DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 5 February 2026. Applicant’s amendment on 5 February 2026 amended Claims 1, 7, 14, 15, and 18. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the 101 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that based on the amendment to the claims the Examiner is withdrawing the 101 rejection because it is viewed that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application at step 2A Prong Two. The claims are directed to a specific, physically implemented technological solution to a defined manufacturing quality problem and are not directed to the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, claim(s) (1-13) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (14) is/ are directed to a computer readable medium, and claims(s) (15-20) is/are system and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 14, and 15 recite a mental process as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of monitoring the installation of a hose clamp which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting testing device and sensing device nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the testing device and sensing device language, the claim encompasses the user manually monitoring the installation of a hose clamp. The mere nominal recitation of a generic testing and sensing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process. Additionally, with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data receiving and outputting steps required to use the monitoring do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a device is used to perform the monitoring step. The device in the step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (monitoring the installation of a hose clamp). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): receiving an entry confirmation, outputting a command prompt, outputting a second command prompt, receiving continuity data, receiving position data, and outputting a notification performs the monitoring step. The receiving and outputting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of monitoring the installation of a hose clamp), and amounts to mere data management, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensing and controlling devices that performs the monitoring step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the monitoring step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the sensing and controlling device).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, where it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) receiving an entry confirmation, outputting a command prompt, outputting a second command prompt, receiving continuity data, receiving position data, and outputting a notification which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for monitoring, receiving, and outputting which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (monitoring the installation of a hose clamp) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to monitoring the installation of a hose clamp). Using a computer to receiving and outputting the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device are not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The monitoring the installation of a hose clamp would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to interact monitoring the installation of a hose clamp. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data receiving and outputting data to determine how to monitor clamp installation:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
No Claims recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Sukup which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 18 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on monitoring the installation of a hose clamp. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of assembly process monitoring and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims receiving and outputting that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art Sukup provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
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) 1-3, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukup (U.S. Patent 5,224,551) (hereafter Sukup) in view of Jin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0269578 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, Sukup teaches a method of operating a clamp monitoring system for verifying installation of a hose clamp on a work part with a hose and a hose connector, said method comprising:
receiving, via the system controller from the continuity testing device, continuity data indicative of a continuity status at the hose clamp (see; col. 8, lines (3-17) of Sukup teaches prompt activate sensing of clamp and ensure position and col. 3, line (51) – col. 4, line (34) sensing clamp location with a work part).
outputting, via the system controller, a notification that the hose clamp is properly installed on the work part in response to the continuity status indicating electrical continuity at the hose clamp and the real-time device position aligning with the predefined target clamp location (see; col. 4, lines (3-12) of Sukup teaches adjusting the position based on sensed data, col. 7, line (61) – col. 8, line (2) including an indicator light to notify the status indicating correct positioning (i.e. real time)).
Sukup does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Jin teaches detecting, via a proximity sensor, a limit switch, or a workstation interface communicatively connected to a system controller of the clamp monitoring system, an entry confirmation indicating the work part entered a predefined test envelope within a workstation (see; par. [0107]-[0108] of Jin teaches a proximity sensor used by the clamping at the workstation to monitor the clamp location), and
outputting, via the system controller in response to receiving the entry confirmation, a first command prompt to position a continuity testing device at a predefined target clamp location at which the hose clamp attaches to and seals the hose to the hose connector of the work part, the continuity testing device including a pair of electrical leads that, when positioned at the predefined target clamp location, physically contact the hose clamp (see; par. [0133] of Jin teaches identifying (i.e. outputting) component entry and position, par. [0057] where there is a physical connection is determined based on electrical connections (i.e. connectivity)), and
outputting, via the system controller, a second command prompt to activate the continuity testing device after being positioned at the predefined target clamp location, the pair of electrical leads of the continuity testing device, when activated, pass electrical current through the3 hose clamp to detect electrical continuity across the hose clamp (see; par. [0057] of Jin teaches checking the electrical connections, par. [0027] where the monitoring of the smart clamp signals the existence of a physical connection), and
receiving, via the system controller from a position sensing device of the clamp monitoring system, position data indicative of a real-time device position of the continuity testing device (see; par. [0027] of Jin teaches a signal indicating that the clamp is in connected and this indicates a position of the part during the process (i.e. in real time)).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup fails to disclose the position sensing device includes a networked array of high-resolution cameras, and the position data includes a time series of images of the continuity testing device within the test envelope.
Jin discloses the position sensing device includes a networked array of high-resolution cameras, and the position data includes a time series of images of the continuity testing device within the test envelope.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Sukup the position sensing device includes a networked array of high-resolution cameras, and the position data includes a time series of images of the continuity testing device within the test envelope as taught by Jin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, and Jin teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup further discloses a method having the limitations of:
outputting, via the system controller, an alert that the hose clamp is not properly installed on the work part in response to the continuity status indicating no electrical continuity at the hose clamp and/or the real-time device position not aligning with the predefined target clamp location (see; col. 7, line (61) – col. 8, line (17) of Sukup teaches an indicator light to notify the status indicating correct positioning).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 2 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup further discloses a method having the limitations of:
outputting, via the system controller in response to the hose clamp not being properly installed on the work part, a third command prompt to loosen and reattach the hose clamp onto the hose at the predefined target clamp location (see; col. 7, line (61) – col. 8, line (17) of Sukup teaches a light indicator that determines correct position, col. 4, lines (3-12) based on information adjusting position).
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup further discloses a method having the limitations of:
via the system controller in response to receiving the entry confirmation and prior to transmitting the first and second command prompts, a third command prompt to connect the hose with the hose connector and/or secure the hose clamp onto the hose (see; col. 6, lines (6-20) of Sukup teaches operating a workstation, col. 8, lines (3-17) prompt activate sensing of clamp and ensure position for a hose).
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup further discloses a method having the limitations of:
receiving, via the system controller, an installation confirmation indicating the hose clamp is secured onto the hose (see; col. 6, lines (21-43) of Sukup teaches the installation of a hose clamp and monitoring in position).
Referring to Claim 14, Sukup in view of Jin teaches A non-transient, computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a system. Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-8, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukup (U.S. Patent 5,224,551) (hereafter Sukup) in view of Jin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0269578 A1) in further view of Chalofsky et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0417617 A1).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup in view of Jin does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Chalofsky teaches the position sensing device includes a networked array of wireless radio receivers configured to receive wireless radio-frequency signals from a wireless transceiver of the continuity testing device to thereby triangulate the real-time device position of the continuity testing device (see; par. [0194] of Chalofsky teaches a network in communication with the testing devices in real time including sensors and cameras).
receiving, via the system controller from a position sensing device, position data indicative of a real-time device position of the continuity testing device (see; col. 4, lines (3-12) of Sukup teaches adjusting the position based on sensed (i.e. received) data).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup teaches the method above, Sukup does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Chalofsky teaches the position sensing device includes a networked array of high-resolution cameras, and the position data includes a time series of images of the continuity testing device within the test envelope (see; par. [0194] and pg. 47, col. 2, lines (1-39) and par. [0627] of Chalofsky teaches ensuring a position of a product which is in network communication including cameras, par. [0007] over a time period (i.e. time series)).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup and Jin discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup and Jin fails to disclose the position sensing device includes a networked array of high-resolution cameras, and the position data includes a time series of images of the continuity testing device within the test envelope.
Chalofsky discloses the position sensing device includes a networked array of high-resolution cameras, and the position data includes a time series of images of the continuity testing device within the test envelope.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Sukup and Jin the position sensing device includes a networked array of high-resolution cameras, and the position data includes a time series of images of the continuity testing device within the test envelope as taught by Chalofsky since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup in view of Jin does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Chalofsky teaches tracking, via the position sensing device, real-time movement of the continuity testing device within the test envelope (see; par. [0194] and pg. 47, col. 2, lines (1-39) and par. [0627] of Chalofsky teaches ensuring a position of a product which is in network communication including connectivity measurement, col. 51, lines (26-51) regarding clamps).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup and Jin discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup and Jin fails to disclose tracking, via the position sensing device, real-time movement of the continuity testing device within the test envelope.
Chalofsky discloses tracking, via the position sensing device, real-time movement of the continuity testing device within the test envelope.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Sukup and Jin tracking, via the position sensing device, real-time movement of the continuity testing device within the test envelope as taught by Chalofsky since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup in view of Jin does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Chalofsky teaches the hose clamp includes a metallic band clamp, and wherein the continuity status indicates electrical continuity at the hose clamp when the metallic band clamp establishes an electrical path between the pair of electrical leads of the continuity testing device (see; par. [0194] and pg. 47, col. 2, lines (1-39) and par. [0627] of Chalofsky teaches ensuring a position of a product including connectivity measurement for the product, col. 51, lines (26-51) regarding clamps).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup and Jin discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup and Jin fails to disclose the hose clamp includes a metallic band clamp, and wherein the continuity status indicates electrical continuity at the hose clamp when the metallic band clamp establishes an electrical path between the pair of electrical leads of the continuity testing device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Sukup and Jin the hose clamp includes a metallic band clamp, and wherein the continuity status indicates electrical continuity at the hose clamp when the metallic band clamp establishes an electrical path between the pair of electrical leads of the continuity testing device as taught by Chalofsky since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup in view of Jin does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Chalofsky teaches wherein outputting the first command prompt includes the system controller commanding a graphical user interface to display, to an operator at the workstation, the predefined target clamp location and a prompt to position the continuity testing device (see; par. [0194] and pg. 47, col. 2, lines (1-39) and par. [0627] of Chalofsky teaches ensuring a position of a product including connectivity measurement for the product, see; col. 51, lines (26-51) the measurement of the position and weight of a product, pg. 44, col. 1, lines (16-59) where an display is provided with a user interface for an assembly process).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup and Jin discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup and Jin fails to disclose wherein outputting the first command prompt includes the system controller commanding a graphical user interface to display, to an operator at the workstation, the predefined target clamp location and a prompt to position the continuity testing device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Sukup and Jin wherein outputting the first command prompt includes the system controller commanding a graphical user interface to display, to an operator at the workstation, the predefined target clamp location and a prompt to position the continuity testing device as taught by Chalofsky since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 11 above, while Sukup in further view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup in further view of Jin does not disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Chalofsky teaches the entry confirmation is received via the system controller from the proximity sensor, or the limit switch (see; par. [0179] of Chalofsky teaches the utilization of proximity sensor in a work station).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup and Jin discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup and Jin fails to disclose the entry confirmation is received via the system controller from a proximity sensor, a limit switch, or a user input device at the workstation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Sukup and Jin the entry confirmation is received via the system controller from a proximity sensor, a limit switch, or a user input device at the workstation as taught by Chalofsky since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 15, Sukup in view of Jin teaches a clamp monitoring system for verifying installation. Claim 15 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exceptions.
Chalofsky teaches a continuity testing device configured to contact and detect electrical continuity at the hose clamp (see; par. [0194] of Chalofsky teaches a network in communication with the testing devices in real time including sensors and cameras), and
a position sensing device configured to detect a position of the continuity testing device in a predefined test envelope within a workstation (see; par. [0194] and pg. 47, col. 2, lines (1-39) and par. [0627] of Chalofsky teaches ensuring a position of a product which is in network communication including connectivity measurement, col. 51, lines (26-51) regarding clamps).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup and Jin discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup and Jin fails to disclose a continuity testing device configured to contact and detect electrical continuity at the hose clamp, and a position sensing device configured to detect a position of the continuity testing device in a predefined test envelope within a workstation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Sukup and Jin a continuity testing device configured to contact and detect electrical continuity at the hose clamp, and a position sensing device configured to detect a position of the continuity testing device in a predefined test envelope within a workstation as taught by Chalofsky since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the system above Claim 16 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the system above Claim 17 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the system above Claim 18 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the system above Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 8.
Referring to Claim 20, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the system above Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 11, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 11.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukup (U.S. Patent 5,224,551) in view of Jin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0269578 A1) in further view of Chalofsky et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0417617 A1) (hereafter Chalofsky) in further view of Hazlehurst et al. (U.S. Patent 6,855,099 B2) (hereafter Hazelhurst)
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Sukup in view of Jin in further view of Chalofsky teaches the method above, Sukup in view of Jin in further view of Chalofsky does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Hazlehurst teaches outputting the second command prompt includes the system controller commanding the graphical user interface to concurrently or separately display a prompt to the operator at the workstation to activate the continuity testing device (see; col. 8, lines (41-52) of Hazelhurst teaches the indexing of a product into a workstation and providing an indicator for the worker (i.e. sperate displaying a prompt)).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Hazlehurst teaches manufacturing system for assembly of structures and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky fails to disclose outputting the first command prompt includes the system controller commanding a graphical user interface to display, to an operator at the workstation, the predefined target clamp location and a prompt to position the continuity testing device.
Hazlehurst discloses outputting the first command prompt includes the system controller commanding a graphical user interface to display, to an operator at the workstation, the predefined target clamp location and a prompt to position the continuity testing device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky outputting the first command prompt includes the system controller commanding a graphical user interface to display, to an operator at the workstation, the predefined target clamp location and a prompt to position the continuity testing device as taught by Hazlehurst since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin, Chalofsky and Hazlehurst teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukup (U.S. Patent 5,224,551) in view of Jin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0269578 A1) in further view of Hazlehurst et al. (U.S. Patent 6,855,099 B2) (hereafter Hazelhurst).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Sukup in view of Jin teaches the method above, Sukup in view of Jin does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of.
Hazelhurst teaches the system controller outputs the first and second command prompts to position and activate the continuity testing device to a robotic work cell (see; col. 13, line (53) – col. 14, line (9) of Sukup teaches a robotic work site, col. 2, lines (16-24) used for clamp install).
The Examiner notes that Sukup teaches similar to the instant application teaches guidance system control in an assembly operation. Specifically, Sukup discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Jin teaches a setup of single use equipment/process in order to orient and process a component and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chalofsky teaches autonomous robotic automotive service system including automated assembly operations and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup and Jin which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Hazlehurst teaches manufacturing system for assembly of structures and as it is comparable in certain respects to Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky which guidance system control in an assembly operation as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky discloses the use of switches to determine the proper installation of components during an assembly operation. However, Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky fails to disclose the system controller outputs the first and second command prompts to position and activate the continuity testing device to a robotic work cell.
Hazlehurst discloses the system controller outputs the first and second command prompts to position and activate the continuity testing device to a robotic work cell.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Sukup, Jin and Chalofsky the system controller outputs the first and second command prompts to position and activate the continuity testing device to a robotic work cell as taught by Hazlehurst since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Sukup, Jin, Chalofsky, and Hazlehurst teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to ensure proper assembly of products and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Becker et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0147620 A1) discloses a remote monitoring of an emergency system during test of emergency notification devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights