DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication module in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation: "… to determine at least one distance between a first anchor position of the first anchor on the construction site object or for the first anchor and a position of a second anchor on the construction site object, for the second anchor on the construction site object or to an edge of the construction site object, and via the output unit, to output a signal or to store a signal in the storage unit, the signal being indicative of whether the distance at least corresponds to a defined target distance." (emphasis added to accentuate insufficient antecedent basis and indefinite language).
It’s unclear if the word “distance” in the phrase “whether the distance at least corresponds to a defined target distance” is referring to the phrase “at least one distance”.
The word “between” in the phrase “to determine at least one distance between a first anchor position of the first anchor on the construction site object or for the first anchor and a position of a second anchor on the construction site object, for the second anchor on the construction site object or to an edge of the construction site object” lacks clarity, since the word “between” requires two elements. For example, a distance between “A” and “B”. Currently there is only one element, which creates a lack of clarity.
The phrase “the signal” is tied to outputting a signal or storing a signal.
For the purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as the following:
“… to determine at least one distance between a first anchor position of the first anchor on the construction site object at least one distance (emphasis added to accentuate interpretation).
Claim 22 recites the limitation: "… the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the program code is configured to determine a surface profile of the construction site object or of the intermediate object …" (emphasis added to accentuate insufficient antecedent basis and indefinite language).
For the purposes of examination, claim 22 is interpreted as the following:
“… the computer system as recited in claim [[13]] 17, wherein the program code is configured to determine a surface profile of the construction site object or of the intermediate object …” (emphasis added to accentuate interpretation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-17, 19-20, 22-23, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tyson (US 11,132,479 B1).
As per claim 13, Tyson discloses a computer system for the position determination of an anchor position relative to a construction site object (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 7-14, 55-59.), the system comprising:
at least one camera (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 28-30 disclose one or more cameras.);
at least one output unit (Tyson: Col. 5, ll. 59-61 disclose “displays, which may be a monitor, or … AR (augmented reality) displays”.);
at least one storage unit (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 26-28 disclose a storage component.); and
at least one microprocessor (processor), program code for execution on the microprocessor being stored in the storage unit (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 22-50; Col. 60, ll. 15-18 disclose software includes instructions stored on a storage component.), the program code being configured
to identify at least one type of a first anchor (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 44-59 disclose “software includes instructions for implementing a recognition process where the imaged field objects … are compared with an image library … A component is identified” … the “component that may be tracked, is a fastening element, such as a Click-Bond®”.), and
via the camera, to determine at least one distance between a first anchor position of the first anchor on the construction site object or for the first anchor and a position of a second anchor on the construction site object, for the second anchor on the construction site object or to an edge of the construction site object (Tyson: Col. 18, ll. 26-28 disclose “software is configured with instructions for generating three dimensional coordinates (x,y,z), three dimensional displacements (x-x1,y-y1,z-z1)”; Tyson: Cols. 44-45, ll. 60-9 disclose inspecting [anchor] points for X, Y, Z based on the global coordinate system, relative to reference points and data displayed may include actual (the measurement), nominal (where it needs to be) and the difference between the two.), and
via the output unit, to output a signal or to store a signal in the storage unit, the signal being indicative of whether the distance at least corresponds to a defined target distance (Tyson: Col. 4, ll. 8-17 & Col. 45, ll. 3-5 disclose a defined target distance displayed in color tolerances such as “automatic green if positioned within tolerance, automatic red, if not”. The data displayed may include actual (the measurement), nominal (where it needs to be) and the difference.).
As per claim 14, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the target distance depends on the type of the first anchor (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 44-59 disclose different components/objects can be identified and tracked, such as a fastening element. It’s axiomatic that the target distance will depend on the type of anchor or component.).
As per claim 15, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 further comprising a communication module (communication components) for communication with a remote computer system (CAD repository or library), the program code being configured to retrieve the target distance from the remote computer system via the communication module (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 22-26; Col. 29, ll. 32-37 disclose the system includes communication components that enable communication over a network. The system is “linked for communications with other information sources, such as, for example, a CAD repository or library that contains the assembly data”. Additionally, Col. 49, ll. 27-30 disclose “For each manufacturing step, RVAT displays the distance to the designed location of the specific component being assembled”.).
As per claim 16, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the program code is configured to determine at least one material property of the construction site object (Tyson: Col. 5, ll. 30-31 & Col 7. ll. 4-3 disclose ARAMIS may be used to measure strains during the manufacturing process and check for accumulated strain and material test data; Col. 29, ll. 32-37 disclose the system includes communication components that enable communication over a network. The system is “linked for communications with other information sources, such as, for example, a CAD repository or library that contains the assembly data”. Additionally, Col. 49, ll. 27-30 disclose “For each manufacturing step, RVAT displays the distance to the designed location of the specific component being assembled”.).
As per claim 17, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the program code is configured to identify at least one intermediate object which is to be arranged or has been arranged at the first anchor and at the construction site object (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 55-63 & Col. 37, ll. 5-7 disclose processing image information that identifies the location of the tool [intermediate object] for positioning fasteners at the desired location for installation [arranged at construction site object].).
As per claim 19, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the program code is configured to determine a setting depth of the first anchor in the construction site object via the camera (Tyson: Col. 6, ll. 15-20; Col. 38, ll. 14-31; Col. 53, ll. 36-51 disclose tracking components, drill, and/or tools using stereo photogrammetry and so that the rotational angle of the drill, as well as drill depth may be indicated by the RVAT system. The RVAT may measure the drill operation, including the depth and position of the drilling.).
As per claim 20, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the program code is configured to determine the distance when the first anchor (reference component) has already been set (Tyson: Col. 23, ll. 38-50 disclose a Reference Component (RC), which is the first Reference Component (RC1) is defined in RVAT. The points for the RC are the real-time coordinate transform for all the real-time point/component measurements. Further, Col. 45, ll. 39-40 disclose the action of setting this anchor: “The RVAT preferably provides an indication that the Reference Component is set.” Furthermore, Col. 49, ll. 27-30 disclose determining the distance after this anchor configuration is established. For example, “For each manufacturing step, RVAT displays the distance to the designed location of the specific component being assembled.” Since the Reference Component establishes the coordinate transform for measurements and is “set” prior to the manufacturing steps, the determination and display of the distance to the designed location occurs when the first anchor has already been set.).
As per claim 22, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the program code is configured to determine a surface profile of the construction site object or of the intermediate object using at least one input by a user of the computer system that characterizes the construction site object or the intermediate object (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 55-63 & Col. 37, ll. 5-7 disclose processing image information that identifies the location of the tool [intermediate object] for positioning fasteners at the desired location for installation [arranged at construction site object].).
As per claim 23, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 wherein the first anchor is a screw anchor, a bolt anchor, an impact anchor or a nail (Tyson: Col. 36, ll. 50-52 disclose “The fastening graphic may include a graphic that designates the location of the fastening component, such as a rivet or screw”.).
As per claim 26, Tyson discloses a setting device or a drill comprising the computer system as recited in claim 13 (Tyson: Cols. 8-9 ll. 47-2 & Col. 55, ll. 52-59 disclose the system may align, drive, and/or control assembly operations robotically, including drilling, riveting (an operation performed by a setting device) and tooling (e.g., such as a robotically or computer controlled mechanism) in which the system may specifically monitor and drive one or more robots.).
As per claim 28, Tyson discloses a method for assisting the setting of a first anchor into a construction site object or for quality control of a first anchor set into a construction site object, the method comprising:
with the computer system as recited in claim 13 via the camera of the computer system, at least one distance between a first anchor position of the first anchor on the construction site object or for the first anchor and a position of a second anchor on the construction site object, for the second anchor on the construction site object or to an edge of the construction site object is determined, and wherein the determined distance is compared with a target distance (Tyson: Col. 4, ll. 8-17; Col. 45, ll. 3-5; Col. 49, ll. 27-30 disclose for each manufacturing step, RVAT displays the distance to the designed location of the specific component being assembled and a target distance displayed in color tolerances such as “automatic green if positioned within tolerance, automatic red, if not”. The data displayed may include actual (the measurement), nominal (where it needs to be) and the difference [i.e., in order to determine if a component is within a specific tolerance (green) or outside of tolerance (red), the computer system must compare the determined distance or position against the target distance or threshold requirements].).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyson in view of Beller et al., hereinafter referred to as Beller (US 2018/0107895 A1).
As per claim 18, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 17 (Tyson: Col. 13, ll. 55-63 & Col. 37, ll. 5-7 disclose processing image information that identifies the location of the tool [intermediate object] for positioning fasteners at the desired location for installation [arranged at construction site object].).
However, Tyson does not explicitly disclose “… the intermediate object is a base plate or a first washer.”.
Further, Beller is in the same field of endeavor and teaches the intermediate object is a base plate or a first washer (Beller: Para. [0036] discloses identification of tools and compatible parts process 360 analyzes the object metadata that was gathered by process 340 in order to identify compatible tools and parts pertaining to the object. These compatible tools and parts are stored in memory area 370. For example, if the object is a bolt of a particular size, then compatible tools would include washers, lock washers, and the like.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Tyson and Beller before him or her, to modify the system of Tyson to include the base plate intermediate object feature as described in Beller. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve tool knowledge by leveraging object metadata stored in memory by providing a configuration that identifies the compatibility between objects.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyson in view of Brodsky et al., hereinafter referred to as Brodsky (US 2022/0101607 A1).
As per claim 21, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 (Tyson: Abstract)
However, Tyson does not explicitly disclose “… wherein the program code is configured to determine the distance proceeding from the first anchor position when the first anchor has not been set.”
Further, Brodsky is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the program code is configured to determine the distance proceeding from the first anchor position when the first anchor has not been set (Brodsky: Paras. [0188], [0217] disclose handling anchor nodes in an augmented reality environment, including scenarios where an anchor is not yet fully localized. Specifically, handling a saved scene anchor node (identifying the first anchor) when it is not associated with a location in the physical world (identifying the state when the first anchor has not been set).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Tyson and Brodsky before him or her, to modify the coordinate tracking system of Tyson to include the anchor position when the first anchor has not been set feature as described in Brodsky. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the robustness and user experience of the AR assembly system by providing a configuration that ensures a seamless workflow for the user attempting to perform assembly operations.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyson in view of Haseotes (US 5,881,527 A).
As per claim 24, Tyson discloses the computer system as recited in claim 13 (Tyson: Abstract)
However, Tyson does not explicitly disclose “… wherein the construction site object is a concrete element.”
Further, Haseotes is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the construction site object is a concrete element (Haseotes: Col. 4, ll. 16-42; Col. 8, ll. 7-10 disclose wherein the construction site object is a concrete element, such as portable precast concrete slabs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Tyson and Haseotes before him or her, to modify the system of Tyson to include the concrete element feature as described in Haseotes. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve foundation and assembly of large-scale projects by providing a standard, durable, and widely-used material in the construction of civil structures.
Claims 25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyson in view of Furui et al., hereinafter referred to as Furui (US 2014/0159662 A1).
As per claim 25, Tyson discloses a handheld power tool (Col. 51 ll. 48-54 & Col. 53, ll. 44-51 disclose the operator may use a drill [a handheld power tool] guided by the RVAT system.).
However, Tyson does not explicitly disclose “… a handheld power tool comprising the computer system …”.
Further, Furui is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a handheld power tool comprising the computer system (Furui: Fig. 1C & Paras. [0021], [0206] disclose handheld power tool 10 comprising a controller, such as at least one central processing unit (CPU), e.g., one or more microprocessors, and at least one memory and/or storage device in communication therewith.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Tyson and Furui before him or her, to modify the RVAT system of Tyson to include the handheld power tool comprising the computer system feature as described in Furui. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve productivity of the user by providing a configuration that enables the user to extend the functional abilities of the tool.
As per claim 27, Tyson discloses the handheld power tool recited in claim 25 wherein the computer system is arranged releasably at a securing point of the handheld power tool (Col. 51 ll. 48-54 & Col. 53, ll. 44-51 disclose the operator may use a drill [a handheld power tool] guided by the RVAT system and Furui: Paras. [0021], [0276], [0278] disclose an adapter comprising a controller (computer system) that is configured to be detachably attached (arranged releasably) to a battery pack interface (securing point) of the power tool.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 12-18-2025
Prosecution Insights