user via the output unit (see para 51, 54, 61: teaches names and data for all the zones and information associated to the error).
In regards to claim 8, McPheely teaches wherein the image data provided via the output unit to the user in the event of the error are transmitted to a memory unit from which the image data can be permanently retrieved (see para 51-56 permanent memory to store and retrieve the data associated to the error).
In regards to claim 9, McPheely teaches wherein the control unit is assigned a database in which predefined error texts are stored, and wherein the predefined error texts are assigned to at least one error type (see para 51, 54, 60-61: assigning details about the error which provide easier menas to retrieve the error by type).
In regards to claim 11, McPheely teaches wherein the output unit is located at the production plant (see FIG. 4 and at least para 44: schematic of location for the monitoring and detection system).
In regards to claim 12, McPheely teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to receive user inputs (see para 44: the system has display and input means).
In regards to claim 14, McPheely teaches wherein each functional unit is provided with a unique identifier and the unique identifier of the functional unit assigned to the work zone in which an error has been detected is output together with the image data to the user via the output unit (see para 42, 54, 61: parts/machines zones on the production environment are connected. Each named zone has its specific function. The display shows the error and associated identifier for the zone).
In regards to claim 16, McPheely doesn’t specifically teach wherein the predetermined time period is at most approximately 15 minutes. However, McPheely does teaches that it allows user to set predetermine times associated to the recording times (see at least para 51, 61: teaches setting record times as desired by user with a range from a few seconds to hour).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of McPheely for setting specific times for the recording of video associated with the error detection, since a person would have recognized the enhancement to the system by providing benefits for flexibility for setting recording times as needed, particularly in scenarios where storage space is limited or instant access to specific footage is critical.
In regards to claim 17, McPheely doesn’t specifically teach wherein the predetermined time period is approximately 5 minutes. However, McPheely does teaches that it allows user to set predetermine times associated to the recording times (see at least para 51, 61: teaches setting record times as desired by user with a range from a few seconds to hour).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of McPheely for setting specific times for the recording of video associated with the error detection, since a person would have recognized the enhancement to the system by providing benefits for flexibility for setting recording times as needed, particularly in scenarios where storage space is limited or instant access to specific footage is critical.
In regards to claim 19, McPheely doesn’t specifically teach wherein image data recorded more than approximately 0.3 minutes to approximately 1.5 minutes before the time the error in the work zone was detected are provided via the output unit following input by a user. However, McPheely does teaches that it allows user to set predetermine times associated to the recording times and request by the user to display the recorded events (see at least para 51, 54, 61 and claim 9: teaches setting record times as desired by user “These times can range anywhere from as small as five seconds to as much as two minutes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of McPheely for setting specific times for the recording of video associated with the error detection, since a person would have recognized the enhancement to the system by providing benefits for flexibility for setting recording times as needed, particularly in scenarios where storage space is limited or instant access to specific footage is critical.
In regards to claim 20, McPheely doesn’t specifically teach wherein the image data provided via the output unit following input by a user are recorded more than approximately 0.5 minutes before the time the error in the work zone was detected. However, McPheely does teaches that it allows user to set predetermine times associated to the recording times and request by the user to display the recorded event (see at least para 51, 54, 61 and claim 9: teaches setting record times as desired by user “These times can range anywhere from as small as five seconds to as much as two minutes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of McPheely for setting specific times for the recording of video associated with the error detection, since a person would have recognized the enhancement to the system by providing benefits for flexibility for setting recording times as needed, particularly in scenarios where storage space is limited or instant access to specific footage is critical.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPheely and CZINKI as applied to claim 10, above and further in view of Dumas et al. (US 20140130527).
In regards to claim 15, McPheely teaches sensor data and machine sensor for specific need or prescribed error (see abstract and at least para 13) but doesn’t specifically teach wherein the error detection unit comprises at least one of a light barrier, a pressure sensor, a current acquisition unit, or a magnetic field unit.
Dumas teaches wherein the error detection unit comprises at least one of a light barrier, a pressure sensor, a current acquisition unit, or a magnetic field unit (monitors for faults using pressure sensor data (see para 39 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Dumas in combination with the teaches of McPheely in order to use pressure sensor, since a person would have recognized the benefits of enhancing the monitoring system by using the necessary sensors to detect a prescribe error on location where its estimated or known to have errors on a production environment.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPheely and CZINKI as applied to claim 4, above and further in view of Demirli et al. (US 20190199763).
In regards to claim 5, McPheely teaches display setting and display of pre-event recording (see para 51, 61), doesn’t specifically teaches wherein: a first portion of the image data are provided via the output unit to the user without user input, wherein the first portion of the image data comprise the image data recorded during a first portion of the predetermined time period before the time at which the error in the work zone was detected; and wherein a second portion of the image data are provided to the output unit in response to input by a user, wherein the second portion of the image data comprise the image data recorded during a second portion of the predetermined time period before the time at which the error in the work zone was detected; and wherein the second portion of the predetermined time period is longer than the first portion of the predetermined time period.
Demirli teaches wherein: a first portion of the image data are provided via the output unit to the user without user input, wherein the first portion of the image data comprise the image data recorded during a first portion of the predetermined time period before the time at which the error in the work zone was detected; and wherein a second portion of the image data are provided to the output unit in response to input by a user, wherein the second portion of the image data comprise the image data recorded during a second portion of the predetermined time period before the time at which the error in the work zone was detected; and wherein the second portion of the predetermined time period is longer than the first portion of the predetermined time period (see 28-29, 32, 444-46: teaches presenting previews of longer videos which provide a user with a first view or highlight of a video and after receiving an input from a user presenting the full length of a video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Demirli in a similar matter as to provide the system the means to present a preview of the recorded video and when requested by the user present the full video with the teaches of McPheely, since a person would have recognized the benefits of providing the scope of the video by the preview and enhances the system by facilitating the preview of content associated with the error related recorded video taught by McPheely.
In regards to claim 18, McPheely teaches wherein the image data provided via the output unit comprise the data recorded approximately 0.5 minutes before the time at which the error in the work zone was detected (see para 51: the system can be set for 30 seconds of pre-event video recording).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights