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 1-2, 4-10, and 12-16 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-16 have been amended. Claims 3 and 11 have been cancelled.
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 1-2, 5-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hebenstreit et al (US 20210034032 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hebenstreit)
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Hebenstreit teaches a control system for controlling operation of at least one machine in an industrial environment (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0100 and Figure 3, the system for automatically guiding tools is interpreted as a control system for controlling operation of at least one machine), a method for controlling operation of at least one machine in an industrial environment (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0059 and 0100, the method for automatically correcting a tool is interpreted as a method for controlling operation of at least one machine), the control system comprises:
a target path correction unit configured to modify a target path fed to the at least one machine, based on real-time spatial position of the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0059, 0091, 0095, and 0100, the system, which includes a CPU to implement the target path correction unit, modifies the path based on real-time/current spatial position of the tool/machine), wherein the target path correction unit is configured to modify the target path by:
calculating a tolerance of operation of the at least one machine by checking the real-time spatial position to be in line with the target path feed to the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0091 and 0095, the deviation of the current position/real-time spatial position from the path is interpreted as the tolerance);
detecting the tolerance to be greater than a predefined threshold value (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0091 and 0095, the deviation/tolerance is detected to be outside the adjustment region, which is interpreted as greater than a predefined threshold value); and
modifying the target path for feeding to the at least one machine to minimize the tolerance (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0091-0092 and 0095, the path is modified to bring the tool within the adjustment region, which is interpreted as minimizing the tolerance); and
a position correction unit configured to correct real-time operating position of the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0091-0092, 0095, and 0100, the system, which includes a CPU to implement the position correction unit, corrects the real-time/current position of the tool/machine), wherein the position correction unit corrects the real-time operating position by:
sensing one or more parameters related to the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0006, and 0078-0079, the sensors are used to determine the tool’s/machine’s position/parameter); and
displacing an operating tool of the at least one machine, based on the one or more parameters, for correcting the real-time operating position of the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0059, 0091-0092, and 0095, the tool is displaced based on the detected position/parameter to correct the current/real-time operating position).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Hebenstreit teaches an operator speed detection unit configured to detect speed of operation of the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraph 0079, the optical mouse sensor, which is interpreted as the operator speed detection unit, detects speed of movement/operation).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Hebenstreit teaches the position correction unit for displacing the operating tool comprises:
a holding structure configured to hold the operating tool (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0096 and 0098, the tool is mounted within the frame/holding structure); and
one or more actuators configured to displace the operating tool for minimizing value of deviation between the one or more parameters and one or more predefined parameters to zero (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0059, 0088, 0091-0093, and 0095, the tool is displaced using actuation mechanisms to minimize the deviation between the current parameter/position and the desired/predefined parameter/position).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Hebenstreit teaches wherein the position correction unit comprises one or more sensors for sensing the one or more parameters (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0006, and 0078-0079, the sensors are used to determine the tool’s/machine’s position/parameter), wherein the one or more parameters comprises at least one of angular acceleration, linear acceleration, orientation, velocity, and trajectory related to the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraphs 0078-0079, the sensors are used to determine speed/velocity and direction/trajectory related to the machine/tool).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Hebenstreit teaches one or more alerting systems provide an alert during controlling of the at least one machine (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraph 0095, the system provides an indication/alert during controlling of the tool/machine).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Hebenstreit teaches the real-time operating position of the at least one machine indicates at least one of direction and force of operation of the operating tool (See at least Hebenstreit Paragraph 0079, the location detection includes direction of movement).
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebenstreit in view of Sun et al (US 20200078945 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Sun)
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Hebenstreit fails to disclose the target path feed to the at least one machine is determined using an augmented reality of the industrial environment experienced by a primary operator of the at least one machine, wherein the target path is determined based on one or more inputs provided by the primary operator based on the augmented reality.
However, Sun teaches the target path feed to the at least one machine is determined using an augmented reality of the industrial environment experienced by a primary operator of the at least one machine (See at least Sun Paragraphs 0007, 0029, 0031, and Figure 2, the target path for the machine is determined using augmented reality experienced by the operator), wherein the target path is determined based on one or more inputs provided by the primary operator based on the augmented reality (See at least Sun Paragraphs 0007, 0029, 0031, and Figure 2, the target path is determined based on inputs/adjustments provided by the operator using the augmented reality device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Hebenstreit with Sun to determine the target path based on one or more inputs provided by the primary operator based on the augmented reality. This modification, as taught by Sun, would allow the operator to visualize the path and make necessary adjustments to account for any variations (See at least Sun Paragraphs 0007, 0029, 0031, and Figure 2), which would improve the awareness of the operator and accuracy of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on Pages 7-8 of the remarks, that Hebenstreit does not teach “modifying the target path for feeding to the at least one machine to minimize the tolerance”. Applicant argues that Hebenstreit instead teaches moving the workpiece to permit a working member to perform operations along a desired path. Applicant cites Paragraph 0337 of Hebenstreit as teaching moving the workpiece so that the desired path lies within the adjustment region of a working member.
However, the teachings disclosed in Paragraph 0337 were not cited to teach the limitation of “modifying the target path for feeding to the at least one machine to minimize the tolerance”. Examiner cited Paragraphs 0091-0092 and 0095. Paragraph 0091 of Hebenstreit states “Upon determining the current position of the cutting tool, the system may compare the current position with the desired position. The system may then guide the tool in accordance with the design plan. In some embodiments, when the system determines there is a discrepancy between the current position and the desired position, or the current position or trajectory deviates from the design plan, the system may adjust the cutting tool in accordance with the design plan. For example, the system may identify a cutting path or vector of the tool and the design plan and adjust the cutting tool such that the next cut is in accordance with the design plan.”. Paragraph 0095 of Hebenstreit states “In some embodiments, the system may indicate to the user that the cutting is not on the design path or not within the adjustment region. The system may further indicate to the user to correct the position of the cutting tool or a direction in which to move the cutting tool to bring it on the design path or within the adjustment region.”. Hebenstreit teaches modifying the target path of the tool of the machine in order to minimize the difference between the current position/trajectory and the desired position/trajectory. By moving the cutting tool of the machine, the tool is brought back to the design path, which minimizes the tolerance. Therefore, Hebenstreit teaches “modifying the target path for feeding to the at least one machine to minimize the tolerance” as claimed by Applicant.
For these reasons, the claims still stand rejected over the prior art.
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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights