DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are pending.
Claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 are independent.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 14 has been canceled.
This FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 22 July 2026.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 22 July 2026, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, there is a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of newly found prior art.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
(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"
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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, 5-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al (US 20190112792 A1), hereinafter Reed, in view of Shiina et al. (US 20190249399 A1), hereinafter Shiina, and further in view of Foxlin et al. (US 6474159 B1), hereinafter Foxlin.
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses:
A computer-implemented method for a working machine, the method comprising (Reed: [0001], system and method for identifying a connected work tool of a machine):
receiving, by a processor device of a computer system, first movement data from a first sensor device configured to measure a movement of the working machine (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
receiving, by the processor device, second movement data from a second sensor device installed on an attachment tool and configured to measure a movement of the attachment tool simultaneously with the measurement performed by the first sensor device (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
determining, by the processor device, that the attachment tool is attached to an arm or a boom of the working machine (Reed: [0005], identify the work tool as a connected work tool).
and in response to determining that the attachment tool is attached to the arm or the boom of the working machine, controllingm by the processor device, operation of the working machine by configuring an operational setting of the working machine (Reed: Fig. 10; [0037], If a quick coupler 28 is not used or available, at box 124, the operator may select “get connected work tool” on the operator display 50, at box 130. At box 128, the system may attempt to find the connected work tool, as described herein, and, when a work tool has been identified, such as work tool 26, it is provided on the operator display 50 for operator confirmation, at box 132. If it is not the correct tool, at box 134, the system may attempt again to identify the connected work tool. Otherwise, it is determined that the connected work tool is identified or the information is not required, at box 136. At box 138, machine settings may be auto-configured based on the connected work tool.).
However, Reed does not specifically state:
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the working machine based on the received first movement data,
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the attachment tool based on received second movement data,
comparing, by the processor device, said movement pattern of the attachment tool with said movement pattern of the working machine, wherein the movement patterns are determined for a common time interval,
and upon determination by the processor device that the movement pattern of the attachment tool matches the movement pattern of the working machine by exhibiting a correlation between the movements of the attachment tool and the working machine during said common interval time,
Shiina teaches:
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the working machine based on the received first movement data (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
determining, by the processor device, a movement pattern of the attachment tool based on received second movement data (Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Reed in view of Shiina does not specifically state:
comparing, by the processor device, said movement pattern of the attachment tool with said movement pattern of the working machine, wherein the movement patterns are determined for a common time interval,
and upon determination by the processor device that the movement pattern of the attachment tool matches the movement pattern of the working machine by exhibiting a correlation between the movements of the attachment tool and the working machine during said common interval time,
Foxlin teaches:
comparing, by the processor device, said movement pattern of the attachment tool with said movement pattern of the working machine, wherein the movement patterns are determined for a common time interval (Col. 1, Lines 54-62, In general, in one aspect, the invention features a system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame. The system includes a first inertial sensor mounted on the tracked object; a second inertial sensor mounted on the moving reference frame; and an element coupled to the first and second inertial sensors and configured to determine an orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame based on the signals from the first and second inertial sensors; Col. 1, Lines 13-19, The determination of relative orientation may be done by computing the orientation of the object with respect to a fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the first inertial sensor, the orientation of the moving reference frame with respect to the same fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the second inertial sensor, and the relative orientation based on the two orientations; Col. 2, Lines 45-52, The calculation of the position of the object relative to the moving reference frame may include computing the position of the object with respect to a fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the first inertial sensor, the position of the moving reference frame with respect to the same fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the second inertial sensor, and the relative position based on the two individual positions; Fig. 6),
and upon determination by the processor device that the movement pattern of the attachment tool matches the movement pattern of the working machine by exhibiting a correlation between the movements of the attachment tool and the working machine during said common interval time (Col. 1, Lines 54-62, In general, in one aspect, the invention features a system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame. The system includes a first inertial sensor mounted on the tracked object; a second inertial sensor mounted on the moving reference frame; and an element coupled to the first and second inertial sensors and configured to determine an orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame based on the signals from the first and second inertial sensors; Col. 1, Lines 13-19, The determination of relative orientation may be done by computing the orientation of the object with respect to a fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the first inertial sensor, the orientation of the moving reference frame with respect to the same fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the second inertial sensor, and the relative orientation based on the two orientations; Col. 2, Lines 45-52, The calculation of the position of the object relative to the moving reference frame may include computing the position of the object with respect to a fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the first inertial sensor, the position of the moving reference frame with respect to the same fixed inertial reference frame using the signals from the second inertial sensor, and the relative position based on the two individual positions; Fig. 6),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Foxlin into the invention of Reed in view of Shiina to include comparison of data from sensor pairs to estimate position and orientation from a target object as Foxlin discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that ensures the machine and tool are properly coupled by using inertial measurement units to estimate and correlate position, orientation, and movement of a target object relative (i.e., tool) to a fixed frame (i.e. arm). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and comparing sensor data to estimate position and orientation of a target object using inertial measurement units as disclosed by Foxlin. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
The computer system comprising the processor device configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: [0025], controller may include a processing component and a data component, with the processing component configured to execute computer readable program code, which may be stored using the data storage component).
Regarding claim 3, Reed on view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
receiving, by the processor device, identification data from said second sensor device, said identification data providing an identity of the attachment tool or a type of attachment tool on which the second sensor device is installed (Reed: [0022], the work tool may support a short-range wireless device for connected work tool identification),
and configuring, by the processor device, operational settings of the working machine and/or settings of a graphical user interface of the working machine based on the received identification data (Reed: [0025] wireless device may communicate with one or more of a controller and an operator display; [0037], machine settings may be auto-configured based on the connected work tool; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
wherein said attachment tool is an attachment tool in a group of attachment tools, wherein each attachment tool in said group is provided with a respective sensor device for measuring movements of the attachment tool on which it is installed, the method further comprising (Reed: [0021], although work tool is illustrated as a bucket, the machine may support any variety of tools):
receiving, by the processor device, respective movement data from at least two of the said sensor devices installed on respective attachment tools (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
determining, by the processor device, based on said respective movement data, a respective movement pattern of the attachment tools on which said at least two sensor devices are installed (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
comparing, by the processor device, the respective movement pattern of each attachment tool for which a movement pattern has been determined with said movement pattern of the working machine (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures; [0046], comparison and determination of the posture of hydraulic excavator),
identifying, by the processor device, which one of the movement patterns of the respective attachment tools that matches the movement pattern of the working machine, and determining, by the processor device, that the attachment tool whose determined movement pattern has been identified as matching the movement pattern of the working machine, is attached to the arm or boom of the working machine (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures; [0046], comparison and determination of the posture of hydraulic excavator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
recording during a time period, by the processor device, the movement patterns of the working machine as well as respective movement patterns of the attachment tools in said group (Shiina: Fig. 6; Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], controller is programmed to store for a time period operation procedures, standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
and after said time period, determining, by the processor device, based on the recorded movement patterns, which attachment tool or tools has/have been attached to the arm or boom of the working machine during said time period (Shiina: [0046], comparison and determination of the posture of hydraulic excavator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
wherein said second sensor device comprises an accelerometer configured to measure the accelerations of the attachment tool on which it is installed (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement).
Regarding claim 9, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
wherein the first sensor device comprises at least one of an accelerometer and GPS-sensor (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement).
Regarding claim 10, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
wherein said processor device is a local on-board processor device located on the working vehicle (Reed: Fig. 3; Fig. 8; [0025], controller on the machine, controller may include processing component).
Regarding claim 12, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
wherein said acts of receiving movement data from the sensors, comprises receiving said movement data wirelessly (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement).
Regarding claim 13, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
A vehicle comprising the processor device to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: Fig. 3; Fig. 8; [0025], controller on the machine, controller may include processing component).
Regarding claim 15, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
A control system comprising one or more control units configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: [0022], work tool may support a short-range wireless device which may include a processor for processing instructions that control operation of the short-range wireless device; [0025], controller on the machine, controller may include a processing component and a data component, with the processing component configured to execute computer readable program code, which may be stored using the data storage component).
Regarding claim 16, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 1 (Reed: [0025], controller may include a processing component and a data component, with the processing component configured to execute computer readable program code, which may be stored using the data storage component).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin, and further in view of Petrany et al. (US 20210004744 A1), hereinafter Petrany.
Regarding claim 4, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin teaches:
further comprising, subsequent to said determining that the attachment tool is attached to the arm or boom of the working machine, receiving, by the processor device, third movement data from the second sensor device, said third movement data acquired by the second sensor device during a working operation performed by the working machine with the attachment tool attached (Reed: Abstract, movement detection device provides indication that a work tool is in a coupled configuration with a machine; [0023], wireless device may include movement detection device such as accelerometer, gyro sensor, barometer, or other devices for detecting movement),
determining by the processor device, a working operation movement pattern of the attachment tool based on the received third movement data (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
identifying, by the processor device, based on the determined working operation movement pattern of the attachment tool, an operation type performed by the attachment tool (Shiina: Fig. 3; Fig. 4; [0006], standard operation pattern storage section and a collected data storage section, standard operation data representing standard strokes in individual procedures),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shiina into the invention of Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin to include machine operation pattern storage as Shiina discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that stores and monitors movement of a machine’s operation and to ensure that the machine and tool are properly coupled. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin and storing operational movement data to compare with stored operations and determine the posture of a working machine as taught by Shiina. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin does not specifically state:
and determining, by the processor device, a geographical position at which said operation type is performed by the attachment tool.
Petrany teaches:
and determining, by the processor device, a geographical position at which said operation type is performed by the attachment tool (Petrany: [0030], sensor signals may include sensor information such as image data, LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR, GPS, etc., sensor information may include, identify, and/or be indicative of one or more tool characteristics of the work tool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Petrany into the invention of Reed as modified by Shiina and Foxlin to include determination of geographical position which may be indicative of one or more tool characteristics of the work tool as Petrany discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that uses sensor information (e.g. GPS data) to identify and/or indicate work tool characteristics (Petrany: [0030]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed as modified by Shiina and Foxlin and using GPS data to indicate work tool characteristics as taught by Petrany. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin, and further in view of Matzelle et al. (US 20210123218 A1), hereinafter Matzelle.
Regarding claim 11, Reed in view of Shiina and Foxlin does not specifically state:
wherein said processor device is a remote off-board processor device located separately from the working machine.
Matzelle teaches:
wherein said processor device is a remote off-board processor device located separately from the working machine (Matzelle: [0022], work tool identification system may be operatively associated with a telematics system to communicate with an external or remote location to send and receive operational and/or status information, the remote location may be associated with a remote computer system that can provide additional processing capabilities for operation of the machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matzelle into the invention of Reed as modified by Shiina and Foxlin to include remote processing as Matzelle discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that is associated with a remote computer system that can provide additional processing capabilities for operation of the machine (Matzelle: [0022]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a working machine that can identify what attachment tool is in use and connected and when attachment tool is connected as disclosed by Reed as modified by Shiina and Foxlin and using a remote computing system as taught by Matzelle. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 20160312432 A1) discloses using computer vision for work tool recognition and installation. Matzelle (US 20210132577 A1) discloses a data system for tracking use of a work tool attachment that may be interchangeably attached to a machine. Arshad et al. (US 11851851 B2) discloses a working machine includes an attachment device, and an attachment device carrying equipment enabling detachment and attachment of the attachment device. The working machine further includes a system for monitoring attachment status of the attachment device, the system including: a sensor configuration arranged and configured to indicate the attachment status of the attachment device, and a control unit configured to monitor the sensor configuration to establish the attachment status of the attachment device, and configured to store location data of the attachment device based on the attachment status of the attachment device. An indication that the attachment device is de-attached from the attachment device carrying equipment determines that the location data of the attachment device is stored.
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 IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 17:00 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 A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
