DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a non-final action in response to the communications filed on 3/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e., process), a system (i.e., apparatus), and non-transitory medium (i.e., product) which are statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1, 14 and 15 recites the abstract idea of testing and documentation of an installation activity of a user for installing spatially decentralized electrical components of a machine wherein a complete establishment of an electrical and/or mechanical connection of an installation element with one of the electrical components is tested and documented, wherein the method comprises the following steps: Receiving at least one measured value from a testing means, wherein the at least one measured value results from a detection of a measured variable which is specific to the installation activity; Validating the installation activity of the user with regard to the complete establishment of the electrical and/or mechanical connection of the installation element based on a comparison of the at least one received measured value with at least one measured value specification; which include mental processes (observing and evaluating component connections for making an opinion or judgment on proper assembly), and certain methods of organizing human activity based on fundamental economic practice (testing/validating for quality), and based on managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instruction for validating installation activity). Claims 2-13 and 16-20 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1 with further details on the parameters/attributes of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as computer, torque wrench, piezoelectric sensor, non-transitory computer medium storing instructions for computer-aided testing and documentation … the instructions which, when executed by a computer cause the computer to, data processing apparatus, one or more processors; and a computer readable medium commutatively coupled to the one or more processors, and comprising computing instructions, the computing instructions, when executed by one or mor processors, cause the one or more processors to, these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, receiving and/or transmitting data between devices is mere data gathering and insignificant extrasolution activity, which does not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as computer, torque wrench, piezoelectric sensor, non-transitory computer medium storing instructions for computer-aided testing and documentation … the instructions which, when executed by a computer cause the computer to, data processing apparatus, one or more processors; and a computer readable medium commutatively coupled to the one or more processors, and comprising computing instructions, the computing instructions, when executed by one or mor processors, cause the one or more processors to, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, receiving and/or transmitting data between devices is mere data gathering and insignificant extrasolution activity, and also is well-understood, routine and conventional which do not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g) & (d)).
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Rourke et al (WO 2022020787 A1)
As per Claim 1, O’Rourke teaches a method for computer-aided testing and documentation of an installation activity (paragraph [0002]: "Installation and/or assembly with the assistance of an augmented reality system.") of a user (figure 21: 2210-2160) for installing spatially decentralized electrical components of a machine (figure 21: "modular switchboard") wherein a complete establishment of an electrical and/or mechanical connection of an installation element with one of the electrical components is tested and documented (figure 21: "Storing the final assembly report together with a unique identifier corresponding to the assembled modular switchboard system"), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
Receiving at least one measured value from a testing means, wherein the at least one measured value results from a detection of a measured variable which is specific to the installation activity, (paragraph [0129]:"entering a torque value from a wrench that the assembler is using to fasten torque bolts."; also see claims 1-4; also see claims 1-10);
Validating the installation activity of the user with regard to the complete establishment of the electrical and/or mechanical connection of the installation element based on a comparison of the at least one received measured value with at least one measured value specification (claim 14: "validating a predefined compliance standard utilizing the set of assembly and quality assurance instruction on the plurality of identified electrical equipment modules; and generating a final assembly report together with a unique identifier corresponding to the validated electrical equipment modules."; claim 4: “retrieving a first predefined range of acceptable values for a first measurement involved in the performance of the first instruction; comparing the one or more sensor values with the first predefined range of acceptable values” ; also see claims 1-10); and
Documenting the validated installation activity based on the validation by providing a labeling for the connection in an installation specification (paragraph [0131]: "Once any regulatory marks are affixed to the completed electrical equipment assembly, block 2160 stores the final assembly report together with a unique identifier corresponding to the assembled electrical equipment system." ; also see claims 1-10).
As per Claim 4, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the documenting of the validated installation activity comprises the following steps: Identifying a connection point, through which the electrical and/or mechanical connection was established by the installation activity, in the installation specification; Storing the labeling as a labeling of the identified and properly connected connection point in the installation specification (claim 14: "validating a predefined compliance standard utilizing the set of assembly and
quality assurance instruction on the plurality of identified electrical equipment modules; and generating a final assembly report together with a unique identifier corresponding to the validated electrical equipment modules").
As per Claim 6, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein a further comparison between the at least one received measured value and at least two further measured value specifications takes place as an additional test condition in order to determine whether a conformity of the at least one received measured value with a specification is ensured taking into account the additional test condition (claim 5: "comparing the torque value for the assembly task to the target torque range for the associated assembly task; and upon determining that the measured torque value for the associated assembly
task is within the received target torque range, wirelessly transmitting to the electrical equipment management system").
As per Claim 7, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the documenting of the validated installation activity comprises at least a storing of an indication of the time of the proper installation activity with respect to the establishment of the connection to a connection point (42), to an identifier of the installation element, in particular an equipment labeling, and/or to a labeling of the user (figure 13: "Authenticate user," figure 21: "unique identifier").
As per Claim 8, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the testing means is a torque wrench (paragraph [0135]: "wireless torque wrench").
As per Claim 10, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the validating and/or the documenting of the validated installation activity is initiated by receiving the at least one measured value and/or by the testing means (paragraph [0129]: "a machine vision system may inspect the presence or absence of bolts which utilize visual torque value indicators. ").
As per Claim 11, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the validating and/or the documenting of the validated installation activity is initiated by a user action (paragraph [0110]: "by entering user input into a connected computing device").
As per Claim 12, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the testing means is a tool with which the installation activity is performed by the user to establish the mechanical and/or electrical connection, or wherein the testing means is an additional tool used in addition to the installation activity to test the installation activity (claim 5: "torque wrench").
As per Claim 13, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the steps are performed repeatedly for several installation activities in order to successively document the entire installation of the machine (figure 21: "Performing an iterative assembly process. 2130).
As per claims 14-15, Claims 14-15 recite substantially similar limitations as Claim 1; therefore, Claims 14-15 are rejected with the same reasoning and rationale as provided above for claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-15 (also see para. 0005, for system elements and non-transitory medium)
As per Claim 16, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches further comprising at least one of:(a) wherein the installation element comprises a cable and/or plug connector;(b) wherein the testing means comprises torque wrench and/or a piezoelectric sensor;(c) wherein the at least one measured value is for a sufficient screw connection and/or power connection and/or data connection and/or signal connection and/or hybrid connection and/or contacting between the installation element and the electrical component; and/or (d) wherein the comparison determines whether a conformity of the at least one received measured value with the at least one measured value specification is ensured (Paragraph [0151]-[0152], cables).
As per Claim 17, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 3 above. Reddy further teaches wherein the labeling indicates a presence and/or an extent of establishing the electrical and/or mechanical connection and/or an incorrect performance of the installation activity and/or a performance of the installation activity that deviates from a specification (Paragraph: [0134] “In one embodiment, an order is placed for a branch circuit breaker kit 2248, as shown in Figure 22. Assemblies permit a number of branch circuit breakers 2252 to be installed in a small space. A user receives an order from the electrical equipment management system 100 which directs the user to retrieve a series of sub-assemblies from stock, each of which is labeled with an appropriate QR code. The user then retrieves each sub-assembly and scans each QR code into the electrical equipment management system 100 via a scanner when prompted to verify each sub-assembly is present and correct.”).
As per Claim 18, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 4 above. Reddy further teaches further comprising at least one of:(a) wherein documenting of the validated installation activity is performed upon the result of the validating indicating the complete establishment of the electrical and/or mechanical connection of the installation element and/or a proper performance of the installation activity; and/or (b) wherein the storing is based on an installation parameter recorded by the user comprising an occasion or reason for the labeling, and with an indication of the occasion or reason for the labeling being stored (Paragraph [0082]: “It should be appreciated that quality control and quality control standards may be included as part of the assembly process and may include, but are not limited to, verification of one or more quality or manufacturing standards through inspection or test. Standards may verify electrical, mechanical, assembly, aesthetic, or other such standards. Such standards may include company, local, regional, national, or international standards and may be from a standards body, e.g. ISO, or derived specifically by a manufacturer or even specific to a customer or customer company specifications.”).
As per Claim 19, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 6 above. Reddy further teaches further comprising at least one of:(a) wherein the least two further measured value specifications comprise a comparison of a tightening torque and/or pressure; and (b) wherein the labeling for the connection in the installation specification is provided based on the further comparison (para. 0086: “As one example, a series of assembly characteristics may be specific to a particular design such as torque requirements, venue considerations, tools used (e.g. wireless torque wrench), or other characteristic that would be particular to the assembly of the electrical equipment system.”).
As per Claim 20, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 8 above. Reddy further teaches wherein the torque wrench is an electronic torque wrench to provide the detection of the measured value, comprising a tightening torque, by the installation activity comprising a screw connection (para. 0086: “As one example, a series of assembly characteristics may be specific to a particular design such as torque requirements, venue considerations, tools used (e.g. wireless torque wrench), or other characteristic that would be particular to the assembly of the electrical equipment system.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rourke et al (WO 2022020787 A1) in view of Radomsky (US 20150227943 A1)
As per Claim 2, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Radomsky further teaches wherein the step of validating comprises the following steps: Evaluating the comparison of the at least one received measured value with the at least one measured value specification; and Defining a result of the validation based on the evaluation of the comparison, wherein the result indicates and/or quantifies the complete establishment or an incomplete establishment of the electrical and/or mechanical connection of the installation element and/or an incorrect performance of the installation activity and/or a performance of the installation activity that deviates from a specification; wherein when documenting the validated installation activity, the labeling for the connection in the installation specification is provided based on the result of the validation (figure 4: "pass/fail," 407, 409, 411, and 413; also see Claims 1-10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the invention, to modify O’Rourke with the aforementioned teachings of Radomsky with the motivation to improve installation process.
As per Claim 3, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Radomsky teaches wherein in the documenting of the validated installation activity, the labeling is defined depending on a result of the validating (figure 4: "pass/fail," 407, 409, 411, and 413; also see Claims 1-10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the invention, to modify O’Rourke with the aforementioned teachings of Radomsky with the motivation to improve installation process.
As per Claim 5, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. Radomsky teaches wherein the documenting of the validated installation activity comprises the following steps, which are performed when a result of the validating indicates an incomplete establishment and/or an incorrect performance of the installation activity and/or a performance of the installation activity that deviates from a specification: Identifying a connection point through which the connection was established by the installation activity in the installation specification; Storing the labeling of the connection point as requiring inspection in the installation specification (figure 4: "pass/fail," 407, 409, 411, and 413; also see Claims 1-10; Paragraph [0082]: “It should be appreciated that quality control and quality control standards may be included as part of the assembly process and may include, but are not limited to, verification of one or more quality or manufacturing standards through inspection or test. Standards may verify electrical, mechanical, assembly, aesthetic, or other such standards. Such standards may include company, local, regional, national, or international standards and may be from a standards body, e.g. ISO, or derived specifically by a manufacturer or even specific to a customer or customer company specifications.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the invention, to modify O’Rourke with the aforementioned teachings of Radomsky with the motivation to improve installation process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rourke et al (WO 2022020787 A1) in view of Official Notice
As per Claim 9, O’Rourke teaches a method as provided in claim 1 above. O’Rourke further teaches wherein the testing means is a piezoelectric sensor, wherein the piezoelectric sensor is arranged integrated as part of a plug connection to provide the detection of the measured value by the installation activity (para. 0082-0084: “test equipment”;
The use of a piezoelectric sensor is one of the known obvious alternatives for measuring mechanical force or pressure in the field. Therefore, it would be an obvious for the person skilled in the art to include piezoelectric sensor as a testing means with the motivation to improve accuracy of testing results.)
Conclusion
Additional relevant art not relied upon includes:
Nagel (US 20210088867 A1), regarding “Quality control of an electrochromic device is described. A method may be subsequent to a stage of manufacturing of an electrochromic device. The method may include directing a current tinting state of the electrochromic device to correspond to a first tinting state and receiving sensor data associated with the directing of the current tinting state of the electrochromic device to correspond to the first tinting state. The method may further include determining, based on the sensor data, whether a corrective action is to be performed for the electrochromic device and, responsive to determining the corrective action is to be performed, cause the corrective action to be performed.”
Meyer (EP 2085849 A2), regarding “A method of manufacturing an article (12) includes the steps of: establishing a defined location (14) for a tool activity to occur; determining an actual location of the tool (16); comparing the actual location of the tool (16) with the defined location (14); ascertaining an occurrence of the tool activity at the actual location; and verifying whether the tool activity occurred at the defined location.”
SCHLOESSER (EP 1764596 A2), regarding “The arrangement has a measuring sensor arranged in a screw connection for detecting a measurement parameter. The measuring sensor is formed as radio sensor (12) with data logging, and a storage for the measurement value is arranged remote from the screw connection. The storage is connected with the radio sensor through a radio line, and the radio sensor has a path measuring system. A shaft (3) has an opening (9) in an axial direction, and the opening has an inner thread (10) at a side. An independent claim is also included for a method for operating an arrangement of detecting measurement parameter in a screw connection.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights