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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “306” should be deleted to maintain claim consistency since other claim elements are not identified numerically. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “310” should be deleted to maintain claim consistency since other claim elements are not identified numerically. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: In line 7, the phrase “store related information” is not clear on what the information is related to. In line 8, the phrase “activation” is not clear on what is being activated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gatz et al. U.S. PGPub 2013/0160284 (hereinafter “Gatz”).
Regarding claim 14, Gatz discloses a die verification system, the system comprising: a crimp machine controller to operate a crimp machine (e.g. ¶9-11, 19 and 29; Fig. 1 and 3); a die set for a fitting and hose assembly (e.g. ¶11, 17, 26-33 and 40); and a die identification system that verifies the die set for the fitting and hose assembly (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32).
Regarding claim 15, Gatz discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the die set further comprises die circuitry having a die identification, wherein the die identification compares the die identification with a database to verify the die set (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32).
Regarding claim 16, Gatz discloses a method of operating a die identification system, the method comprising: storing a die identification into a memory of circuitry (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32); storing die set additional information into the memory (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32); positioning the circuitry into a die set (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32); inserting the die set into a die holder of a crimp machine (e.g. ¶21-23, 25-27 and 32-33; Fig. 2-3); and providing the die identification and the additional information to a crimp machine controller (e.g. ¶27-29, 31 and 43).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatz as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Baran et al. U.S. PGPub 2018/01328382 (hereinafter “Baran”).
Regarding claim 1, Gatz discloses a crimp machine die identification system comprising: a body (e.g. ¶19; Fig. 1 and 3); circuitry positioned within the body (e.g. ¶19; Fig. 1 and 3); a controller that holds the circuitry (e.g. ¶19; Fig. 1 and 3); wherein the circuitry comprises one or more processors configured to: store an identification for a die set (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32); store related information (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32); and transfer the die identification and the related information based on activation (e.g. ¶27-29, 31 and 43).
Regarding claim 1, Gatz discloses a controller that holds circuitry, but does not explicitly disclose a PCB that holds the circuitry and the PCB having a contact configured to generate activation of the circuitry.
Baran discloses an industrial controller having a PCB that holds circuitry that uses contacts to activate circuitry (e.g. ¶27, 29 and 39).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for Gatz’s crimp controller to have a PCB. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since processors typically are mounted on PCBs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Gatz with Baran to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 9-11.
Regarding claim 4, Gatz discloses the system of claim 2, the contact activates when proximate a die holder and uses near field communication to provide the die identification (e.g. ¶20, 27 and 31).
Regarding claim 5, Gatz discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to store crimp parameters as the related information to a memory (e.g. ¶27-29, 31 and 43).
Regarding claim 6, Gatz discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to store crimp parameters as the related information to a database (e.g. ¶27-29, 31 and 43).
Regarding claim 9, Gatz discloses the system of claim 1, the circuitry further comprises a transceiver to communicate the die information (e.g. ¶27-29, 31 and 43).
Regarding claim 10, Gatz discloses the system of claim 1, the circuitry further communicates an interface for power and/or data (e.g. ¶27-29, 31 and 43).
Regarding claim 11, Gatz discloses the system of claim 1, the circuitry comprises a memory in the form of a register to store and program the die identification (e.g. ¶11 and 27-32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 7, 8, 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose the contact being a spring loaded metal contact that engages a metal contact of a die holder. Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose a system further comprising a protective cap that encloses the circuitry and the PCB. Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not disclose the body being positioned within a die of the die set and the body is removable. Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose the body is screwed into a hole within a die of the die set.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
CK
September 16, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights