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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are: “apparatus for determining an angular orientation between a non-rotationally symmetric working end of a first part of a tool and a tool tracker carried by a second part of the tool, wherein the first tool part is configured to be fixed to the second tool part in one of multiple angular orientations” in lines 2-5, “the apparatus configured to: receive first position data indicative of one or more positions of the tool tracker” in lines 7-10, “the apparatus configured to: receive second position data indicative of pointer positions while the pointer is tracing the reference structure” in lines 7-8 and 11-12; and “the apparatus configured to: determine, based on the received first and second position data and the predefined angular relation between the reference structure and the working end, the angular orientation of the working end relative to the tool tracker” in lines 7-8 and 13-16 in claim 1. The structure that performs these functions is a processor and computer (700/710/1000, fig. 8 and 9).
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.
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.
Claim 4, 18 and 19 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.
In regards to claim 4, the limitation “optionally” in line 2 of the claim is indefinite. The claim is unclear as to whether or not a screw connection is device for the detachably attached limitation of the claim. The claims should be clear and concise. For examining purposes the detachably attached does not have to rely on the screw connection, the screw connection is an option and is not required.
In regards to claim 18, the limitations “a tool”, “a first tool part”, “a non-rotationally symmetric working end”, “a reference structure”, “a tracked pointer”, “a predefined angular relation”, “a second tool part” and “a tool tracker” have all already been mentioned in claim 16 in which claim 18 is dependent. It is unclear if there is a totally separate tool to the one in claim 16 or if this is the same tool that limits the reference structure in claim 16 to being different from a wrench flat. For examining purposes, the limitations will be understood as the same in claim 16, where the reference structure in claim 16 to being different from a wrench flat. Please clarify.
Claim 19 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 18.
In regards to claim 19, the limitation “as an option” in line 2 of the claim is indefinite. The claim is unclear as to whether or not the limitation “is laterally limited by one or more walls configured to constrain lateral movement of the pointer” is required by the claim. The claims should be clear and concise. For examining purposes the limitation “is laterally limited by one or more walls configured to constrain lateral movement of the pointer” is not required by the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger (US 20090099445) in view of Horndler et al. (US 20070232897) and Grimm et al. (US 20050215888).
Re claims 1, 15 and 16: Burger teaches a method and computer program product on non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising instructions that, when executed on at least one processor, cause processor to perform the method and apparatus (see means plus function interpretation above) (fig. 1, 2 and 4, paragraphs 74 and 75) for determining an angular orientation between a rotationally symmetric working end (120) of a first part of a tool (104/102 of 104/102/116) and a tool tracker (114) carried by a second part of the tool (116 of 104/102/116) (see fig. 1), wherein the first tool part (104/102 of 104/102/116) is configured to be fixed to the second tool part (116 of 104/102/116) in one of multiple angular orientations (fig. 1, paragraph 34) and comprises a reference structure (110/118/154) (see fig. 1), wherein the reference structure (110/118/154) is traceable and has a predefined angular relation to the working end (120) (see fig. 1 and paragraph 39, 40 and 43), the method comprising: receiving first position data indicative of one or more positions of the tool tracker (114) (paragraph 45 and 46, step 403 and 404, fig. 4); receiving second position data indicative of positions of the reference structure (paragraph 46, step 408, see fig. 1 and 4); and determining, based on the received first and second position data and the predefined angular relation between the reference structure (110/118/154) and the working end (120), the angular orientation of the working end (120) relative to the tool tracker (114) (see fig. 1 and 4, paragraph 47, claim 13), but does not specifically teach a tracked pointer and receiving second position data indicative of pointer positions while the pointer is tracing the reference structure and a non-rotationally symmetric working end. Horndler teaches a reference structure (16/26) is traceable by a tracked pointer (14/15/24/25) and has a predefined positional relation to a working end (8/7) (paragraph 35-37, claim 1, 2 and 3, fig. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a tracked pointer to trace the reference surface of Burger similar to Horndler in order to determine position/orientation of a tool over several locations on a reference structure providing for more accurate position/orientation measurements of the tool. Burger as modified by Horndler does not specifically teach a non-rotationally symmetric working end. Grimm teaches a non-rotationally symmetric working end (26) (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the working end be a non-rotationally symmetric end similar to Grimm with the device of Burger as modified by Horndler in order to determine orientation of a non-symmetric tool providing for a more versatile deign.
Re claims 2 and 17: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the method and system, wherein the reference structure (Horndler, 16, 110/118/154) comprises a planar surface (Horndler, paragraph 32, truncated pyramid has a planar surface).
Re claim 3: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the method, wherein the predefined angular relation is indicative of the working end (Horndler, 7/8) having the same angular orientation as the planar surface (Horndler, paragraph 32 and 37, truncated pyramid has a planar surface) comprised by the reference structure (Horndler, 16/26, fig. 1).
Re claim 4 (see 112 rejection, screw is only an option other detachably attached elements can be used): Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the method, wherein the first tool part (Burger, 104/102 of 104/102/116) is detachably attached to the second tool part (Burger, 116 of 104/102/116, 110 is a clamp, paragraph 34).
Re claim 10: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm the method, wherein the reference structure (Horndler, 16/26) comprises at least one region that does not constrain pointer movement in two perpendicular directions (Horndler, fig. 3, truncated pyramid, regions movement in more than two perpendicular directions).
Re claim 11: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the method, wherein tracing of the reference structure (Horndler, 16/26) is the result of a manual movement of the pointer (Horndler, paragraph 21, 35 and 37).
Re claim 13: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the method, wherein at least one of the tool tracker (Burger, 114) and the pointer (Horndler, 14/15/24/25, reference structure, 16/26, Burger, reference structure, 110//118/154) is trackable by a tracking system (Burger, paragraph 41-48, fig. 4), the method further comprising: determining, based on a tracking of at least one of the tool tracker (Burger, 114) and the pointer (Horndler, 14/15/24/25), at least one of a position, orientation or a pose of the at least one of the tool tracker (Burger, 114) and the pointer (Horndler, 14/15/24/25, reference structure, 16/26, Burger, reference structure, 110//118/154) within a coordinate system of the tracking system (Burger, paragraph 41-48, fig. 4).
Re claim 18: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the system, further comprising a tool (Burger, 104/102/116), the tool comprising: a first tool part (Burger, 104/102) having a non-rotationally symmetric working end (Grimm, 26) and a reference structure (Burger, 118/110/154) traceable by a tracked pointer (Horndler, 14/15/24/25), wherein the reference structure (Burger, 118/110/154, Horndler, 16/26) is different from a wrench flat (these structures are not a wrench flat, Burger, 118/110/154, Horndler, 16/26) and has a predefined angular relation to the working end (Burger, 120, Grimm, 26, Burger, see fig. 1 and paragraph 39, 40 and 43, Grimm, 320 has an angular orientation to 26); and a second tool part (Burger, 116 of 104/102/116) carrying, or configured to a carry, a tool tracker (Burger, 114), wherein the second tool part (Burger, 116 of 104/102/116) is configured to be fixed to the first tool part (Burger, 104/102) in one of multiple angular orientations (Burger, fig. 1, paragraph 34, Grimm, fig. 1, Horndler, fig. 1-3).
Re claim 19: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the system, wherein the reference structure is a planar surface which, as an option, is laterally limited by one or more walls configured to constrain lateral movement of the pointer (Horndler, fig. 2, the structure in 2B has a planar surface with a walls around where the pointer fits and is moved, paragraph 36).
Re claim 20: Burger as modified by Horndler and Grimm teaches the system, further comprising a tracking system configured to track at least one of the tool tracker and the pointer (Burger, paragraph 41-48, fig. 4, Horndler, fig. 1-3, Grimm, fig. 1 and abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 12 and 14 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.
In regards to claim 5, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method according to claims 2 and 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the planar surface is defined by a wrench flat configured to be engaged by a wrench to attach the first tool part to the second tool part.
In regards to claim 6, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the first position data are indicative of at least one position of the tool tracker while the pointer is tracing the reference structure.
In regards to claim 7, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the first position data are indicative of different positions of the tool tracker while the pointer is tracing the reference structure, the method further comprising: compensating, when determining the angular orientation of the working end relative to the tool tracker, a movement of the tool tracker while the pointer is tracing the reference structure.
In regards to claim 8, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with further comprising: acquiring information indicative of an expected angular orientation, or expected orientation range, of the working end relative to the tool tracker; and determining a difference between the determined angular orientation and the expected angular orientation.
Claim 9 is objected to because of its dependency on claim 8.
In regards to claim 12, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the method according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with further comprising: receiving third position data indicative of a position of a trackable calibration device and one or more positions of the tool tracker when the tool is in contact with the trackable calibration device; and determining tool calibration information based on the third position data.
Claim 14 is objected to because of its dependency on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878