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
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/26/26 to the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been
fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kolks et al. (NPL: “Modiciency - Efficient industrial hydraulic drives through independent metering using optimal operating modes”) .
Under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a statutory machine, namely a material testing
system including a test fixture configured to determine at least one mechanical property of a test specimen and a processor configured to generate an output a machine-readable code encoding static and dynamic system information. The claimed subject matter is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific industrial machine configuration that integrates data encoding functionality into the operation of a physical material testing system. The recited processor operates in conjunction with the test fixture and encodes operational and environmental system information representative of the machine state into a machine-readable symbol. Accordingly, the claims 1-20 are directed to a practical application in the field of mechanical testing equipment and are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C § 101.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0173894) (hereinafter Pope) in view of Reed et al. (Patent No. US 9,686,026) (hereinafter Reed) and further in view of Kolks et al. (NPL: “Modiciency - Efficient industrial hydraulic drives through independent metering using optimal operating modes”, 10th International Fluid Power Conference | Dresden 2016, (hereinafter Kolks).
As per claims 1 and 11, Pope teaches a test fixture configured to determine at least one mechanical property of a test specimen and a processor (see ¶¶ [0045]-[0056], i.e., a material testing system including a test fixture and associated processor) , Pope further teaches that the processor monitors and processes system operational and state-related information (see ¶ [0067], describing redundant processing cores executing instructions for safety control and processing inputs/outputs of the testing system).
However Pope fails to explicitly teach generating the machine readable code by encoding static information about the material testing system and dynamic information representative of a state of the material testing system, wherein the dynamic information comprises at least one of security information for the material testing system, load string information for load string equipment installed on the test fixture, a motor voltage measured at the test fixture, a duty cycle of the test fixture, or a cumulative distance traveled by one or more components of the test fixture; and output the machine readable code.
Reed, however, teaches “generating a machine-readable symbol representation…that encodes…the stored state information, the stored test result information, and the stored number of parameter values (see Abstract and col. 2, lines 20-35).
Kolks teaches hydraulic actuator operation applicable to industrial machinery and explicitly applies its analysis to a duty cycle of a universal testing machine. Kolks describes application of the disclosed method to a “typical duty cycle of a universal testing machine” with the testing machine operating cycle represented by cylinder force and cylinder travel as functions of time (see page 112 and Fig. 6). Kolks therefore teaches that operation of the load applying actuator of a material testing machine may be characterized by a duty cycle. The disclosed universal testing machine employs the hydraulic cylinder as the load applying movable component and thus teaches duty cycle information representative of operation of the testing machine actuation system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the material testing system of Pope to characterize operation of its test fixture actuation system according to a duty cycle as taught by Kolks because Kolks teaches use of a duty cycle to characterize the time dependent operating conditions of a universal testing machine, including the force and travel of its load applying cylinder, thereby providing information representative of the operational usage and state of the testing-machine actuation system.
It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the testing machine duty cycle information taught by Kolks among the dynamic state information encoded in the machine-readable code of Reed because Reed teaches encoding device state, condition, performance, and parameter information in a machine-readable symbol for acquisition and subsequent processing (see col. 7, lines 22-39, claim 1 and claim 14), thereby enabling operating state information concerning the material testing system, including its duty cycle information, to be conveniently communicated and retrieved in machine-readable form.
Accordingly, the combination of Pope, Reed, and Kolks teaches or renders obvious a material testing system having a processor configured, in response to a request for a machine-readable code, to generate the machine-readable code by encoding static information about the material testing system and dynamic information representative of a state of the material testing system, wherein the dynamic information comprises at least a duty cycle of the test fixture, and to output the machine-readable code, as recited in claims 1 and 11.
As per claims 2-5 and 14-17, the combination of Pope, Reed and Kolks teaches the system as stated above. Reed further teaches that the static information comprises a model number, a serial number, an identifier, a description of the material testing system (see col. 16, lines 14-38, i.e., encoding device hardware information, device software information, and manufacturer data into the machine-readable symbol (Fig. 7, items 708i-708k), which reasonably encompasses model numbers, serial numbers, identifiers, and descriptive information under broadest reasonable interpretation).
As per claims 6-8 and 18-20, the combination of Pope, Reed and Kolks teaches the system as stated above. Reed further teaches that an error code generated at the material testing system, a software version on the material testing system, diagnostic information detected on the material testing system (see col. 16, lines 14-38, i.e., encoding state information, runtime information, performance metrics, condition data, and related device/software information into the machine-readable symbol (Fig. 7, machine-readable code generator 232), The examiner notes that the encoded state and test result information includes information indicative of system performance conditions and fault states which under broadest reasonable interpretation reasonably encompasses diagnostic information and information representative of error conditions (i.e., error codes) of the system).
As per claim 9, the combination of Pope, Reed and Kolks teaches the system as stated above. Pope further teaches that the test fixture comprises at least one of a crosshead, an actuator, or material fixturing (see ¶¶ [0031]-[0032], [0044] and[0056], i.e., a test fixture including components such as a crosshead, actuator, and specimen fixturing).
As per claims 10 and 12, the combination of Pope, Reed and Kolks teaches the system as stated above. Reed further teaches that the machine-readable code comprises a QR code or a barcode (see col. 3, lines 39-48, i.e., “Generating a machine-readable symbol representation may include generating at least one of: a linear barcode representation or a two-dimensional or quick response (QR) code representation” and col. 1, lines 31-35, “Generating a machine-readable symbol representation may include generating a visual representation of a two-dimensional machine-readable symbol by a respective display screen of at least the first communications device”).
As per claim 13, the combination of Pope, Reed and Kolks teaches the system as stated above. Reed further teaches that the outputting comprises transmitting the machine- readable code via at least one of RFID, near field communications (NFC) transmissions, close proximity communications, or ultrasonic communications (see col. 8, lines 36-55, i.e., . “radiofrequency identification (RFID)”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
