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 .
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).
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 environmental information measured at the test fixture, security information for the material testing system, logged data at 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 col. 2, lines 20-35) and further teaches that the encoded data may include “environmental data”, “time”, “date”, and “power measurements” (see col. 10, lines 13-26 and Fig. 7. Items 708 g-2 and 708 g-4), and that the symbol may be “a two-dimensional or quick response (QR) code representation” which is rendered for optical capture (see col. 11, lines 15-36 machine-readable code 232a and 232b and Figures 1-2). 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 generate an output a machine-readable code encoding system state and related information as taught by Reed, because Reed teaches that encoding state, condition, and performance data into a machine-readable symbol enables efficient transfer and collection of system information, thereby facilitating diagnostics, logging, and downstream processing of testing-system data without transcription or complex direct data connections.
As per claims 2-5 and 14-17, the combination of Pope and Reed 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 and Reed 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 and Reed 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 and Reed 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 and Reed 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)”).
Prior art
7. The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Frenz et al. [‘059] discloses a computer implemented method including storing information at a remote server accessible by one or more remote devices. Such as a field service engineer device and customer device. The method further includes generating an updated set of machine information including auxiliary and additional data, and synchronizing the updated information with remote devices and the remote server. The machine information may include data relating to service history, calibration status, health status, and maintenance status of the machine. Providing machine information on a service tag may include encoding the information on at least one of a near field communication (NFC) chip, a QR code, a barcode, a Bluetooth-enabled device, or a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag. The machine information may further include one or more of a model number, serial number, date of manufacture, product label information, and a customer-specific machine identifier. The disclosed techniques may be implemented via computing device including a processor and memory, or via a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to perform the method.
Dingmann [‘587] discloses systems and methods for fixture identification in test systems. A method for fixture identification in a test system may include capturing image data representative of a first fixture of the test system with an imaging device. The method may further include transmitting the image data representative of the first fixture from the imaging device to a processor running an image recognition application. The method may also include identifying the first fixture based on the image data with the processor running the image recognition application.
Zhu et al. [‘486] discloses a computing system, comprising a quick response (QR) code generation logic that receives an enrollment indication indicative of an enrollment request from a client computing system to enroll a user device for performance of a secure operation on the computing system and that generates a QR code representing an artifact, a communication system that communicates the QR code to the client computing system, and device authenticator logic that detects a request to perform the secure operation from the user device, the request including the artifact, the device authenticator logic authenticating the user device for performance of the secure operation based on the artifact.
Contact information
8. 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