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 .
Response to Arguments
103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreuzer et al. (2015/0286209) in view of Gilmore (6,845,279), further in view of Jaini et al. (9,148,698).
With respect to claim 7, Kreuzer et al. teaches a system (300) for configuring an electronic torque wrench (i.e. powered wrench 20/22; [0047]), the system (300) comprising: a computing device communicably coupled to the electronic torque wrench (20/22), the computing device (60) including: a processor (as indirectly taught in the taught computer 60); a display (as seen in Fig. 1; [0042]); and a memory adapted to store instructions (i.e. software operating the computer and performing governing and monitoring of the wrench 20/22; Abstract) to be executed by the processor (of the computer) to configure the processor (of the computer) to: provide, via the display (of the computer), editable calibration fields corresponding to the electronic torque wrench (20/22), the editable calibration fields including a warning field that is configurable to select whether a warning is to be provided by the electronic torque wrench (as Kreuzer et al. teaches in [0032] during registration, data fields are included in a database that allow a user to make selections regarding warning), a notification field that is configurable to select whether a notification is to be sent (as para. [0032] teaches the database includes configurable fields for a user to provide selections regarding whether indicators are to be sent to the user associated with the tool, for example reminder indicators; [0087]), receive an input (via a user) corresponding to at least one of the editable calibration fields (i.e. count cycle; [0049] [0056]); send instructions (via depicted communication links in Fig. 1; [0058]) to the electronic torque wrench (20/22) for configuring (in a memory of the tool, seen in Fig. 2) the electronic torque wrench (20/22) based on the editable fields (i.e. the number of cycles before disabling the tool); and send a notification (i.e. a warning), via a communications link (i.e. via communication transmitting provision 150; Fig. 2), based on the editable fields (i.e. count) and a state of the electronic torque wrench (i.e. an active or deactivate state, based on the cycle number being surpassed; [0085]).
Kreuzer et al. remains silent regarding the warning field being configurable to turn ON and OFF, the notification field being configurable to turn ON and OFF, the editable field being a calibration field and the calibration fields including at least a calibration warning cycles field that is configurable to set a number of torque systems before calibration is needed and that when met cause at least one of the warning and notification and a calibration warning days field that is configurable to set a number of days before calibration is needed and that when met cause at least one of the warning and notification.
Gilmore teaches similar method for configuring an electronic torque wrench (a portable tool 10 disclosed as being calibrated according to a specific fastener, Col. 4 lines 54-57) where editable calibration fields (i.e. software that allows a user to edit settings of the tool; Col. 5 line 67 to Col. 6 line 4) corresponding to the electronic torque wrench (10), the editable calibration fields including a calibration warning cycles field that is configurable to set a number of torque systems before calibration is needed (as Gilmore teaches in Col. 8 lines 37-39, a calibration interval day parameter entered which defines the maximum number of calendar days a tool is allowed to run between calibrations) and that when met cause a warning (i.e. an alarm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Kreuzer et al. to include the control logic of Gilmore et al. such that the editable fields are related to calibration settings for that tool because such a modification ensures the tool is not operated after the calibration cycle count is exceeded, Col. 2 lines 4-18; thereby preventing damage to the tool or articles worked on by the tool.
Kreuzer et al. as modified by Gilmore et al. remains silent regarding the warning field being configurable to turn ON and OFF, the notification field being configurable to turn ON and OFF.
Jaini et al. teaches a similar system for displaying fields configurable to turn ON and OFF features of those fields; (Col. 6 lines 6 lines 50-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Kreuzer et al. to include ON and OFF toggling features to the fields, as taught by Jaini et al., because Jaini et al. teaches such a modification allows a user to set or modify control options, thereby improving the operability of the system taught in Kreuzer et al.
The method of claim 1 is performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Kreuzer et al. as modified by Gilmore teaches the system wherein the modified processor (60 of Kreuzer et al.) is configured to send the notification (i.e. the warnings) by sending a notification (to the computer or mobile devices 30) of a number of days before calibration is needed (i.e. as the outputted warning contains the number of days before calibration is required; Col. 8 lines 37-52 of Gilmore).
The method of claim 2 is performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, Kreuzer et al. as modified by Gilmore teaches the system wherein the modified processor (60 of Kreuzer et al.) is configured to send the notification (i.e. the warnings) by sending a notification of a number of torque cycles since a last calibration date (as the sent warning includes data relating to the number of interval cycles of operation between calibrations and the count so the user can schedule maintenance/calibration; Col. 8 lines 15-30 of Gilmore).
The method of claim 3 is performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Kreuzer et al. as modified by Gilmore teaches the system wherein the modified processor (60 of Kreuzer et al.) is configured to send the notification (i.e. the warning) by sending a notification of a number of cycles left before calibration is needed (as the warning includes data representing 80% of the remaining cycles left before calibration is required; Col. 8 lines 15-30 of Gilmore).
The method of claim 4 is performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, Kreuzer et al. as modified by Gilmore teaches the system wherein the modified processor (60 of Kreuzer et al.) is further configured to determine an expiration of a calibration interval (i.e. elapsed days; Col. 8 lines 37-42 of Gilmore), and wherein the modified processor (60 of Kreuzer et al.) is configured to send the notification by sending a notification indicating that the electronic torque wrench requires calibration (as the sent warning contains data related to the elapsed days or remaining days until shut down, allowing a user time to service the tool; Col. 8 lines 37-52).
The method of claim 5 is performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, Kreuzer et al. as modified by Gilmore teaches the system wherein the processor (60 of Kreuzer et al.) is configured to send the instructions to the electronic torque wrench (20/22) includes sending instructions to cause the electronic torque wrench (20/22) to enter a locked state [0014] when calibration is needed (Col. 8 lines 37-52 of Gilmore).
The method of claim 6 is performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 12.
With respect to claim 14, Kreuzer et al. as modified by Gilmore teaches the system wherein the notification is an email [0078].
The method of claim 13 is performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
King et al. (2020/0400525) which teaches a system and method an interactive software application using a mobile device and an electronic torque wrench.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights