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 .
Response to Arguments
As an initial matter, the examiner notes that the May 13, 2026, amendments improperly duplicate the amendments submitted in the Preliminary Amendment of 10/26/2023. A previously amended claim should be presented in a “clean” form and include the identifier “previously presented” if no additional amendments are being made to the claim in the current response. See MPEP § 714.(c)(3).
Response to Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and/or arguments are persuasive. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Response to 112 Rejection Arguments
Claim 1: Applicant's arguments with respect to the 112(b) rejection based on the recitation “using a handheldable pulling and compressing device for repairing motor vehicle components” (as amended) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On p. 11 of the May 13,2026, Response, Applicant argues:
It is asserted to be unclear "how rivet 3 is being 'repaired' by the handheldable pulling and compressing device" (p. 7). These arguments misunderstand the nature and purpose of the handheldable pulling and compressing device, which is not intended for repairing rivets, but is for the repair of motor vehicle components which commonly involves riveting and crimping operations.
The Applicant then amends claim 1 to read “for repairing motor vehicle components.”
The examiner appreciates Applicant’s explanation. However, the arguments and amendments are not persuasive because claim 1 still identifies the claimed “component,” which requires machining, as “component (3).” The specification identifies rivets with the reference numeral 3. See, e.g., lines 9-10 of claim 1 (which, as amended, recites “identifying by means of a mobile handheld device (4) a motor vehicle component (3) to be machined”) and par. [0053] of the specification (identifying a rivet with the reference “3”). Thus, the claimed “motor vehicle components” can include rivets. For the claim language to be consistent with Applicant’s arguments, as best understood by the examiner, the claim language should recite, inter alia, “identifying by means of a mobile handheld device (4) a used in machining a motor vehicle component.” (Assuming there is support in the specification.) Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is maintained with respect to this issue.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the other 112(b) issues identified in the non-final Office Action for claim 1 are persuasive and the 112(b) rejections with respect these issues have been withdrawn.
Claims 2 and 3: Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) issues identified in the non-final Office Action for claims 2 and 3 and the 112(b) rejections with respect these issues have been withdrawn.
Claims 4 and 6: Applicant's arguments with respect to the 112(b) issues identified in the non-final Office Action for claims 4 and 6 are persuasive and these rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim 5: The 112(b) rejection of claim 5 is maintained because claim 5 has not been amended as argued by Applicant.
Claim 7: Applicant’s arguments rely on the same arguments made above with respect to claim 1. For the reasons given above with respect to claim 1, the examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection of claim 7.
Response to 103 Rejection Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-10 on pp. 14-18 of the May 13 Response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pp. 14-15, Applicant argues:
The present application describes handheld pulling and compressing devices for the repair of motor vehicle components. The repair of motor vehicle components and selection of the appropriate tools presents a significant challenge, due to the large number of different vehicles and their components. In one embodiment, the handheld pulling and compressing device itself is capable of: (1) identifying a motor vehicle component; (2) selecting the appropriate tool for machining the identified motor vehicle component; and (3) displaying information about the selected tool. For example, the device may include a camera unit for taking an electronic image of a motor vehicle component, and a server unit with a database of images of motor vehicle components and information for selecting an appropriate tool for machining the motor vehicle components. Evaluation and identification of imaged motor vehicle component, and selection of the corresponding tool takes place on the device, and the information may be displayed on a display unit. (¶¶ [0018]-[0021].) The automation of these steps by the handheld pulling and compressing device reduces the burden on the operator and susceptibility to error in identifying the correct motor vehicle component and proper tool, and also reduces the set-up and repair time.
(Emphasis added.)
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claims are not directed to the “handheld pulling and compressing device” described above. The claims only require a “handheld pulling and compressing device” to include a drive unit, a screw drive, and a tool holder, which is disclosed by the combination of Masugata, Ko, and Kreischer, as discussed below.
On p. 15, Applicant argues:
Neither Masugata or Ko teach or suggest the claimed pulling and compressing device for processing automotive components, or methods for processing an automotive component by means of a handheld pulling and compressing device. Masugata discloses a blind rivet setting device (1) with a recovery container (10) for collecting the broken rivet mandrel (43), which is not relevant to the present application.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claims only require the “pulling and compressing device” to perform “machining the motor vehicle component (3) by means of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2),” which is disclosed by Masugata. As discussed above in the 112(b) section, “motor vehicle component (3)” will read on a rivet. Accordingly, setting a rivet, as disclosed in Masugata will read on “machining the motor vehicle component (3) by means of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2).” Further, the claims are rejected using the combined teachings of Masugata, Ko, and Kreischer. Accordingly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See MPEP § 2145.IV.
On p. 16, Applicant argues:
Ko does not provide any suggestion to replace the blind riveting tool of Masugata with the claimed pulling and compression device, or other tool for use in processing motor vehicle components. It is acknowledged (Office Action, pp. 13-14) that neither Matsugata or Ko disclose the claimed elements of:
- identifying by means of a mobile handheld device a motor vehicle component to be machined, the mobile handheld device comprising a display unit and a transmitting and receiving unit for wireless data transmission of information to a server unit;
- selecting a tool suitable for machining the identified motor vehicle component by means of the mobile handheld device and/or the server unit; or
- displaying information about the tool on the display unit of the mobile handheld device.
Kreischer also does not disclose these claimed elements. Kreischer relates to troubleshooting electrical problems in motor vehicles and, in particular, the replacement of defective plugs or sockets in faulty electrical connections. Kreischer teaches methods for identifying and providing information about a plug housing (2) on a mobile handheld device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable basis or motivation to combine Kreischer with Matsugata and Ko. Masugata and Ko relate to the mechanical processing of sheet metal parts, whereas Kreischer is directed to solving electrical connectivity issues and the replacement of defective plugs or sockets in faulty connections. Therefore, one would not reasonably look to Kreischer to modify the riveting tools of Masugata or Ko.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Masugata is cited to teach that the claimed “handheldable pulling and compressing device” and its positively recited components are known. Ko is cited to teach that identifying and selecting suitable inserts for a rivet device is known. Finally, Kreischer is cited to teach a system with a mobile device and server for identifying objects and providing relevant data regarding the object. According, the combination of Masugata, Ko, and Kreischer renders obvious claim 1, as discussed below.
On p. 17, Applicant argues:
Furthermore, the combination of Kreischer with Masugata and Ko does not disclose the claimed invention. Kreischer is asserted to disclose methods for "identifying an object and providing information concerning the identified object on a mobile hand-held device" (p. 15). Even if this interpretation of the prior art is correct -- combining the method of Kreischer with riveting tools of Masugata and Ko would merely disclose the steps of identifying the rivet used in a defective riveted joint, and using this information to select a new rivet. Therefore, the combination of Kreischer, Masugata, and Ko still fails to reasonably teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed element of selecting by means of the handheld device, a suitable tool for machining a motor vehicle component.
Accordingly, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose a system or method of using a "handheldable pulling and compressing device for repairing motor vehicle components", that comprises "identifying by means of a mobile handheld device a motor vehicle component (3) to be machined", "selecting a tool (5) suitable for machining the identified motor vehicle component (3) by means of the mobile handheld device (4)", and "displaying information about the tool (5) on the display unit (16) of the mobile handheld device (4)", as set forth in independent claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8-10 all depend from independent claim 1, and are patentable over the prior art for the same reasons
(Emphasis added.)
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, component (3) is identified in the specification as a rivet. Accordingly, prior art references need only relate to the identification and use of rivet in a rivet device to read on the claims. The combination of Masugata, Ko, and Kreischer does just that and renders obvious claim 1, as discussed below. Indeed, Applicant’s above analysis that “combining the method of Kreischer with riveting tools of Masugata and Ko would merely disclose the steps of identifying the rivet used in a defective riveted joint, and using this information to select a new rivet” is essentially a tacit admission that the cited combination reads on at least independent claim 1.
The patentability of dependent claims 2-10 are not independently argued.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the rotation” should be “a rotation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“the evaluation unit (20), the shape type of the motor vehicle component (3) and/or at least one object marking of a label arranged on the motor vehicle component (3) to be identified is determined by automatic shape detection of the electronic image” in claim 5. Claim 5 recites “evaluation unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” to perform the function “the shape type of the motor vehicle component (3) and/or at least one object marking of a label arranged on the motor vehicle component (3) to be identified is determined by automatic shape detection of the electronic image” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed evaluation. After reviewing the Specification, the Examiner was unable to determine the structure for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The following claim limitations are indefinite:
Claim 1 at lines 1-2 recites “using a handheldable pulling and compressing device for repairing motor vehicle components.” The main (and only illustrated) example of a motor vehicle component is an undamaged rivet 3 (see Fig. 1). It is unclear and therefore indefinite as to how rivet 3 is being “repaired” by the handheldable pulling and compressing device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 to 10 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “evaluation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as discussed above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function “the shape type of the motor vehicle component (3) and/or at least one object marking of a label arranged on the motor vehicle component (3) to be identified is determined by automatic shape detection of the electronic image”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP § 2181. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 at line 3, “the evaluations unit” does not have antecedent basis and is therefore indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitations “before the repair of the motor vehicle component (3)” and “a machining history of the motor vehicle component (3)” are indefinite. The main (and only illustrated) example of a motor vehicle component is an undamaged rivet 3 (see Fig. 1). It is unclear and therefore indefinite as to how rivet 3 is being “repaired” and/or has a “machining history.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0239449 to Hiroyuki Masugata (“Masugata”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0209341to Philley Ko (“Ko”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0251384 to Torsten Kreischer (“Kreischer”) (U.S. counterpart to EP 3528187 listed in the IDS of 4/25/2024).
Regarding clam 1, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer renders obvious:
Method of using a handheldable pulling and compressing device for repairing motor vehicle components, having (Masugata discloses use of an electric blind rivet setting device (“handheldable pulling and compressing device”). See, e.g., Masugata at Abstract.)
a drive unit (9) comprising a battery-operated electric motor (8) (Masugata discloses an electric blind rivet setting device 1 with “drive force transfer and control section 11 [that] has a mechanism for transferring the rotational force from the electric motor 13” which is powered by battery 51 (“drive unit (9) comprising a battery-operated electric motor (8)”). See, e.g., Masugata at pars. [0029], [0032] and [0043] and Figs. 1 and 2.,
a screw drive (10) connected to the electric motor (8) for transmitting tensile and compressive forces resulting from the rotation of the electric motor (8) to a coupling unit (11) (Masugata discloses that the electric motor 13 (Masugata discloses that the “positive rotation of the electric motor 13 [(“electric motor”)] is transferred to the spindle 14 through the motor gear 15, rear gear 19, drive shaft 18, front gear 21 and spindle gear 17, and the spindle rotates positively…[which] rotates the screw member 38 (FIG. 5) [(“screw drive”)] positively and causes the pulling head 30 to move backward a prescribed length….” See, e.g., Masugata at pars. [0036] and [0044] and Figs. 1-5 Masugata also discloses that “the nose 7 is provided with jaws 29 [(“coupling unit”)] as the means for gripping the mandrel M and with the pulling head 30 that envelopes the jaws 29 and extends to the tool housing 27” (“transmitting tensile and compressive forces resulting from the direction of rotation of the electric motor (8) to a coupling unit (11)” – tensile force on rivet mandrel and compressive force on rivet head). See, e.g., Masugata at par. [0034] and Figs. 1-5.),
a tool holder (12) connected to the coupling unit (11) (Masugata discloses that the “pulling head 30 surrounds and supports the jaws 29 [(“coupling unit”)] and is disposed in a state where the axial center is aligned with respect to the nose housing 33” (“tool holder”). See, e.g., Masugata at par. [0036] and Figs. 3-5. Thus, Masugata discloses a “tool holder (12) connected to the coupling unit (11).”),
with the steps –
arranging the tool (5) on the tool holder (12) of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) (Figure 4 of Masugata shows nose piece 31 (“tool”) inserted in nose housing 33 (“tool holder”).);
machining the motor vehicle component (3) by means of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) (“The shaft part of the mandrel M [(“motor vehicle component”)] that is gripped by the jaws 29 is pulled with enough strength by the linear motion of the pulling head 30 toward the rear that it breaks at the breakable part … [and that the] mandrel head H expands and deforms part of the sleeve of the rivet body R [(“motor vehicle component”)]…” (“machining the motor vehicle component (3) by means of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2)”). See, e.g., Masugata at par. [0034].
Masugata does not explicitly disclose: identifying a motor vehicle component (3) to be machined by means of a mobile handheld device (4) comprising a display unit (16) and a transmitting and receiving unit for wireless data transmission of information to a server unit (18); selecting a tool (5) suitable for machining the identified motor vehicle component (3) by means of the mobile handheld device (4) and/or the server unit (18); or displaying information about the appropriate tool (5) on the display unit (16) of the mobile handheld device (4).
However, in the same field of endeavor, riveting device, and thus analogous art, Ko discloses “[m]atching blind rivets and nosepieces must be identified before a rivet tool can correctly and smoothly draw the blind rivets” because “[i]f users fail to identify matching blind rivets and nosepieces to use, blind rivets would fail to be correctly drawn and fastened.” See, e.g., Ko at pars. [0007]-[0008].
Ko discloses:
identifying by means of a mobile handheld device (4) a motor vehicle component (3) to be machined, the mobile handheld device (4) comprising a display unit (16) and a transmitting and receiving unit for wireless data transmission of information to a server unit (18) (Ko discloses using blind rivets 40 (“identifying a motor vehicle component (3) to be machined”). See, e.g., Ko at pars. [0004] and [0030] and Fig. 5.;
selecting a tool (5) suitable for machining the identified motor vehicle component (3) by means of the mobile handheld device (4) and/or the server unit (18) (Ko discloses a plurality of nosepieces 20 (“tool”) that can be “interchangeably mounted” on the rivet gun with “[e]ach of the nosepieces 20 [having] a mandrel through hole 21 having a matching diameter corresponding to the mandrel 42 of blind rivets 40” (“selecting a tool (5) suitable for machining the identified motor vehicle component (3)”). See, e.g., Ko at par. [0030].);
Based on the teachings of Ko, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to include a plurality of nosepieces that are matched to the mandrels of blind rivets and that can be interchangeably mounted on Masugata’s electric blind rivet setting device in order to correctly draw and fasten the blind rivets. See, e.g., Ko at pars. [0007]-[0008]. However, Masugata in view of Ko does not disclose that the identification is “by means of a mobile handheld device (4) comprising a display unit (16) and a transmitting and receiving unit for wireless data transmission of information to a server unit (18)” or that the selecting is “by means of the mobile handheld device (4) and/or the server unit (18)” or the claimed “displaying information about the appropriate tool (5) on the display unit (16) of the mobile handheld device (4).”
Kreischer discloses a “method for identifying an object and providing information concerning the identified object on a mobile hand-held device.” See, e.g., Kreischer at Abstract. Accordingly, because Kreischer addresses the problem of identifying objects and then providing corresponding information, Kreischer is reasonably pertinent art to the problem facing the Inventors of the present Application (see, e.g., present Specification at par. [0003]) and thus analogous art. See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Masugata in view of Ko and further in view of renders obvious:
identifying a motor vehicle component (3) to be machined by means of a mobile handheld device (4) comprising a display unit (16) and a transmitting and receiving unit for wireless data transmission of information to a server unit (18) (Kreischer discloses a “system, schematically represented in FIG. 1, for identifying an object 2 [(“identifying a motor vehicle component”)] and providing information on this object 2 has a mobile hand-held device in the form of a smartphone 7 [(“mobile handheld device”)] with and a server unit 10 [(“server unit”)].” See, e.g., Kreischer at par. [0049] and Fig. 1. Kreischer also discloses that “[a]fter the electronic image is created by the workshop employee with the camera unit of the mobile hand-held device, it is transmitted to the server unit via the transmitter/receiver unit [(“a transmitting and receiving unit for wireless data transmission of information to a server unit (18)”)].” See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0013] and [0052] and Fig. 1. In the system of Masugata and Ko as further modified by Kreischer, object 2 will correspond to rivets (“motor vehicle component”).);
selecting a tool (5) suitable for machining the identified motor vehicle component (3) by means of the mobile handheld device (4) and/or the server unit (18) (Kreischer discloses that “an analysis unit performs a comparison of the electronic image within the server unit [(“server unit”)] with images stored in a database of the server unit [and that] the data on a matching object [(“tool”)] stored in the database are, in turn, transmitted from the server unit [(“server unit”)] to the mobile hand-held device.” See, e.g., Kreischer at par. [0013]. Kreischer also discloses a “system, schematically represented in FIG. 1, for identifying an object 2 and providing information on this object 2 [(“tool”)] has a mobile hand-held device in the form of a smartphone 7 with and a server unit 10.” See, e.g., Kreischer at par. [0049] and Fig. 1. In the system of Masugata and Ko as further modified by Kreischer, data on a matching object and information on object 2 will correspond to the nosepiece (“tool”) corresponding to the rivet.;
displaying information about the tool (5) on the display unit (16) of the mobile handheld device (4) (Kreischer discloses that “[t]he information stored in the database on the identified object is then displayed on the display unit [(“displaying information about the appropriate tool (5) on the display unit (16)”)], typically an electronic display screen [(“display unit”)], of said device [(“mobile handheld device”)].” See, e.g., Kreischer at par. [0013] and Fig. 1.);
It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Masugata and Ko to include the object identifying method of Kreicher in order to alleviate the challenge of identifying an object where there is a variety to choose from. See, e.g., Kreischer at par. [0002]. Because Kreischer discloses that image comparison can be used to identify objects (rivets in the modified system) and corresponding information (nosepieces in the modified system), there is a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer renders obvious:
characterized in that, for identification of the motor vehicle component an electronic image of the motor vehicle component (3) to be identified is created with a camera unit of the mobile handheld device (4) (Kreischer discloses that an image of the object 2 is created by a mobile hand-held device. See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0013], [0017], and [0019] [0050].),
the electronic image is transmitted to the server unit (18) via the transmitting and receiving unit for identifying the motor vehicle component (3) in the server unit (18) by comparison with images of motor vehicle components to be identified stored in a database (19) (Kreischer discloses “[a]fter the electronic image is created by the workshop employee with the camera unit of the mobile hand-held device, it is transmitted to the server unit via the transmitter/receiver unit … [and that] an analysis unit [that] performs a comparison of the electronic image within the server unit with images stored in a database of the server unit, wherein the data on a matching object stored in the database are, in turn, transmitted from the server unit to the mobile hand-held device.” See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0013], [0020]-[0021], and [0052] and Fig. 1.) and
the information stored in the database (19) for the identified motor vehicle component (3) is transmitted to the handheld device (4) for selection of the suitable tool (5) (Kreischer discloses “an analysis unit [that] performs a comparison of the electronic image within the server unit with images stored in a database of the server unit, wherein the data on a matching object stored in the database are, in turn, transmitted from the server unit to the mobile hand-held device.” See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0013] and [0052] and Fig. 1.).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer renders obvious:
characterized in that the information on the tool (5) suitable for machining the motor vehicle component (3) is stored in a database (19), the suitable tool (5) is selected by the server unit (18) on the basis of the identified motor vehicle component (3), and the information is transmitted to the mobile handheld device (4) for display on the display unit (16) (Kreischer disclose that “[t]he information stored in the database on the identified object is then displayed on the display unit, typically an electronic display screen, of said device.” Kreischer also discloses “an analysis unit [that] performs a comparison of the electronic image within the server unit with images stored in a database of the server unit, wherein the data on a matching object stored in the database are, in turn, transmitted from the server unit to the mobile hand-held device.” See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0013] and [0052] and Fig. 1.).
Regarding clam 5, which is dependent on claim 1, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer renders obvious:
characterized in that, in order to identify the motor vehicle component (3) in the mobile handheld device (4) or in the evaluation unit (20), the shape type of the motor vehicle component (3) and/or at least one object marking of a label arranged on the motor vehicle component (3) to be identified is determined by automatic shape detection of the electronic image (Kreischer discloses that “the analysis unit may ….[use] the shape type and/or at least one object characterization of a characterizing part disposed on the object to be identified are determined when the image is electronically processed using automatic pattern recognition.” See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0022]. Kreischer also discloses that “the object characterization is formed by an encoding arranged on the object …[which] may, in addition to a two-dimensional code such as a bar code or a QR code, also be a three-dimensional code which has protruding elevations, for example in the shape of dots or bars….” See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0029].).
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer renders obvious:
characterized in that two switching elements arranged on the pulling and compressing device (2) are actuated simultaneously by means of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) in order to initialize the machining operation of the motor vehicle component (3) (Masugata disclose that “If the trigger 6 is pulled in a state where an on signal is output by the first microswitch 25 [(“switching element”)] and an off signal is output by the second microswitch 26, an on signal is output by the trigger switch 49 [(“switching element”)], and the signal processing section 55A of the control circuit 55 provided in the electric blind rivet setting device 1 outputs a positive rotation signal that rotates the electric motor 13 positively.” See, e.g., Masugata at par. [0044] and Fig. 10. Thus, Masugata discloses the claimed operation.).
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim1, Masugata in view of Ko and further in view of Kreicher renders obvious:
System for carrying out a method of using a handheldable pulling and compressing device for the repair of motor vehicle components, in particular according to claim 1 (Masugata discloses use of an electric blind rivet setting device for setting rivets (“handheldable pulling and compressing device”). See, e.g., Masugata at Abstract and par. [0012]. Kreischer discloses that “information stored in the database on the identified object [“(motor vehicle components”)] is then displayed on the display unit, typically an electronic display screen, of said device.” See, e.g., Kreischer at par. [0013] and Fig. 1. Thus, Masugata in view of Ko and further in view of Kreicher renders obvious the claimed system.), comprising
a handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) comprising a drive unit (9) having a battery-operated electric motor (8), a screw drive (10) connected to the electric motor (8) for transmitting tensile and compressive forces resulting from the direction of rotation of the electric motor (8) to a coupling unit (11), and a tool holder connected to the coupling unit (11) (These features are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1 and are therefore rendered obvious by Masugata in view of Ko and further in view of Kreicher for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.),
a mobile handheld device (4) with a camera unit, a display unit (16) and a transmitting and receiving unit for wireless data transmission of information to a server unit (18) (Kreischer discloses a mobile hand-held device in the form of a smartphone 7 that includes a camera unit, a display unit 8, and a means to transmit/receive data to/from server unit 10. See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0048]-[0053] and Fig. 1.), and
at least two different tools (5) (Ko discloses a plurality of nosepieces 20. See, e.g., Ko at par. [0037] and Fig. 10.).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 9, Masugata in view of Ko and further in view of Kreicher renders obvious:
characterized by a plurality of pulling and compressing tools (5) with exchangeable inserts (Masugata discloses an “o-ring 46 and a steel ball 47 [(“exchangeable inserts”)] are provided so as to obstruct part of the hollow passage in the opening part of the nose piece 31 ….” See, e.g., Masugata at par. [0037].).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masugata, Ko, and Kreischer, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0114383 to Michael H. Honsel (“Honsel”).
Regarding clam 4, which is dependent on claim1, Masugata, Ko, Kreischer, and Honsel render obvious:
characterized in that the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) for machining the motor vehicle component (3) is controlled by means of a control unit (13), the control unit (13) calling up a program stored in the database (19) of the server unit (18) or on the mobile handheld device (4) for the suitable tool (5) via a communication unit (15) of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) via the mobile handheld device (4) (As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer disclose the claimed “handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) for machining the motor vehicle component (3)” and the claimed “handheldable pulling and compressing device (2).” However, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer does not disclose the claimed control unit or the claimed communication unit. In the same field of endeavor, a riveting device, and thus analogous art, Honsel discloses the claimed control unit and the claimed communication unit, as discussed below.
characterized in that the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) for machining the motor vehicle component (3) is controlled by means of a control unit (13), the control unit (13) calling up a program stored in the database (19) of the server unit (18) or on the mobile handheld device (4) for the suitable tool (5) via a communication unit (15) of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) via the mobile handheld device (4) (Honsel disclose that “[t]hreshold values for the electric current and/or the electric voltage for operating the first and/or the second motor may furthermore be predefined, wherein these threshold values may be stored in the control unit, in particular, in dependence on the blind rivet elements used [and that] [d]ifferent blind rivet elements with different sizes, which may also consist of different materials, may require different retraction paths of the mandrel that are respectively reached earlier or later and can be detected based on the operating current and/or the operating voltage of the motors only.” See, e.g., Honsel at par. [0025]. That is, Honsel teaches that the control of the rivet mandrel may be different based on the size of the mandrel. In addition, Honsel discloses that “a control panel may also be arranged on the riveting device for the operation thereof and controlled with buttons or a touchscreen [and that] [i]t would also be conceivable to establish a wireless Bluetooth or Wi-Fi or cable connection [(“communication unit (15) of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2)”)] with a computer [(“server”)] or smart phone [(“mobile handheld device”)] that is able to run a suitable software or application.” See, e.g., Honsel at par. [0028]. Thus, Honsel discloses that “handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) for machining the motor vehicle component (3) is controlled by means of a control unit (13), the control unit (13) calling up a program stored in the database (19) of the server unit (18) or on the mobile handheld device (4) for the suitable tool (5) via a communication unit (15) of the handheldable pulling and compressing device (2) via the mobile handheld device (4).” Kreicher discloses that an “object of the invention to provide a method and a system for identifying an object and providing information on said identified object on a mobile hand-held device,” which is provided by the server unit. See, e.g., Kreischer at pars. [0003] and [0013] and Fig. 1. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to add threshold values for current and/or voltage, as taught by Honsel, to the “information” for the “identified object” in the server unit 10 as modified by Masugata, Ko and Kreischer, and to use the “information” to control the handheldable pulling and compressing device, as taught by Honsel. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to control the handheldable pulling and compressing device using the modified information, with threshold values, because the threshold values “make[] it possible to … compensate tolerances of the blind rivet elements” and ensure that “the mandrel is not retracted into the riveting device by a fixed path such that the blind rivet element or even the mandrel could be destroyed.” See, e.g., Honsel at par. [0025]. Because Honsel discloses controlling a riveting device, there is a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masugata, Ko, and Kreischer, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0300722 to Maurice Garcia (“Garcia”).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1, Masugata in view of Ko, Kreischer, and Garcia renders obvious:
characterized in that during the creation of the electronic image, the size of the motor vehicle component (3) to be identified is determined by means of a sensor unit of the mobile handheld device (4) (Masugata Ko and Kreischer do not disclose determining the size of the moto vehicle component by means of a sensor unit of the mobile handheld device (4). However, in the same field of endeavor as Kreischer, image processing, and thus analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)), Garcia discloses a “novel image-based measurement tools to accurately determine the dimensions of objects [(“size of the motor vehicle component (3) to be identified is determined”)] that have been imaged, i.e., photographed, [(“creation of the electronic image“ and also corresponds to “by means of a sensor unit”)] in a variety of contexts.” See, e.g., Garcia at par. [0004]. As discussed above, Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer teaches matching diameters of blind rivets and nosepieces (see Ko at Par. [0030]) and image processing (see Kreischer at par. [0049]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to employ the “image-based measurement tools” into the system of Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer in order “to provide new methods and devices for the facile and accurate measurement of length, width, height, area, volume, curvature, and other dimensional features of various items, ranging from microscopic to enormous.” See, e.g., Garcia at par. [0005].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masugata, Ko, and Kreischer, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0043249 to Accavitti et al. (“Accavitti”).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, Masugata in view of Ko, Kreischer, and Accavitti renders obvious:
characterized in that the mobile handheld device (4) is connected to the vehicle before the repair of the motor vehicle component (3), vehicle data is read out by means of the mobile handheld device (4), and a machining history of the motor vehicle component (3) identified and to be machined is displayed on the display unit (16) based on the vehicle data (Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer does not disclose the mobile handheld device that reads out vehicle data and machining history of the moto vehicle. However, Accavitti “relates to vehicular maintenance and repair, and more particularly to a system and method for performing vehicle diagnostics with incentives for a user” and to “a method of utilizing a diagnostic device to assist a user in repairing a vehicle.” See, e.g., Accavitti at pars. [0001] and [0005]. Accordingly, Accavitti addresses the problem of obtaining vehicle data for diagnosis to aid the user. Therefore, Accavitti is reasonably pertinent art to the problem facing the Inventors of the present Application (see, e.g., present Specification at par. [0031]) and thus analogous art. See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).). Accavitti discloses “diagnostic device 100 [that] comprises … a smartphone [(“mobile handheld device“)]….” See, e.g., Accavitti at par. [0015]. Accavitti also discloses collecting “Vehicle data 305 [that] may also indicate a history of repair and maintenance for the associated vehicle” and that the “diagnostic device 100 [] may be operable to assist a user in diagnosing the operational condition of a vehicle or a component of a vehicle.” See, e.g., Accavitti at pars. [0015] and [0035]. Thus, Accavitti discloses “vehicle data [that] is read out by means of the mobile handheld device (4), and a machining history of the motor vehicle component (3) identified and to be machined is displayed on the display unit (16) based on the vehicle data.” It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Masugata in view of Ko and Kreischer to include retrieving vehicle data from the vehicle, as disclosed in Accavitti, in order “to assist a user in diagnosing the operational condition of a vehicle or a component of a vehicle.” See, e.g., Accavitti at par. [0015].
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 BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights