DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 4-6, with respect to rejections to claims 1-2 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/(2) and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are respectfully unpersuasive. Therefore, rejections to claims have been maintained.
On pages 5-6, The Applicant argues that:
“the Applicant respectfully submits that Gass, standing alone or in view of Vetter, fails to anticipate or render obvious the features "wherein the target object is movable such that the target object is able to maintain a direction of the target object to face the sensor at all times by gravity when a direction of the tool changes" recited in claim 1…Thus, Gass does not teach or suggest the markings 202, 202' of Gass can move independently relative to the tool. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the target object move independently relative to the tool” as suggested in the arguments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonably interpretation in light of the disclosure. The claims do not recite “ “the target object move independently relative to the tool” as suggested in the arguments. Gass teaches wherein the target object is movable such that the target object is able to maintain a direction of the target object to face the sensor at all times by gravity when a direction of the tool changes (see Fig. 6 the target object 202 is movable when the tools/user moves, and the target object 202 faces the sensor 200/201 at all times by gravity when a direction of the tool changes to the left, to the right, at certain directional angles (up or down movements of the tool); Gravity is a force always acting on the target object/tool that prevents the tool from floating; see [0074] and [0077] “ In just the same way, the location of the process tool 7 can be computed consecutively on the basis of the location of the recognized marking 202 in the system of coordinates X,Y,Z. When the coordinates of the relative workpiece zero point 2020 and possibly of the bolting sites (held in the memory relative to the workpiece zero point) are known and consecutively computed and simultaneously the location of the process tool 7 is analyzed on the basis of having determined the coordinates of the marking 202 in the system of coordinates X,Y,Z, then the location of the tool (i.e. the marking 202) relative to the workpiece and more particularly to the bolting sites process station 1, 2 (4, 4') can always be computed”, the tools is moved to each bolt/point 4, 4” and thus the tool is moved and detected by the sensor, wherein the target object is detected by the sensor indicates that the target object faces the sensor, see [0086] “Referring now to FIG. 10 there is illustrated how the image processing means 203 analyzes mapped movements of the process tool 7 in establishing whether a predefined number of process operations has been implemented at the corresponding process sites 4”).
The Applicant can add the limitations of claims 3 and 5 to the independent claim 1 and make new independent claims covering the embodiments or subject matter of claims 3 and 5 which clearly describes the structure and configuration of the target object mounted on an structure that makes the target object moveable independently of the tool.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gass (US 20020038159).
As per claim 1, Gass teaches a work management system for managing an operating status of a tool of a worker (see [0002] and see Fig. 6 and see [0014] “… a process system as set forth in claim 24 in that a recognizing means is provided which identifies the location, i.e. the position of the process tool in the process station, the location, i.e. position of the workpiece in the process station and from which it is able to determine the location of the process tool relative to the process site in each case… the system is always able to keep track of whether the process tool has been guided to the corresponding process site, also in the corresponding sequence, where several process sites are concerned, so that here too, the same as in the first aspect, the system is able to assign the process tool not, for example, to each zone, as in prior art, but to the process site itself. In other words, recognizing the process site is implemented implicitly via locationing”), the work management system comprising:
a target object arranged on the tool (see Fig. 6 and see [0064] “…A recognizing means 200 is provided to identify the location and/or angular orientation of the process tool 7, 7' in the process station 1, the location of the workpiece 5 in the process station 1 in recognizing therefrom the location of the process tool 7 relative to each process site 4…”; see [0046] “…the process tool, for example an AUTO screw driver or nut runner, bolts at the correct site…”; also, see [0069] “…. As shown in FIG. 6 the recognizing means may comprise at least one marking 202 applied to the at least one process tool 7, 7', an imaging means 201 as shown in FIG. 5 for imaging the process station 1 and an image processing means 203 for recognizing the location of the process tool 7 in outputting the identification signal ES, as shown in FIG. 7…”, marking 202 is the target object; also, see Figs. 8b and 8c markings 202; also, see [0077] ); and
a sensor capable of detecting the target object (see Fig. 6 and [0064] “…e [0064] “…A recognizing means 200 is provided to identify the location and/or angular orientation of the process tool 7, 7…”; also, see [0077-0079] ),
wherein the target object is movable such that the target object is able to maintain a direction of the target object to face the sensor at all times by gravity when a direction of the tool changes (see Fig. 6 the target object 202 is movable when the tools/user moves, and the target object 202 faces the sensor 200/201 at all times by gravity when a direction of the tool changes to the left, to the right, at certain directional angles (up or down movements of the tool); Gravity is a force always acting on the target object/tool that prevents the tool from floating; see [0074] and [0077] “ In just the same way, the location of the process tool 7 can be computed consecutively on the basis of the location of the recognized marking 202 in the system of coordinates X,Y,Z. When the coordinates of the relative workpiece zero point 2020 and possibly of the bolting sites (held in the memory relative to the workpiece zero point) are known and consecutively computed and simultaneously the location of the process tool 7 is analyzed on the basis of having determined the coordinates of the marking 202 in the system of coordinates X,Y,Z, then the location of the tool (i.e. the marking 202) relative to the workpiece and more particularly to the bolting sites process station 1, 2 (4, 4') can always be computed”, the tools is moved to each bolt/point 4, 4” and thus the tool is moved and detected by the sensor, wherein the target object is detected by the sensor indicates that the target object faces the sensor, see [0086] “Referring now to FIG. 10 there is illustrated how the image processing means 203 analyzes mapped movements of the process tool 7 in establishing whether a predefined number of process operations has been implemented at the corresponding process sites 4”).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US 20020038159) in view of Vetter (US 20210123737).
As per claim 2, Gass teaches the work management system according to claim 1, further comprising:
Gass further teaches a management device for managing the operating status of the tool (see Fig. 2 and 5 programming means 8 and comparator 10 and see [0043] “…The identification signal ES indicates whether a process site and/or which process site has been identified. It is on the basis of this information in the identification signal ES that the process parameter programming means 8 reads process parameter design values from a memory means 9 and outputs them to the process tool 7. During processing a comparator means 10 compares the actual process parameters to the design process parameters. When the actual values agree with the design values the comparator means 10 halts, for example, the process tool 7”; [0064]),
wherein the tool is provided with a transmission unit, and the transmission unit transmits operation information of the tool of the worker and (see Fig. 2 the tool senses actual parameter and transmits the sensed parameters to the management device/comparator 10, and based on the sensed parameters the device 10 starts or stops the tool, thus, it includes a transmission unit; also, see [0090] “the process tool 7 comprising one or more screw drivers or nut runners and the programmed process parameters are bolting parameters. The bolting parameters comprise a torque and/or an torsion angle of the one or more screw drivers or nut runners”; also, see [0091] “…a set of process units 71-74, as shown in FIG. 9, sensing the angular orientation, as explained above, may be of major importance..”; also, see page 10 claim 35).
Gass does not explicitly teach the transmission unit transmits orientation information of the target object when the tool is operated to the management device.
Vetter teaches a method and system comprising a tool provided with a transmission unit (see Fig. 1 transmission unit 102; see [0024]), and the transmission unit transmits operation information of the tool of the worker and orientation information of the target object when the tool is operated to the management device (see Fig. 1 transmission unit 17 for transmission data such as orientation, see [0023] and [0024] “the sensor tag 102 may include a wireless mode of communication, such as, for example, Bluetooth, Near Field Communication (NFC), Wifi, ZigBee, LoRa, LoRaWAN, Sigfox, Cellular, etc. The sensor tag 102 may be configured to communicate wirelessly with a remote computing device 106… In certain embodiments, the sensor tag 102 may be configured to transmit an information packet with raw information (e.g., movement (e.g., movement intensity), touch, pressure, position, orientation, speed, distance, height, vibrations, acceleration, elevation, etc.) and/or calculated parameters (e.g., height, distance, velocity, force of impact, free-fall distance, free-fall height, usage total time, transportation total time, idle total time, etc.) to the computing device 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Gass’ invention to include as taught by a tool provided with a transmission unit, and the transmission unit transmits operation information of the tool of the worker and orientation information of the target object when the tool is operated to the management device as taught by Vetter in order to use the collected information for statistical measurements (see [0023] “…In certain embodiments, the raw sensor information may be associated with time, so that a timeline or chronology of events may be generated. The raw sensor information may be stored within the memory 128 and/or utilized by the processor 126 to generate one or more parameters related to current, historical, or future usage of the power tool 104. For example, the raw information measured by the sensors 124 may be utilized to determine a free-fall time, a free-fall distance (or height), duration of idle time, duration of usage time, duration of transportation time, duration of operational time, or other similar parameters”; also, see [0028] “… In certain embodiments, the raw sensor information may be correlated to a time stamp, such that information may be recorded over a period of time. For example, the raw sensor information may be analyzed to determine historical information (e.g., usage statistics) related to the power tool, such as the total time over a period (e.g., lifetime of the tool) that the power tool in an idle mode, a transportation mode, a usage mode, a storage mode, and so forth).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Same reasons of indication of allowable subject matter are repeated herein. Claims 3-6 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.
The prior art of record, including the reference(s) cited above and below, neither anticipates, nor renders obvious the recited combination as a whole in combination with the other claimed elements; including the limitations of:
Claim 3, that recites “wherein the target object is rotatably arranged along an axial line extending horizontally relative to the tool, and a movable counterweight is provided such that the target object faces the sensor by gravity”.
Claim 4, that recites “wherein the target object is rotatably arranged along an axial line extending horizontally relative to the tool, and a movable counterweight is provided such that the target object faces the sensor by gravity”.
Claim 5, that recites “wherein the target object is provided on an upper surface of a liquid level, so as to be detectable by the sensor facing downward”
Claim 6 that recites “wherein the target object is provided on an upper surface of a liquid level, so as to be detectable by the sensor facing downward”
Relevant Art cited by The Examiner
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the Applicant’s art and those art considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure (see MPEP 707.05c)
Smoot et al (US 20200088758) teaches a system comprising a sensor on a ceiling for detecting a target object, a target object mounted on a tool/table, wherein the target object is movable such that the target object is able to maintain a direction of the target object to face the sensor at all times by gravity when a direction of the tool/table changes (see Fig. 31 table 3110, target object with center of gravity).
Ikeda et al (JP 2022012057 A, as supported by a machine translation provided) teaches a system comprising portable tool a sensor, a target object, a posture detection unit 26 for detecting the posture of the tool, wherein the posture detection unit 26 can detect, for example, the direction of gravity based on the output of the acceleration sensor, and can detect the direction of the tool 2 with respect to the direction of gravity. However, Ikeda does not explicitly teach or suggests “wherein the target object is movable such that the target object is able to maintain a direction of the target object to face the sensor at all times by gravity when a direction of the tool changes”.
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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights