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 Claims
Claims 8-14 and 16-22 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 15 are canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 8-15) in the reply filed on 1/9/26 is acknowledged. The non-elected claims have been canceled by Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/11/24, 1/14/25, 8/22/25, and 1/9/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 4/29/24 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because an English translation has not been provided for EP 2866987 B1 and EP 2866988 B1. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8-14 and 16-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/315,003 in view of Busschaert et al. (US 2014/0005807 A1, hereinafter “Busschaert”).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/315,003 teaches, A system for construction comprising (claim 1: “A system for controlling operation of a chain saw”):
a detection subsystem (claim 1: “a sensor for detecting a condition”);
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/315,003 does not expressly disclose the following limitation: and a computer subsystem.
However, Busschaert teaches, and a computer subsystem (Para. 0027: “computing device 250…can obtain images via camera 100 that show the markers 151, and compare the relative distances in the image to the actual known distances to calculate the orientation of the reference marker 150”; Para. 0031: “computing device 250 can obtain images via camera 100 that show the markers 210/210, and compare the relative distances in the image to the actual known distances to calculate the location and/or orientation of the power tool 200; Fig. 2: computing device 250; Note: the Examiner interprets a computing device as a computer subsystem).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a computer subsystem as taught by Busschaert with claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/315,003 in order to calculate the orientation of a marker and power tool (Busschaert, Para. 0031) and instruct the user to move the power tool (Busschaert, Para. 0035). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claims 9-14 and 16-22 depend on independent claim 8. The dependent claims are therefore also rejected under obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting for the same reasons as above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. In independent claim 8, the omitted steps are: limitations that explain what the detection subsystem and computer system do/perform. The addition of these steps is needed to show the purpose of the system being served.
Claims 9-14 and 16-22 depend on claim 8 and are therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busschaert et al. (US 2014/0005807 A1, hereinafter “Busschaert”).
Regarding claim 8, Busschaert teaches, A system for construction comprising (Para. 0003: “it is an object of the invention to provide a system to increase the efficiency of power tools as used in construction situations”; Para. 0010: “system 1000 for enhancing operation of power tools”; Figs. 1 and 2: system 1000):
a detection subsystem (Para. 0012; Para. 0027: camera 100 obtains images that show markers 151; Para. 0031: camera 100 obtains images that show markers 210/210’; Figs. 1 and 2: camera 100; Note: the Examiner interprets a camera as a detection subsystem);
and a computer subsystem (Para. 0027: “computing device 250…can obtain images via camera 100 that show the markers 151, and compare the relative distances in the image to the actual known distances to calculate the orientation of the reference marker 150”; Para. 0031: “computing device 250 can obtain images via camera 100 that show the markers 210/210, and compare the relative distances in the image to the actual known distances to calculate the location and/or orientation of the power tool 200; Fig. 2: computing device 250; Note: the Examiner interprets a computing device as a computer subsystem).
Regarding claim 9, Busschaert teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
Busschaert further teaches, The system of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), wherein the detection subsystem comprises one or more cameras, scanners, or sensors for detecting information associated with a space, one or more workpieces, or one or more tools (Para. 0012; Para. 0019; Paras. 0023-0024: reference markers are placed on different work surfaces; Para. 0027: “computing device 250…can obtain images via camera 100 that show the markers 151, and compare the relative distances in the image to the actual known distances to calculate the orientation of the reference marker 150”; Para. 0031: camera 100 obtains images that show markers 210/210’; Figs. 1 and 2: camera 100; As shown in Fig. 1, markers 210 and 210’ are on the power tool 200; Note: the Examiner selects the camera limitation and the tool/space limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Busschaert teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 9.
Busschaert further teaches, The system of claim 9 (see claim 9 above), wherein the detection subsystem comprises one or more markers adapted to be placed at locations on or in the space, or on or in one or more workpieces or tools (Para. 0012; Para. 0019; Paras. 0023-0024: reference markers are placed on different work surfaces; Para. 0031: location of different markers 210 on the power tool and camera 100 obtains images that show markers 210/210’; Figs. 1 and 2: camera 100; As shown in Fig. 1, markers 210 and 210’ are on the power tool 200).
Regarding claim 11, Busschaert teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
Busschaert further teaches, The system of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), wherein the computer subsystem receives data from the detection subsystem and uses the data received from the detection subsystem to make calculations for a desired construction project (Para. 0003: “system to increase the efficiency of power tools as used in construction situations”; Para. 0027: “computing device 250…can obtain images via camera 100 that show the markers 151, and compare the relative distances in the image to the actual known distances to calculate the orientation of the reference marker 150”; Para. 0031: “computing device 250 can obtain images via camera 100 that show the markers 210/210, and compare the relative distances in the image to the actual known distances to calculate the location and/or orientation of the power tool 200).
Regarding claim 12, Busschaert teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
Busschaert further teaches, The system of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), further comprising a control subsystem, wherein the control subsystem is adapted to provide signals for positioning, orienting, and/or controlling one or more workpieces or tools (Para. 0021: “computing device 250 can load apps to input the desired drill orientation (e.g., being perpendicular to a wall surface); Para. 0034: “the user can know to move the power tool 200 to match the orientation of the ghost image 200' in order to ensure perpendicularity relative to surface 60. Once the orientation of the power tool 200 matches the orientation of the ghost image 200", computing device 250 can provide an audio or visual signal to indicate that a match has been reached”; Para. 0035: “Similarly, display 300 can show other indications such as arrow 200" to instruct the user to move the power tool 200 in a certain direction, or other visual cues, such as stop signs, etc. to communicate instructions to the user. For example, if the power tool 200 is a circular saw that is supposed to move along a desired line, arrows 200" can be used to instruct the user to steer the circular saw to the left or right in order to make a straight cut. If the user had inputted a cut with a particular length, display 300 can show a stop sign to instruct the user to end the cut”).
Regarding claim 22, Busschaert teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
Busschaert further teaches, The system of claim 8 (see claim 8 above), further comprising a feedback subsystem adapted to provide visual, tactile, and/or auditory feedback (Para. 0034: “Once the orientation of the power tool 200 matches the orientation of the ghost image 200", computing device 250 can provide an audio or visual signal to indicate that a match has been reached”; Para. 0035: “Similarly, display 300 can show other indications such as arrow 200" to instruct the user to move the power tool 200 in a certain direction, or other visual cues, such as stop signs, etc. to communicate instructions to the user. For example, if the power tool 200 is a circular saw that is supposed to move along a desired line, arrows 200" can be used to instruct the user to steer the circular saw to the left or right in order to make a straight cut. If the user had inputted a cut with a particular length, display 300 can show a stop sign to instruct the user to end the cut”; Note: the Examiner selects the visual and auditory limitations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busschaert et al. (US 2014/0005807 A1, hereinafter “Busschaert”) in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2011/0063438 A1, hereinafter “Fuchs”).
Regarding claim 13, Busschaert teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
Busschaert does not expressly disclose the following limitation: further comprising a translation subsystem adapted to mark a construction space or one or more workpieces.
However, Fuchs teaches, further comprising a translation subsystem adapted to mark a construction space or one or more workpieces (Para. 0025: “An object 4 which can be moved corresponding to the appliance 3 is detected for this purpose, in which case the object 4 is a light spot projected by the appliance 3 onto the workpiece 1”; Para. 0026; Para. 0028: “project a reticle 8 forward onto the wall 1 from the drilling machine 3”; Fig. 1: light point 4 and marking 8).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a translation subsystem adapted to mark a construction space or one or more workpieces as taught by Fuchs with the system of Busschaert in order to make the work of the electric tool user easier (Fuchs, Para. 0005). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combines the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Busschaert and Fuchs teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 13.
The combination of Busschaert and Fuchs further teaches, The system of claim 13 (see claim 13 above), wherein the translation subsystem comprises a laser or light projector, marker, or engraver (Fuchs, Para. 0025: “An object 4 which can be moved corresponding to the appliance 3 is detected for this purpose, in which case the object 4 is a light spot projected by the appliance 3 onto the workpiece 1”; Fuchs, Para. 0026: “The appliance 3 projects a marking, to be precise a reticle 8 or a light cross, instead of the light point 4 onto the workpiece 1”; Fuchs, Para. 0028: “project a reticle 8 forward onto the wall 1 from the drilling machine 3”; Fuchs, Fig. 1: light point 4 and marking 8).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Busschaert and Fuchs references presented in the rejection of claim 13 apply to claim 14 and are incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, the system recited in claim 14 is met by Busschaert and Fuchs.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Busschaert and Fuchs teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 13.
The combination of Busschaert and Fuchs further teaches, The system of claim 13 (see claim 13 above), wherein the translation subsystem includes a projection device that projects light or energy onto a construction space at specified locations (Fuchs, Para. 0025: “An object 4 which can be moved corresponding to the appliance 3 is detected for this purpose, in which case the object 4 is a light spot projected by the appliance 3 onto the workpiece 1”; Fuchs, Para. 0026: “The appliance 3 projects a marking, to be precise a reticle 8 or a light cross, instead of the light point 4 onto the workpiece 1. The position of the marking 8 is recorded”; Fuchs, Para. 0028: A light pattern/reticle is projected onto a plane/wall and the position of the light pattern/reticle is identified; Fuchs, Fig. 1: light point 4 and marking 8).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Busschaert and Fuchs references presented in the rejection of claim 13 apply to claim 16 and are incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, the system recited in claim 16 is met by Busschaert and Fuchs.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Busschaert and Fuchs teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 16.
The combination of Busschaert and Fuchs further teaches, The system of claim 16 (see claim 16 above), wherein the specified locations indicate places to be cut or not cut (Fuchs, Para. 0025: Object 4 is a light spot projected by the appliance 3 (i.e., a drilling machine) onto the workpiece 1; Fuchs, Para. 0028: A light pattern/reticle is projected onto a plane/wall from the drilling machine 3 and holes are drilled; Fuchs, Fig. 1; Note: the Examiner selects the places to be cut limitation and interprets drilling of holes cutting).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Busschaert and Fuchs references presented in the rejection of claim 16 apply to claim 17 and are incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, the system recited in claim 17 is met by Busschaert and Fuchs.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busschaert et al. (US 2014/0005807 A1, hereinafter “Busschaert”) in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2011/0063438 A1, hereinafter “Fuchs”) and further in view of Pettersson (US 2016/0224927 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Busschaert and Fuchs teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 16.
The combination of Busschaert and Fuchs does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the specified locations indicate places for components.
However, Pettersson teaches, wherein the specified locations indicate places for components (Para. 0046; Para. 0057: “this tool 4 is pointing a laser to the desired location, the executing entity 3 is given the specific on-site task to mount the construction component 9 which is content 9 of the package 8”; Para. 0062: “By the laser, the tool 4 can also project light to an exact desired on-site location, at which the specific on-site task has to be done”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine locations indicating places for components as taught by Pettersson with the combined system of Busschaert and Fuchs in order to improve an automated construction data interchange and reduce human interaction and observation (Pettersson, Para. 0009). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combines the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 18.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busschaert et al. (US 2014/0005807 A1, hereinafter “Busschaert”) in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2011/0063438 A1, hereinafter “Fuchs”) and further in view of Kahle et al. (US 2018/0339387 A1, hereinafter “Kahle”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Busschaert and Fuchs teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 16.
The combination of Busschaert and Fuchs does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the specified locations indicate places for fastening.
However, Kahle teaches, wherein the specified locations indicate places for fastening (Para. 0006; Para. 0050: power tools are used to install fasteners; Para. 0051: a beam of laser light is directed at a retro-reflective target and based on the measured position of the retro-reflective target and the desired position of a building feature, such as a fastener, the operator can move the reflector to the desired position and mark the position; Para. 0063; Para. 0067 and Fig. 11: direct fastening on a ceiling).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine locations indicating places for fastening as taught by Kahle with the combined system of Busschaert and Fuchs in order to perform operations at predetermined points within the building with little error (Kahle, Para. 0005). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combines the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busschaert et al. (US 2014/0005807 A1, hereinafter “Busschaert”) in view of Kahle et al. (US 2018/0339387 A1, hereinafter “Kahle”).
Regarding claim 20, Busschaert teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 8.
Busschaert does not expressly disclose the following limitation: further comprising at least one projection device and at least one reaction material that reacts to a projection from the projection device.
However, Kahle teaches, further comprising at least one projection device and at least one reaction material that reacts to a projection from the projection device (Para. 0006; Para. 0051: a beam of laser light is directed at a retro-reflective target and the time of travel of the beam from the total station to the retro-reflective target and then back to the total station is measured).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine locations a projection device and a reaction material that reacts to a projection from the projection device as taught by Kahle with the system of Busschaert in order to perform operations at predetermined points within the building with little error (Kahle, Para. 0005). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combines the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected under is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busschaert et al. (US 2014/0005807 A1, hereinafter “Busschaert”) in view of Kahle et al. (US 2018/0339387 A1, hereinafter “Kahle”) and further in view of Haines (US 2005/0215685 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Busschaert and Kahle teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 20.
The combination of Busschaert and Kahle does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the reaction material is a paint or other secondary material that is applied to the work site and reacts to specific wavelengths of light or energy.
However, Haines teaches, wherein the reaction material is a paint or other secondary material that is applied to the work site and reacts to specific wavelengths of light or energy (Para. 0018: coating walls with a reflective wall paint; Para. 0020: coating of the walls with the wall paint may be by brushes, roller, sprayers, etc.; Para. 0036: “Wall paint compositions of the present invention comprise at least one metal oxide pigment capable of reflecting light of infrared wavelengths; claim 6: “said coated wall reflects light of infrared wavelengths; Note: the Examiner interprets a wall as a work site and the Examiner selects the paint and wavelengths of light limitations).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine applying a reaction material (i.e., paint) to a work site that reacts to specific wavelengths of light as taught by Haines with the combined system of Busschaert and Kahle in order to reduce energy consumption of a building (Haines, Para. 0018). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combines the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0388158 A1
US 2021/0034032 A1
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniella M. DiGuglielmo whose telephone number is (571)272-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/Daniella M. DiGuglielmo/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666