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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2025 has been entered.
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 09/09/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, 19, and 21-23 are amended, and claims 11 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12-17 and 19-23 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's amendments filed 09/09/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The amended claim does not describe any specific features/operations how or what to determine if the maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener is occurred and therefore it is not clear.
Further, the amend claim does not describe any specific features/operations how or what to “generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member” each recited in Claim 1, 12 and 19. It is unclear how and/or what to generate an indication of whether the fastener’s hit or miss, and/or if the generating of the indication is operated based on the determination of occurrence of the maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener. Thus, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph have been maintained. (See the updated details presented below).
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 09/09/2025 with respect to
the rejection of claims 1-23 directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. (See the detailed response presented below).
On pages 9 -12 of Applicant’s response, Applicant alleges that the amended claim 1 is not directed to a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process. For instance, none of the claim elements (a)- (e) listed above recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations ... Furthermore, none of the claim elements (a)- (e) recite a mental process because the claim elements (a) - (e) cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, elements (a) - (e) recite the application of the claimed subject matter with, or by use of a "particular machine" that includes "a fastener driving system". ... "processing circuitry [that] has a classifier that includes a machine learning (ML) model trained to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer occurred" which cannot be implemented or performed in the human mind and is therefore not a mental process, …
the features outline above in (a)- (e) integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of a "fastener driving system" as claimed. In particular, the claims provide a technical solution to determining whether a fastener has hit the targeted stud or joist that are typically hidden by a covering material by providing an "automated confirmation of fastener driving operations" using a trained "machine learning model" that was not previously known or done.
Applicant respectfully submits that the recited fastener driving system is "other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application." … The features (a) – (e) recited in amended independent claim 1 go beyond any similar elements recognized in the art or by the courts as being well-understood, routine or conventional, and therefore remove the claims from the realm of the abstract. … For at least these reasons, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and/or provides an inventive concept.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements of the processing circuity and the classifier are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of evaluating and decision making based on the data related to the signal detected by the sensor). The Machine Learning (ML) is indicative of a mathematical concept/algorithm such as a computer program algorithm.
The features of “the processing circuitry has a classifier that includes a Machine Learning (ML) model trained to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred” and “wherein the processing circuitry generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member” in the context of this claim may encompass mental processes and/or mathematical calculations, because the steps of “determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer occurred … generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member” manually infer, based on the generated digitized acoustic signal (i.e., gathered routine data), an evaluation and decision making which may be characterized as a mental process that can be performed by a human using, for example, a pen and a paper. The claim does not put any limits on how occurring of the maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener is determined based on the digitized acoustic signal. The claim does not specify the features/structure/acts of the processing circuitry regarding how the indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member is generated.
The functions and/or structures related to the “fastener driving tool” to generate a signal and the “sensor” to detect a signal/frequency are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, as the Schieler reference (US 20120298390 A1) teaches.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 09/09/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-14 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Schieler in view of NAKANISHI, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “determines whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred” (emphasis added) each recited in Claim 1, 12 and 19 renders the claim indefinite, because “maximum extension” is relative terminology to render the claim indefinite, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Further, it is unclear under what value/parameter/threshold/limit and/or how the occurrence of the maximum extension of the hammer of the fastener is determined. Furthermore, it is unclear whether, based on a pre-determined value/characteristic/frequency/threshold of the digitized acoustic signal the occurring of the maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener is determined. At a minimum the claim does not describe any specific features/operations how or what to determine the maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred and therefore it is not clear.
Claim limitation “generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member” each recited in Claim 1, 12 and 19 renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how and/or what to generate an indication of whether the fastener’s hit or miss, and/or if the generating of the indication is operated based on the determination of occurrence of the maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener.
Claims 2-10, 13-17 and 20-23 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1, 12 or 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A fastener driving system, the system comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
a fastener driving tool that drives a fastener through a covering material and into an underlying framing member;
a sensor comprising an acoustic transducer,
wherein the sensor detects a sound of the fastener driving through the covering material and into the underlying framing member;
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“a fastener driving tool” and “a sensor” are high level of generalities to collect data (i.e., a signal).
“drives a fastener ~” and “detects a sound of the fastener driving ~” are insignificant extra-solution activities to collect data which are used to perform abstract idea itself.
processing circuitry that
generates a digitized acoustic signal based on the detected sound of the fastener driving through the covering material;
wherein the processing circuitry has a classifier that includes a Machine Learning (ML) model trained to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred; and
wherein the processing circuitry generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member.
Mental process
“processing circuitry” and “a classifier” are a high level of generality merely recited to perform a general computer function of a generic computer component to generate a signal.
“generates a digitized acoustic signal ~” is insignificant extra-solution activity to gather routine data (the digitized acoustic signal).
step 2B: no
“determines whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred” is a math or mental process.
“a Machine Learning (ML)” is a mathematical concept/algorithm.
“generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed ~” is a math or mental process.
Claims 1-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-10, 12-17 and 19-23 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “the processing circuitry has a classifier that includes a Machine Learning (ML) model trained to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred” and “wherein the processing circuitry generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member” in the context of this claim may encompass mental processes and/or mathematical calculations, because the steps of “determines whether a maximum extension of a hammer … generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member” manually infer, based on the generated digitized acoustic signal (i.e., gathered routine data), an evaluation and decision making which may be characterized as a mental process that can be performed by a human using, for example, a pen and a paper. The claim does not put any limits on how occurring of the maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener is determined based on the digitized acoustic signal. The claim does not specify the features/structure/acts of the processing circuitry regarding how the indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member is generated. The Machine Learning (ML) is indicative of a mathematical concept/algorithm such as a computer program algorithm.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of processing circuitry of the sensor to perform mental processes of “the processing circuitry has a classifier that includes a Machine Learning (ML) model trained to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred” and “wherein the processing circuitry generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member”. The fastener driving tool, the sensor, the processing circuitry of the sensor, and an acoustic transducer are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., signal detected during fastening operations) of the sensor. The processing circuity and the classifier are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of evaluating and decision making based on the data related to the signal detected by the sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as presented in the table above. The limitations of “drives a fastener through a covering material and into an underlying framing member”, “detects a sound of the fastener driving through the covering material and into an underlying framing member”, and “generates a digitized acoustic signal based on the detected sound of the fastener driving through the covering material” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather data (the digitized acoustic signal) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “drives a fastener through a covering material and into an underlying framing member”, “detects a sound of the fastener driving through the covering material and into an underlying framing member”, and “generates a digitized acoustic signal based on the detected sound of the fastener driving through the covering material” are insignificant extra-solution activities to merely gather routine data (the signal) to be used for performing the abstract idea. The limitation of training a machine learning (ML) model is an insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic function of computer component to thereby perform an evaluation and decision making which may be characterized as a mental process, as addressed above. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the functions and/or structures related to the “fastener driving tool” to generate a signal and the “sensor” to detect a signal/frequency are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, as the Schieler reference (US 20120298390 A1) teaches. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the processing circuity of the sensor to perform “generates a digitized acoustic signal based on the detected sound of the fastener driving through the covering material”, “determines whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred” and “generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-10, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitations of “measures a g-force …” and “capture a sound generated by the fastener driving tool” are insignificant extra-solution activities to merely gather routine data (i.e., “the generated signal and the captured sound”) used for performing abstract idea. The additional element of the robotic control system in Claim 4 is a high-level of generality recited to perform a general computer function of a general computer component. The additional limitation of “re-drives a second fastener when a miss is detected by the processing circuitry” in Claim 4 is insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a general computer function of a general computer component. The additional limitation of “compares the frequency domain representation a magnitude of the audio signal to a first predetermined threshold associated with a first frequency range” in the context of Claim 9 may encompass mental processes and/or mathematical calculations (see paragraphs 0037-0040, 0042 and 0050 in the instant application)
For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 1, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 12, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 13-17, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 12. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1-10, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 19, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 20-23, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claims 19. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1-10 and 12-17, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
1. Claims 1-9, 12-16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieler et al. (US 20120298390 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Schieler”) in view of NAKANISHI et al. (JP 2022153183 A, hereinafter referred to as “NAKANISHI”).
Regarding Claim 1, Schieler teaches a fastener driving system (Fig. 1, 10 and 12), the system comprising:
a fastener driving tool (Fig. 1, 12; Para 0015) that drives a fastener through a covering material and into an underlying framing member (Para 0005, “impact a positioned fastener and drive it into the workpiece”; Para 0009, “the fastener was properly driven into both the panel and the supporting stud, or improperly, only into the panel …in the context of framing construction”);
a sensor (Fig. 1, 10) comprising an acoustic transducer (Fig. 1; Para 0016, “accelerometer or similar sensor conventionally available and capable of sensing shock, impact or other forces such as those generated during a fastener driving operation”), wherein the sensor detects a sound of the fastener driving through the covering material and into the underlying framing member (Para 0016, “The sensor 30 is mounted to the tool 12 at a desired location that is suitable for measuring the impact forces generated in the fastener driving process. …”; Para 0017, “… receiving the at least one signal generated by the sensor 30);
processing circuitry (Fig. 1, microprocessor 34) that
generates a digitized acoustic signal based on the detected sound of the fastener driving through the covering material (Para 0017, “microprocessor, … for operating other tool functions … the software program 32 is programmed for receiving the at least one signal generated by the sensor 30 and for evaluating and distinguishing those signals between high (improperly driven fastener), versus low (properly driven) "g" forces generated during the fastener driving operation. An appropriate output signal is generated by the software program 32 that is reflective of the evaluation of the sensor signals”);
wherein the processing circuitry has a classifier that includes … to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred (Para 0017, “the software program 32 is programmed for … and evaluating and distinguishing those signals between high (improperly driven fastener), versus low (properly driven) "g" forces generated during the fastener driving operation. An appropriate output signal is generated by the software program 32 that is reflective of the evaluation of the sensor signals”; Para 0018); and
wherein the processing circuitry generates an indication of whether the fastener hit or missed the underlying framing member (Para 0018, “Once the program 32 determines the type of signal (high or low "g" forces), an output or alarm signal is generated from an output 36 of the microprocessor 34 and is connected to an indicating device, preferably, at least one of an audible alarm 38, a vibrating device 40, a visual indicator 42 such as an illuminated light or an LED, or a visual display 44 on a screen 46 located on the tool 12”).
Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the determining of whether the maximum extension of the hammer of the fastener occurred is indicative of evaluating distinguishing the signal related to a state indicating the fastener’s driving operation, where the maximum extension of the hammer of the fastener is indicative of a specific/predetermined state of the fastener’s driving operation. Under this interpretation, Schieler teaches the maximum extension of the hammer of the fastener (i.e., high (improperly driven fastener) and low (properly driven) in paragraph 0018) and determining whether the maximum extension of the hammer of the fastener occurred using a software program (Para 0017-0018, as set forth above).
Schieler fails to explicitly “detects a sound of the fastener driving” and “a classifier that includes a Machine Learning (ML) model trained to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred”. However, NAKANISHI teaches “detects a sound of the fastener driving” (“determines whether or not the fastening of the fastener has been completed based on the sound detected during the fastening operation of the fastening tool 210” in page 2 of English machine translation; “the sound detection unit 10 acquires a fastening sound (S501)” in page 2 of English machine translation) and “a classifier that includes a Machine Learning (ML) model trained to determine whether a maximum extension of a hammer of the fastener occurred” (“The determination unit 240 determines whether or not the fastening of the fastener 304 is completed based on the electrical signal output by the sound detection unit 10 and recorded by the recording device 100 . The determination unit 240 may determine whether or not the fastening of the fastener 304 is completed using a determination model created in advance. The judgment model may be a model created by machine learning … decision model learning device 310 that generates decision models … A decision model learning device 310 receives a plurality of teacher data and generates a decision model based on the teacher data. A combination of fastening sound data and torque data is input to the judgment model learning device 310 of this example as teacher data. … The judgment model learning device 310 generates a judgment model for estimating the tightening torque from the fastening sound data based on the teacher data” in pages1-2 of English machine translation).
Schieler and NAKANISHI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a stud miss indicator system for a fastener driving tool, and determining the completion of fastening of a fastener. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schieler to incorporate the teachings of NAKANISHI by providing a sound detection unit (i.e., an acoustic sensor) for detecting a sound of the fastener driving and a decision model learning device (i.e., classifier) to generate/train a machine leaning model for determining a state of the fastener’s driving, taught by NAKANISHI at least at pages 1 and 2 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 2, it is dependent on claim 1 and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitation of “measure a g-force generated by the fastener driving tool … based on the measured g-force” is taught by Schieler at least at paragraph 0017 (“evaluating and distinguishing those signals between high (improperly driven fastener), versus low (properly driven) "g" forces generated during the fastener driving operation”).
Regarding Claim 3, the additional element of “acoustic transducer” is taught by NAKANISHI at least at Fig. 3, a sound detection unit 10, and the additional limitations of “captures a sound generated by the fastener driving tool” is taught by NAKANISHI (“determines whether or not the fastening of the fastener has been completed based on the sound detected during the fastening operation of the fastening tool 210” in page 2 of English machine translation; “the sound detection unit 10 acquires a fastening sound (S501)” in page 2 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schieler to incorporate the teachings of NAKANISHI by providing a sound detection unit (i.e., an acoustic sensor) and operations for capturing a sound detected during the fastening operation, taught by NAKANISHI at least at pages 1 and 2 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 4, Schieler teaches a robotic control system that re-drives a second fastener when a miss is detected by the processing circuitry (Para 0005, “drive it into the workpiece”; Para 0009, “the fastener was properly driven into both the panel and the supporting stud, or improperly, only into the panel …in the context of framing construction”; Para 0017, “When the fastener is improperly driven, the tool 12 absorbs excess energy produced by the driving function which is not absorbed in the course of driving the fastener into the workpiece.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Schieler teaches further comprising outputs (Fig. 2, 36) that convey the indication to a user (Para 0018, “an output or alarm signal is generated from an output 36 of the microprocessor 34 and is connected to an indicating device, preferably, at least one of an audible alarm 38, a vibrating device 40, a visual indicator 42 such as an illuminated light or an LED, or a visual display 44 on a screen 46 located on the tool 12”).
Regarding Claim 6, Schieler teaches wherein the outputs comprise visual indicators (Para 0018, “an output or alarm signal is generated from an output 36 of the microprocessor 34 and is connected to an indicating device, preferably, at least one of an audible alarm 38, a vibrating device 40, a visual indicator 42 such as an illuminated light or an LED, or a visual display 44 on a screen 46 located on the tool 12”).
Regarding Claim 7, Schieler fails to explicitly disclose wherein the acoustic transducer comprises a microphone. However, NAKANISHI teaches wherein the acoustic transducer comprises a microphone (Para 0038, “The sound detection unit 10 detects sound pressure, for example, like a microphone” in page 1 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schieler to incorporate the teachings of NAKANISHI by providing an sound detection unit like a microphone to detect an acoustic sound, taught by NAKANISHI.
Regarding Claim 8, Schieler fails to explicitly, but NAKANISHI teaches wherein the signal comprises an audio signal and the processing circuitry converts the audio signal to a frequency domain representation (“The recording device 100 extracts a predetermined frequency component in the electrical signal output by the sound detection section 10 (S502) …. the recording device 100 converts the analog electric signal into a digital signal (S503). …” in page 2 of English machine translation; (The recording device 100 extracts a predetermined frequency component in the electrical signal output by the sound detection section 10 (S502) …. the recording device 100 converts the analog electric signal into a digital signal (S503). … the determination section 240 may use the power of a predetermined band in the frequency spectrum of the electrical signal as the feature amount … the determination section 240 may apply a predetermined window function to the digital signal and generate a frequency spectrum by FFT” in page 2 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schieler to incorporate the teachings of NAKANISHI by providing operations for transforming (i.e., converting) an audio signal to a frequency domain using FFT and performing a frequency spectrum analysis, taught by NAKANISHI at page 2 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 9, Schieler fails to explicitly, but NAKANISHI teaches wherein processing circuitry compares the frequency domain representation of the audio signal to a first predetermined threshold (in a predetermined band a plurality of partial bands) associated with a first frequency range (a predetermined window function) (“The electrical signal waveform has multiple peaks 601 corresponding to the impact sound. The determination unit 240 may extract at least one of the amplitude M, width W, and interval T between the peaks 601 as the feature quantity. Also, the determination section 240 may use the power of a predetermined band in the frequency spectrum of the electrical signal as the feature amount. The determination section 240 may use powers of a plurality of bands as feature amounts. For example, the determination unit 240 may use the power of all bands in a predetermined band (eg, 0 kHz-48 kHz) and the power of a plurality of partial bands (eg, 20 kHz-34 kHz, 34 kHz-48 kHz) as feature amounts. … the determination section 240 may apply a predetermined window function to the digital signal and generate a frequency spectrum by FFT” in page 2 of English machine translation; “Next, the determination unit 240 determines the state of the fastener 304 using the extracted feature amount and a predetermined determination model (S505). The determination unit 240 of this example determines whether or not the fastening of the fastener 304 has been completed, based on the component of the digital signal in the frequency band of 20 kHz or higher. ... Also, the determination section 240 may use the power of a predetermined band in the frequency spectrum of the electrical signal as the feature amount. The determination section 240 may use powers of a plurality of bands as feature amounts. For example, the determination unit 240 may use the power of all bands in a predetermined band (eg, 0 kHz-48 kHz) and the power of a plurality of partial bands (eg, 20 kHz-34 kHz, 34 kHz-48 kHz) as feature amounts. … the determination section 240 may apply a predetermined window function to the digital signal and generate a frequency spectrum by FFT” in page 2 of English machine translation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schieler to incorporate the teachings of NAKANISHI by providing operations for extracting a magnitude from peaks of the detected sound to thereby determine if the fastening is completed based on the predetermined frequency band, taught by NAKANISHI.
Regarding Claim 12, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13, Schieler teaches further comprising conveying the indication to a user (Para 0018, “Once the program 32 determines the type of signal (high or low "g" forces), an output or alarm signal is generated from an output 36 of the microprocessor 34 and is connected to an indicating device, preferably, at least one of an audible alarm 38, a vibrating device 40, a visual indicator 42 such as an illuminated light or an LED, or a visual display 44 on a screen 46 located on the tool 12”).
Regarding Claim 14, Schieler teaches further comprising transmitting the indication to a robotic control system (an indicating device) (Para 0018, “Once the program 32 determines the type of signal (high or low "g" forces), an output or alarm signal is generated from an output 36 of the microprocessor 34 and is connected to an indicating device, preferably, at least one of an audible alarm 38, a vibrating device 40, a visual indicator 42 such as an illuminated light or an LED, or a visual display 44 on a screen 46 located on the tool 12”).
Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the indication is merely transmitted to other device (i.e., the robotic control system) which may be in wire and/or wireless connected with the indicator as Shieler teaches that the output or alarm signal is transmitted to an indicating device which is connected with the output 36 of the microprocessor 34.
Regarding Claim 15, it is dependent on claim 13 having similar limitations as of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is dependent on claim 15 having similar limitations as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 12 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 12 above.
Regarding Claim 20, it is dependent on claim 19 having similar limitations as of claim 13 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 21, it is dependent on claim 19 having similar limitations as of claim 14 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 14 above.
Regarding Claim 22, it is dependent on claim 19 having similar limitations as of claim 15 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 15 above.
Regarding Claim 23, it is dependent on claim 22 having similar limitations as of claim 16 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 16 above.
2. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieler in view of NAKANISHI and further in view of SHIMIZU (US 20220326366 A1, hereinafter referred to as “SHIMIZU”).
Regarding Claim 10, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitation as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 9 above. The additional limitation of “a second predetermined threshold (the frequencies f2, f3, . . . of the harmonics) associated with a second frequency range” is taught by various threshold and ranges of SHIMIZU (Para 0055-0056, “The range setting unit 44 obtains the values of the frequencies f2, f3, . . . of the harmonics … the range of fn−0.5 (kHz)≤f≤fn+0.5 (kHz), for each n=2, 3, . . . , in the frequency spectrum determined by the frequency analysis unit 41”).
SHIMIZU is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of detecting a sound and determining its frequency spectrum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schieler in view of NAKANISHI to incorporate the teachings of SHIMIZU by providing a second predetermined threshold associated with a second frequency range, taught by SHIMIZU at least at paragraphs 0055-0056.
Regarding Claim 17, it is dependent on claim 16 having similar limitations as of claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 10 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MIYAMORI et al. (US 20170223195 A1) teaches a frequency spectrum waveform based on an analysis result obtained by the STFT and a frequency analysis on the acquired abnormal sound signal, or to display a waveform obtained as a result of the frequency analysis on the abnormal sound signal acquired from the server apparatus 50 in the past together with the waveform obtained as a result of the frequency analysis on the acquired abnormal sound signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858