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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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, 3-9, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeiler et. al (US 2016/0088482 A1,hereinafter Zeiler).
Regarding claim 1, Zeiler teaches a tool monitoring system ([FIG. 1] and [0056] FIG. 1 depicts a tool monitoring system 100) comprising: at least one beacon device having communication circuitry for wireless communications; and at least one tool configured to wirelessly communicate with the communication circuitry of the at least one beacon device, wherein when the at least one tool is in wireless communication with the at least one beacon device ([0109] depicted in FIG. 10 the tool monitoring system 600 further enables a user to communicate, with the tools 605 via the key fob 610, key fob read as beacon device, and it's [0110] associated communication circuity), the at least one tool is configured to upload system information to the at least one beacon device ([0128] for the fob 610, the tool database 285 may be populated using a plurality of techniques, including the ability for the fob 610 to perform a scan of the ISM network 616 to automatically populate the database 285 by broadcasting an identify request to the tools 605, i.e. a multitude of tools uploading system information to a beacon device when in communication with said beacon device).
Regarding claim 3, Zeiler teaches the system information includes tool information ([0128] describes how the tools 605 may output, in response to a fob 610 request, a tool identifier and other stored information (e.g., status information) for purposes of adding the information to the tool database 285. Further, the tool database 285 may be populated remotely by sending tool information from the remote monitoring station to the fob 610, i.e. the system information may include a tool identifier or other relevant tool information).
Regarding claim 4, Zeiler teaches the system information includes cycle information ([0129] the fob 610 may communicate with the tools 605 via ISM communications (i.e., using ISM unit 650 and ISM antenna 652). In addition to populating the tool database 285, the communication may be used for tool identification, tool locating, geo-fencing, and other tool management and status monitoring, i.e. the ability to include cycle information).
Regarding claim 5, Zeiler teaches the at least one tool is not in wireless communication with the at least one beacon device for a predetermined period of time ([0181] if, in step 942, the battery controller 907 determines that the fob 610 has not communicated, based on whether the timer has expired, i.e. a tool not in wireless communication in association with a period of time), the at least one tool is configured to enter an inoperable state ([0179-0182] describes instances when a lock-out or limp mode is enacted for the tool, i.e. an inoperable state).
Regarding claim 6, Zeiler teaches the predetermined period of time is 12 hours or 24 hours ([0086] the security action is delayed for a particular period of time, the security action may be delayed for a particular period of time (e.g., a few minutes, hours, days, etc.), i.e. the predetermined period of time may be 12 or 24 hours).
Regarding claim 7, Zeiler teaches the at least one tool comprises a frame and a working head ([Figure 10, Figure 12] and [0117] FIG. 10 and 12, depict the tool 605 is a battery-operated power drill that, similar to tool 105, includes the tool controller 145, sensors 155, battery 160, and motor 165, although the tool 605 is depicted as a power drill in FIG. 10, other types of tools and accessories may also be monitored by the tool monitoring system 600, i.e. it is shown in the figures that said tools may comprise of a frame and a working head).
Regarding claim 8, Zeiler teaches the at least one beacon device includes at least one indicator used to provide at least one of an audible, haptic and visual indication ([0181] an audible, visual, or tactile warning may be provided to the user by the battery 902 or by the tool 900 in response to the battery 902. For example, a light on the battery 902 or tool 900 may be illuminated after the security code is marked invalid in step 950 to inform the user that he or she should bring the tool within an acceptable range of the fob 610 or ISM network , i.e. the beacon device includes an indicator) -when the at least one beacon device is no longer in communication with the at least one tool ([0181] if, in step 942, the battery controller 907 determines that the fob 610 has not communicated, based on whether the timer has expired, i.e. a tool not in wireless communication with the beacon).
Regarding claim 9, Zeiler teaches the at least one beacon device comprises a housing configured to be worn by a user or installed in a vehicle or installed in facility ([0126] FIG. 13B-C illustrate an exemplary fob 610, fob 610 read as beacon device, implemented with a chirp button 658, navigation controls 660, hand grips 662 (including ridges for finger placement), and an aperture 664 for receiving a key ring or otherwise attaching the fob 610 to an Item, i.e. the beacon device is configured to be worn by a user or installed in a vehicle or facility via the key ring).
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of claim 8 teaching the element at least one indicator used to provide at least one of an audible, haptic and visual indication when the beacon device is no longer in communication with the at least one tool.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claims 3 and 4. That is, claim 3 teaches the system information includes tool information and claim 4 teaches the system information includes cycle information.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 10-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zeiler et. al (US 2016/0088482 A1,hereinafter Zeiler) in view of White et al. (US 2020/0106230 A1, hereinafter White).
Regarding claim 2, Zeiler teaches -the at least one beacon device ([Figure 10, device 610] key fob 610, key fob read as beacon device), and the at least one beacon device is in communication- ([0109] FIG. 10 depicts beacon device 610 in communication with a plurality of devices.)
Zeiler differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach a cloud-based computing system configured to wireless communicate- -the cloud-based computing system can receive the system information and -store the system information in a database. However, White teaches [abstract] a tool that determines the maximum force applied to a crimp and records the maximum force along with the geographic location of the tool when the crimp was formed and [0048] includes connections to cloud based web services and a cloud-based computing system configured to wireless communicate- ([0044 and 0048] describes a cloud-based computing system which may receive system information and store information in a database as shown in FIG. 10) and -the cloud-based computing system can receive the system information ([0052] an example embodiment in which the tool's app will "Sync with Cloud” to the cloud-based computing system, i.e. the cloud-based computing system can receive the system information) and -store the system information in a database([Figure 10] FIG. 10 depicts web-services, web-services read as cloud-based computing system, communicating and storing system information in a database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeiler to include a cloud-based computing system in accordance with a database, as taught by White, in order to [0025] improve performance, monitoring, and recording of portable tools.
Regarding claim 10, Zeiler teaches a beacon device ([FIG. 13A-13C] depicts a beacon device 610) comprising: a housing having a front housing portion ([FIG. 13B] depicts a front housing portion), a rear housing portion and at least one cavity for receiving internal components ([FIG. 13C] depicts a rear housing portion comprising at least one cavity as shown by a USB port 654, and a power input port 656 for receiving corresponding internal components); communication circuitry within the at least one cavity ([FIG. 13A, FIG. 11A-B] depicts the device 610 may have communication circuitry within at least one cavity, and may communicate with a plurality of devices as shown in FIG. 11A-B), -and at least one indicator used to provide at least one of an audible, haptic and visual indication ([0134] in some embodiments, the tools 605 include a chirp button, which executes a chip noise, as described in [0132], to assist in locating one of the fobs 610. Since a display may not be included on the tools 605, the tools 605 may store an identifier for a "home" fob 610, and depressing a chirp button of the tool 605 would cause the home fob 610 to chirp. The fob 610 may be used to store the identifier of the home fob 610 in the tool 605. Furthermore, [0080] describes how the indicator is not limited to a chirp noise via "an audible indicator (e.g., chirp), a visual indicator (e.g., light flash), a tactile indicator (e.g., vibration) or a combination thereof, in response to the chirp message"), -when the beacon device is no longer in communication with the at least one tool ([0181] if, in step 942, the battery controller 907 determines that the fob 610 has not communicated, based on whether the timer has expired, i.e. a tool not in wireless communication with the beacon), and -the communication circuitry being configured to receive ([FIG. 13A, FIG. 11A-B] depicts the device 610 may have communication circuitry within at least one cavity, and may communicate with a plurality of devices as shown in FIG. 11A-B).
Zeiler differs from the claimed invention and does not specifically teach the system information from at least one tool when the beacon device is in communication with the at least one tool and configured to upload the system information to a cloud-based computing system when the beacon device is in communication with the cloud-based computing system. However, White teaches as such ([0052] an example embodiment in which the tool's app will "Sync with Cloud” to the [0044 and 0048] cloud-based computing system which may receive system information and store information in a database as shown in FIG. 10, i.e. the tool is in communication with the tool’s app with the device of the tool’s app acting as the beacon device, and the beacon device then uploading the information to the cloud-based computing system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeiler to include a cloud-based computing system in accordance with a database, as taught by White, in order to [0025] improve performance, monitoring, and recording of portable tools.
Regarding claim 11, Zeiler teaches the housing of the beacon device is configured to be worn by a user or installed in a vehicle or installed in facility ([0126] FIG. 13B-C illustrate an exemplary fob 610, fob 610 read as beacon device, implemented with a chirp button 658, navigation controls 660, hand grips 662 (including ridges for finger placement), and an aperture 664 for receiving a key ring or otherwise attaching the fob 610 to an Item, i.e. the beacon device is configured to be worn by a user or installed in a vehicle or facility via the key ring).
Regarding claim 12, Zeiler teaches the system information includes tool information ([0128] describes how the tools 605 may output, in response to a fob 610 request, a tool identifier and other stored information (e.g., status information) for purposes of adding the information to the tool database 285. Further, the tool database 285 may be populated remotely by sending tool information from the remote monitoring station to the fob 610, i.e. the system information may include a tool identifier or other relevant tool information).
Regarding claim 13, Zeiler teaches the system information includes cycle information ([0129] the fob 610 may communicate with the tools 605 via ISM communications (i.e., using ISM unit 650 and ISM antenna 652). In addition to populating the tool database 285, the communication may be used for tool identification, tool locating, geo-fencing, and other tool management and status monitoring, i.e. the ability to include cycle information).
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claims 12 and 13. That is, claim 12 teaches the system information includes tool information and claim 13 teaches the system information includes cycle information.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis, Anthony M. et al. (2020). Anti-theft systems and devices for battery-powered power tools (US 20200090175 A1). Filed 2019-09-13. Discloses a method for locking and unlocking electronic power tools. (abstract)
Zampini, Ii, Thomas et al. (2019). Systems and methods for beacon integrated with displays (US 20190132815 A1). Filed 2018-10-26. Discloses method for object indoor positioning and reporting. (abstract)
Arunachalam, Raghu et al. (2018). Method of determining beacon relevance (US 20180077546 A1). Filed 2017-09-13. Discloses determining beacon relevance including broadcasting and receiving beacon signals in association with other comparative metrics. (abstract)
Edge, Stephen William (2018). Methods and systems for support of location for the internet of things (US 20180054795 A1). Filed 2017-01-18. Discloses location services for UEs as well as location monitoring. (abstract)
Dor, Guy et al. (2016). System and method for tracking and monitoring surgical tools (US 20160212577 A1). Filed 2015-01-19. Discloses monitoring and tracking of medical equipment via tags and a notification system. (abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. EST.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649