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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 11 July 2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected for the following reasons:
Regarding figure 4, the drawing is objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because the drawing includes reference character “407” which is not mentioned in the written description. Upon review of the written description, reference character “407’ in figure 4 should read, “408”, in order to refer to “a first lateral position 408” described in paragraph [0074].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “one or more output feeder”, should read, “one or more output feeders”, in order to correctly indicate the grammatical number of the limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation, “a profile”, should read, “the profile”, referring to the previously recited limitation, “a profile”, in claim 11, line 12.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation, “a selected profile”, should read, “the selected profile”, referring to the previously recited limitation, “selecting a profile”, in claim 11, line 12.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use 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:
“an input feeder” in claim 1.
“one or more output feeder[s]” in claim 1
Because these claim limitation are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 – 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “at least some of the two or more pieces of the input lumber”, is indefinite because the term, “some”, which is defined as “an unspecified amount or number” – Merriam Webster dictionary, is ambiguous as to what number of input lumber pieces constitutes “at least some of the two or more pieces of the input lumber”. Since the neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard to ascertain the requisite number of input lumber pieces meant by the term, “some”, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean any number of input lumber pieces. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the limitation, “known training components”, is indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “known training components”) rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. That is, since neither the claims nor the specification describes what constitutes “known training components”, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 – 2, 5 – 14, and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederickson (US 7,036,705 B1) in view of the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxs92GSc-yY).
Regarding claim 1, Fredrickson discloses an automated assembler, comprising:
an input feeder (Col. 5, ll. 59 – 61 describes one or more generally horizontally-oriented rollers positioned just outside of the opening of the housing 16 to support building elements entering the system wherein the examiner deems this one or more generally horizontally-oriented rollers as the claimed, “an input feeder”. Please note, the limitation, “an input feeder”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, paragraph [0046] of the specification describes “the input feeder 108 … may include any number or type of machinery suitable for transporting input lumber 104 and/or assembled products 106 such as, but not limited to, conveyor belts or rollers”. Col. 5, ll. 59 – 61 describes the input feeder as one or more generally horizontally-oriented rollers wherein the examiner deems this one or more generally horizontally-oriented rollers equivalent to the conveyor belts or rollers described in the specification).
an assembly sub-system (10, fig. 1) configured to receive two or more pieces of input lumber from the input feeder, wherein the assembly sub-system comprises:
one or more sensors (Col. 6, ll. 51 – 55 describes a sensor assembly sensing the position of one or more structural elements/pieces of lumber along a path within an automated multiple point fastener driving system 10 wherein the examiner deems this a sensor assembly as the claimed, “one or more sensors”) configured to generate sensor data associated with at least one of positions or orientations of the two or more pieces of the input lumber;
one or more guides (26, 46, 54, fig. 1) configured to position at least some of the two or more pieces of the input lumber in a selected orientation based on data from the one or more sensors (Col. 6, ll. 46 – 67 describes an entry clamping assembly 20 comprising a primary entry clamping roller 26 and an alignment assembly 40 comprising a pinching roller actuated by the sensor assembly to pinch or press pieces of lumber, as shown in fig. 3); and
one or more fastening tools (60, fig. 1) configured to fasten the two or more pieces of the input lumber to form an assembled product (Col. 3, ll. 60 – 61 describes fastener driver assemblies 60 driving fasteners into the structural elements/pieces of lumber to connect them together wherein the examiner deems these structural elements/pieces of lumber connected together as the claimed, “an assembled product”).
Frederickson does not explicitly disclose one or more output feeders configured to receive the assembled product.
However, the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, in the same field of endeavor, teaches one or more output feeders (During 2:13 – 2:18 of the video, the video describes and shows an output feeder comprising rollers positioned just outside an assembly sub-system to carry assembled products away from the assembly sub-system. Please note, the limitation, “an output feeder”, is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, paragraph [0046] of the specification describes “the output feeder may include any number or type of machinery suitable for transporting input lumber 104 and/or assembled products 106 such as, but not limited to, conveyor belts or rollers”. The video describes and shows the output feeder comprising rollers wherein the examiner deems this output feeder comprising rollers equivalent to the conveyor belts or rollers described in the specification) configured to receive the assembled product.
The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video is evidence that having the one or more output feeders configured to receive the assembled product was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the automated assembler of Frederickson with the one or more output feeders, as taught by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the automated assembler of Frederickson with the one or more output feeders, as taught by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, so that the assembled product is carried away from the assembly sub-system, clearing the path of the assembly sub-system for the assembly of another assembled product and thus increasing production.
Regarding claim 2, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Frederickson discloses a controller (Col. 9, l. 65 – col. 10, l. 1 describes a control means having for controlling the assembly sub-system) including one or more processors (102, fig. 5) configured to execute program instructions stored on a memory device (104, fig. 5).
Frederickson does not explicitly disclose the program instructions being configured to cause the one or more processors to: identify the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data; determine a profile for forming the assembled product based on the identification of the two or more pieces of the input lumber; and direct the one or more guides and the one or more fastening tools to form the assembled product according to the profile.
However, the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying two or more pieces of input lumber based on sensor data (During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows when a user selects a profile of 2x6 assembled product but four 2x4 pieces of lumber are placed in the sub-component nailer, the sub-component nailer identifying that the two outside pieces of lumber not being 2x6 pieces of lumber via sensor data. Thus, at least the two outside pieces of lumber are identified based on sensor data. Please note, the video states, “the top third nail isn’t going to fire because the gun recognizes that there is no wood there”, implying a sensor to detect at least one of the existence or non-existence of a piece of lumber in a specific area); determining a profile for forming an assembled product based on the identification of the two or more pieces of the input lumber; and directing one or more guides and one or more fastening tools to form the assembled product according to the profile (During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows the sub-component nailer identifying that the two outside pieces of lumber are not 2x6 pieces of lumber and directing the vertical extending guides and horizontal guide to hold the 2x4 pieces of lumber and further directing two fastening tools to form the assembled product according to a 2x4 profile. Please note, Frederickson discloses the control means having programmable logic control 102 for controlling the assembly sub-system. Thus with the incorporation of the teachings of the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video and the invention of Fredrickson, the control means having programmable logic control 102 of Frederickson would be configured to identify the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data; determine a profile for forming the assembled product based on the identification of the two or more pieces of the input lumber; and direct the one or more guides and the one or more fastening tools to form the assembled product according to the profile, as taught by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video).
The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video is evidence that identify the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data; determine a profile for forming the assembled product based on the identification of the two or more pieces of the input lumber; and direct the one or more guides and the one or more fastening tools to form the assembled product according to the profile was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the control means of Frederickson to be configured to identify the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data; determine a profile for forming the assembled product based on the identification of the two or more pieces of the input lumber; and direct the one or more guides and the one or more fastening tools to form the assembled product according to the profile, as taught by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the control means of Frederickson to be configured to identify the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data; determine a profile for forming the assembled product based on the identification of the two or more pieces of the input lumber; and direct the one or more guides and the one or more fastening tools to form the assembled product according to the profile, as taught by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, in order to correct human error by instantaneously sensing deviations in the input lumber and assembling an assembled product according to these sensed deviations thus increasing production.
Regarding claim 5, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Frederick discloses at least one of the one or more sensors comprises a line sensor (Col. 6, ll. 55 – 56 describes the sensor assembly comprising an optical sensor 50 wherein a line sensor is a type of optical sensor).
Regarding claim 6, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Frederick discloses at least one of the one or more sensors comprises a camera (Col. 6, ll. 55 – 56 describes the sensor assembly comprising an optical sensor 50 wherein a camera is a type of optical sensor).
Regarding claim 7, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Frederick discloses at least one of the one or more guides (26, 46, 54, fig. 1) comprises a stop (54, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Frederick discloses at least one of the one or more guides (26, 46, 54, fig. 1) comprises one or more vertical rollers (26, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Frederick discloses at least one of the one or more guides (26, 46, 54, fig. 1) comprises one or more horizontal rollers (46, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Frederick discloses at least one of the one or more fastening tools (60, fig. 1) comprises one or more nail guns (Col. 7, ll. 26 – 27 describes fastener driver assemblies 60 as nail driver assemblies wherein the examiner deems these nail driver assemblies as the claimed “one or more nail guns”).
Regarding claim 11, Frederickson discloses a method for automated assembly, comprising:
providing two or more pieces of input lumber (2, fig. 3) to an assembly sub-system (10, fig. 1) (Figure 3 shows three pieces of input lumber 2 provided into an automated multiple point fastener driving system 10), wherein the assembly sub-system comprises:
one or more sensors (Col. 6, ll. 51 – 55 describes a sensor assembly sensing the position of one or more structural elements/pieces of lumber along a path within the automated multiple point fastener driving system 10) configured to generate sensor data associated with at least one of positions or orientations of the two or more pieces of the input lumber;
one or more guides (26, 46, 54, fig. 1) configured to position at least some of the two or more pieces of the input lumber in a selected orientation based on the sensor data from the one or more sensors (Col. 6, ll. 46 – 67 describes an entry clamping assembly 20 comprising a primary entry clamping roller 26 and an alignment assembly 40 comprising a pinching roller 46 actuated by the sensor assembly to pinch or press pieces of lumber in the orientation shown in fig. 3); and
one or more fastening tools (60, fig. 1) configured to fasten the two or more pieces of the input lumber (Col. 3, ll. 60 – 61 describes fastener driver assemblies 60 driving fasteners into the structural elements/pieces of lumber to connect them together);
Fredrickson does not explicitly disclose selecting a profile for fastening the input lumber to form an assembled product; and fastening the two or more pieces of the input lumber with the one or more fastening tools using the profile to form the assembled product.
However, the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, in the same field of endeavor teaches selecting a profile for fastening the input lumber to form an assembled product (During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows a user selecting from an user console of the sub-component nailer one of nine different presets/profiles for fastening input lumber to form an assembled product); and fastening the two or more pieces of the input lumber with the one or more fastening tools using the profile to form the assembled product (During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows the fastening of three pieces of input lumber with six different fastening tools using one of the nine different presets/profiles to form an assembled product).
The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video is evidence that selecting a profile for fastening the input lumber to form an assembled product; and fastening the two or more pieces of the input lumber with the one or more fastening tools using the profile to form the assembled product was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the method for automated assembly of Frederickson with the steps of selecting a profile for fastening the input lumber to form an assembled product; and fastening the two or more pieces of the input lumber with the one or more fastening tools using the profile to form the assembled product, as taught by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the method for automated assembly of Frederickson with the steps of selecting a profile for fastening the input lumber to form an assembled product; and fastening the two or more pieces of the input lumber with the one or more fastening tools using the profile to form the assembled product, as taught by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, in order to provide automation to assembling the different types of assembled products and thus increasing operational efficiency, reducing costs, and boosting productivity through the minimization of manual, repetitive tasks. It also improves accuracy, enhances safety, ensures 24/7 reliability, and drives higher customer satisfaction while freeing employees to focus on strategic, value-added work.
Regarding claim 12, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
The modified Frederickson discloses selecting the profile for fastening the assembled product comprises receiving the selected profile from a user (The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video – During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows a user selecting from an user console of the sub-component nailer one of nine different presets/profiles for fastening input lumber to form an assembled product).
Regarding claim 13, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
The modified Frederickson discloses selecting the profile for fastening the assembled product comprises predicting the profile based on the sensor data (The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video – During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows when a user selects a profile of 2x6 assembled product but four 2x4 pieces of lumber are placed in the sub-component nailer, the sub-component nailer identifying that the two outside pieces of lumber are not 2x6 pieces of lumber via sensor data. The sub-component nailer, based this sensor data, predicts that the two outside pieces of lumber are 2x4 pieces of lumber and assembled the assembles product based on this 2x4 profile).
Regarding claim 14, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
The modified Frederickson discloses predicting the profile based on the sensor data comprises identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data; and determining the profile based on the identification of the two or more pieces of the input lumber (The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video – During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows when a user selects a profile of 2x6 assembled product but four 2x4 pieces of lumber are placed in the sub-component nailer, the sub-component nailer identifying that the two outside pieces of lumber are not 2x6 pieces of lumber via sensor data. The sub-component nailer, based this sensor data, determines that the two outside pieces of lumber are 2x4 pieces of lumber and assembles the assembled product based on this 2x4 profile).
Regarding claim 17, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
Frederickson discloses at least one of the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a line sensor or a camera (Col. 6, ll. 55 – 56 describes the sensor assembly comprising an optical sensor 50 wherein both a line sensor and a camera are types of optical sensors).
Regarding claim 18, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
Frederickson discloses the one or more guides (26, 46, 54, fig. 1) comprise at least one or more vertical rollers (26, fig. 1) or one or more horizontal rollers (46, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
Frederickson discloses at least one of the one or more fastening tools (60, fig. 1) comprises one or more nail guns (Col. 7, ll. 26 – 27 describes fastener driver assemblies 60 as nail driver assemblies wherein the examiner deems these nail driver assemblies as the claimed “one or more nail guns”).
Regarding claim 20, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
The modified Frederickson discloses securing the two or more pieces of the input lumber with the one or more guides based on the profile prior to fastening the two or more pieces of the input lumber with the one or more fastening tools to form the assembled product (The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video – During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows three pieces of input lumber secured by a plurality of vertical extending guides based on one of the nine different presets/profiles selected by the user prior to the fastening the three pieces of input lumber with one of more of the six different fastening tools to form the assembled product).
Claims 3 – 4 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederickson (US 7,036,705 B1), in view the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxs92GSc-yY), in further view of Min (US 2020/0388024 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Fredrickson discloses identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data (The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video – During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows when a user selects a profile of 2x6 assembled product but four 2x4 pieces of lumber are placed in the sub-component nailer, the sub-component nailer identifying that the two outside pieces of lumber not being 2x6 pieces of lumber via sensor data. Thus, at least the two outside pieces of lumber are identified based on sensor data. Please note, the video states, “the top third nail isn’t going to fire because the gun recognizes that there is no wood there”, implying a sensor to detect at least one of the existence or non-existence of wood in a specific area).
The modified Fredrickson does not explicitly disclose that identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data comprises identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data using a machine learning model.
However, Min, which is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches identifying an object based on the sensor data using a machine learning model ([0025] describes a sensor 140 identifying at least one of the existence or nonexistence of an object in a specified area wherein [0048] described a processor 220 using the sensor data to acquire information on the specified area on the basis of an artificial intelligence/machine learning method. With the incorporation of the teachings of Min with the invention of the modified Fredrickson, the sensor and processor using the sensor data to acquire information on the specified area on the basis of an artificial intelligence/machine learning method, as taught by Min, would be used to acquire information on the specific areas of the two outside pieces of lumber in the modified Fredrickson).
Min is evidence that identifying an object based on the sensor data using a machine learning model was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the automated assembler of the modified Fredrickson with identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data comprises identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data using a machine learning model, as taught by Min. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the automated assembler of the modified Fredrickson with identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data comprises identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data using a machine learning model, as taught by Min, because the modified Fredrickson does not explicitly disclose how the two outside pieces of lumber are sensed and would look to Min for structure to perform the function of identifying an object based on the sensor data. Moreover, machine learning offers superior advantages over regular sensor-based automation by providing adaptive learning, predictive analytics, and the ability to handle unstructured data, rather than just following rigid, pre-programmed rules. Machine learning enhances operational efficiency by anticipating failures, optimizing complex processes in real-time, and improving accuracy, while reducing manual intervention.
Regarding claim 4, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, as further modified by Min, discloses the invention as recited in claim 3.
The modified Fredrickson discloses the machine learning model is trained with training data using at least one of a supervised technique or a semi-supervised technique, wherein the training data includes training sensor data associated with known training components (Min – [0040] describes the processor 220 having training database with training data wherein the processor 220 uses the training data to identify an object).
Regarding claim 15, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
The modified Fredrickson discloses identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data (The Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video – During 0:42 – 1:11 of the video, the video describes and shows when a user selects a profile of 2x6 assembled product but four 2x4 pieces of lumber are placed in the sub-component nailer, the sub-component nailer identifying that the two outside pieces of lumber not being 2x6 pieces of lumber via sensor data. Thus, at least the two outside pieces of lumber are identified based on sensor data. Please note, the video states, “the top third nail isn’t going to fire because the gun recognizes that there is no wood there”, implying a sensor to detect at least one of the existence or non-existence of wood in a specific area).
The modified Fredrickson does not explicitly disclose that identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data comprises identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data using a machine learning model.
However, Min, which is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches identifying an object based on the sensor data using a machine learning model ([0025] describes a sensor 140 identifying at least one of the existence or nonexistence of an object in a specified area wherein [0048] described a processor 220 using the sensor data to acquire information on the specified area on the basis of an artificial intelligence/machine learning method. With the incorporation of the teachings of Min with the invention of the modified Fredrickson, the sensor and processor using the sensor data to acquire information on the specified area on the basis of an artificial intelligence/machine learning method, as taught by Min, would be used to acquire information on the specific areas of the two outside pieces of lumber in the modified Fredrickson).
Min is evidence that identifying an object based on the sensor data using a machine learning model was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the automated assembler of the modified Fredrickson with identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data comprises identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data using a machine learning model, as taught by Min. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the automated assembler of the modified Fredrickson with identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data comprises identifying the two or more pieces of the input lumber based on the sensor data using a machine learning model, as taught by Min, because the modified Fredrickson does not explicitly disclose how the two outside pieces of lumber are sensed and would look to Min for structure to perform the function of identifying an object based on the sensor data. Moreover, machine learning offers superior advantages over regular sensor-based automation by providing adaptive learning, predictive analytics, and the ability to handle unstructured data, rather than just following rigid, pre-programmed rules. Machine learning enhances operational efficiency by anticipating failures, optimizing complex processes in real-time, and improving accuracy, while reducing manual intervention.
Regarding claim 16, Frederickson, as modified by the Hain Company Sub Component Nailer video, as further modified by Min, discloses the invention as recited in claim 15.
The modified Fredrickson discloses the machine learning model is trained with training data using at least one of a supervised technique or a semi-supervised technique, wherein the training data includes training sensor data associated with known training components (Min – [0040] describes the processor 220 having training database with training data wherein the processor 220 uses the training data to identify an object).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
14 March 2026