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 .
This office correspondence is in response to “Amendment and Response under 37 C.F.R. 1.111 filed on November 19, 2025 in response to a non-final office action dated September 18, 2025.
Claims 1 – 12, 14, and 15 are pending.
Claims 1 – 12, 14, and 15 are amended.
Claims 13 is cancelled
Claims 1 – 12, 14, and 15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/08/2025 have been fully considered:
In regard to claims 1 – 14 which was rejected on the ground of provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/687766, the rejections are withdrawn as amendments to the claims of the instant application now differentiate the inventions of the two applications.
In regard to claims 13 – 14 which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, the applicant has canceled claim 13 and amended claim 14 to correct the issues with the claim so that so that the claim is no longer indefinite. Therein the rejections are withdrawn.
In regard to claims 1 – 12, 14, and 15 which were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 at least one argument is persuasive to the rejection of claims from the last office action and said rejections are withdrawn, but applicant’s amendment necessitated a new search and consideration resulting in a new grounds of rejections for claims 1 – 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103. The examiner here now responds to each argument. Underlined text indicates claim language that was amended since the last office action.
In regard to claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 15, the applicant argues that the prior art combination of Stock894 and Stock751 fails to teach, anticipate or suggest:
“ the craftsman device which is configured for coupling with the token in such a way that use of the craftsman device coupled with the token by a user is allowed, set and/or prevented based on the personalized authorization profile;
wherein the craftsman device comprises a second memory means for storing the authorization profile, wherein the second memory means can be coupled to the token in a communicable manner in order to store the authorization profile in the second memory means by means of the token and/or to download it from the second memory means by means of the token.” (as recited for claim 1)
The applicant states:
“ . . . Stock894 appears to disclose a system where a user of a handheld device can be
authorized by means of wireless data transmission. According to claim 5 and Figures 6
and 9 of Stock894, individual body data of the user is recorded with a sensor unit 36a of
an electronic authorization device 20a for identifying the user, and the individual body
data is transmitted by the sensor unit to an evaluation unit 16a. The components are part of a wristband 20a, which the Examiner considers as a token.
Fig. 9 of Stock894 also shows a commercially available hand drill 14a and a
commercially available hand grinder 136a. There is no direct interaction for control-related interaction between the wristband 20a and the hand tools 14a, 136a shown. The hand tools 14a, 136a shown there do not have a storage device, nor are they intended to be upgraded with such a storage device.
Consequently, Stock894 does not disclose any craftsman's equipment with a
craftsman's tool 14a, 136a that is designed to be coupled with the token 20a in such a
way that use of the craftsman's tool 14a, 136a coupled with the token 20a by the user is
allowed, set, and/or prevented based on a personalized authorization profile as claimed.
The craftsman's device 14a, 136a also does not have a second storage device for storing
an authorization profile, whereby the second storage device should be capable of being
coupled to the token 20a in a communicable manner in order to store the authorization
profile in the second storage device and/or download it from the second storage device
by means of the token 20a as claimed.
Stock751 has basically the same content as Stock894 and therefore does not
disclose the deficiencies of Stock894 and therefore the invention of amended claim 1 is
novel and non-obvious in view of the cited references. . . “ (Applicant’s remarks pages 7 – 8)
In response to applicant’s argument:
The applicant amended independent claim 1 to be a system claim comprising a token element and a craftsman device, and added limitations for the craftsman device including a second memory means for storing the authorization profile. Upon review of applicant’s arguments pertaining to the existing prior art not teaching the added requirements of the claimed craftsman device , the applicant’s arguments were persuasive to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as being unpatentable over Stock894 and Stock751, but the applicant’s amendments triggered a new grounds of rejection that discovered new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and said claims are therein rejected as being unpatentable over Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0177894 A1; herein referred to as Stock894) in view of Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0173751 A1; herein referred to as Stock751) in further view of Zalewski et al. (U.S. 11381271 B1; herein referred to as Zalewski) in further view of Horie et al. (U.S. 2019/0258797 A1; herein referred to as Horie). The new prior art Zalewski and Horie is analogous art that couple security type devices that function as tokens to control the operation of craftsman devices / power tools through authentication from the security device. When combined with the prior art of Stock894 and Stock751, Zalewski and Horie teach the amended claim as shown:
Zalewski teaches
the craftsman device (e.g. power tool) which is configured for coupling with the token (e.g. WCC) (see Fig. 17 Col 23: Lines 34 -40 “ . . . a WCC device can be integrated into a tool, powered or not powered. In powered AC tool, a hot WCC switch can be coupled to ON/OFF trigger of the power tool, to allow simple wireless tracking and transmission of real-time power tool status, useful for example, to integrate into workplace safety and worker productivity tracking systems. In one embodiment, it is possible to log the time of tool operation. . . .”) in such a way that use of the craftsman device coupled with the token by a user is allowed, set and/or prevented based on the personalized authorization profile (e.g. user authentication data) (Col 24: Lines 27 – 39 “ . . . t, a WCC device is an authentication system for securely accessing systems. In simple authentication, a WCC device can be a portable password storage device. For example, a WCC key fob may be configured with user authentication data and, upon manual activation of its power pump, transmit the user authentication data to a wireless USB receiver configured to operate as a PID keyboard. In this example, a user may operate their keyboard as normally but when needing to enter a password, they can simply click the WCC authenticator and it transmits the user authentication data which is injected into the keyboard input channel just as if the user typed it in using the keyboard. . . .”) ;
Horie teaches
wherein the craftsman device comprises a second memory means for storing the authorization profile (see Fig. 4 abstract “ . . . A power tool comprises a main power tool unit, and a battery pack 4 which can be attached to and removed from the main power tool unit. The main power tool unit and the battery pack each have a storage means for storing at least one authentication code and a communication means for transmitting and receiving the authentication code, and permit use when an authentication code received via the communication means matches at least one of the authentication codes stored in the storage means, and do not permit use when said authentication code does not match any of the authentication codes. The authentication code is set by a management device which is an external device. . . “) , wherein the second memory means can be coupled to the token (e.g. management device) in a communicable manner in order to store the authorization profile (e.g. authentication information) in the second memory means by means of the token and/or to download it from the second memory means by means of the token (see Fig. 8 ¶¶ [0071-0072] “ . . . he CPU of the management device 1 starts up a management application in response to a user's start-up operation (S100). The management device 1 (CPU) searches for a tool to be connected (the power tool main body 3 or the battery pack 4) within a wireless communicable range, and performs a connection process (S102) when there is a tool to be connected (S101, Y). Meanwhile, description has been given on the assumption that the connected tool is the battery pack 4 as an example, but the power tool main body 3 or both of them may be connected. The management device 1 receives a state signal from the connected tool (S103). Here, the state signal is a signal indicating whether or not the use of the tool to be connected can be permitted. For example, whether or not the use of the tool was permitted in the past (at the time of previous use) is stored in the memory 45a of the tool (the memory 35a in a case where the connected tool is the power tool main body 3), and the stored information is received as a state signal. For example, when a use permission OK button is operated in steps S105 and S106 to be described later, the setting of a use permission OK state is stored in the memory 45a as a state signal. On the other hand, when a use permission NG button is operated in steps S105 and S106, the setting of a use permission NG state is stored in the memory 45a as a state signal. In addition, the state signal may be set to be an authentication code of the battery pack 4 serving as an object to be connected to the management device 1 (an authentication code of the power tool main body 3). Here, the process of step S103 and the subsequent processes may be performed even when a manager code of the tool does not match the manager code which is set for the management application (even when the tool does not have a manager code). Alternatively, although not shown in the drawing, in a case where the manager code of the tool matches the manager code which is set for the management application (a manager code specified by authentication information input to the management application) (corresponding to Y of S81 in FIG. 7), the subsequent processes may be performed. In the former case, an old type to be described later can be used, and thus usability can be improved. In the latter case, use can be limited to only a new type to be described later, and thus a theft prevention suppression effect can be obtained. The management device 1 determines whether or not the tool can be used, on the basis of the state signal received from the tool to be connected (battery pack 4) (S104). Meanwhile, the state signal may be set to be an authentication code. In this case, it is determined whether or not the authentication code stored in the storage unit (not shown) of the management device 1, that is, the authentication code registered by the management device 1 in the past and the authentication code received from the tool match each other (whether or not the authentication code is stored in the management device 1). . . “).
The applicant is referenced to the rejections described below.
Therein the rejections for the amended claim set comprise:
Claims 1 – 10 and 14 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0177894 A1; herein referred to as Stock894) in view of Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0173751 A1; herein referred to as Stock751) in further view of Zalewski et al. (U.S. 11381271 B1; herein referred to as Zalewski) in further view of Horie et al. (U.S. 2019/0258797 A1; herein referred to as Horie).
Claims 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0177894 A1; herein referred to as Stock894) in view of Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0173751 A1; herein referred to as Stock751) in further view of Zalewski et al. (U.S. 11381271 B1; herein referred to as Zalewski) in further view of Horie et al. (U.S. 2019/0258797 A1; herein referred to as Horie) as applied to claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 15 in further view of Hoossainy et al. (U.S. 2019/0043292 A1; herein referred to as Hoossainy).
The examiner recommends that the applicant review the specification for disclosure that if integrated into the independent claims would distinguish the amended claims from the cited prior art. The applicant is invited to contact the examiner for an interview to discuss how to move the prosecution forward.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Priority
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT application No. PCT/EP2022/071158 filed on 7/28/2022 with a 371 ( c) (1) date of 2/28/2024. The instant application claims foreign application priority to European Application No. 21290054.2 filed on August 31, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copy of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such the applicant is entitled to a priority date of 8/312021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final office action on 09/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations and claim elements are:
an identification means – claims 1, 3, 4, 5
first memory means – claims 1, 2
second memory means – claims 1
Communication means – claims 3, 14
Detection means – claim 10
Mechanical coupling means – claims 11, 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 – 12 and 14 – 15 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: (Fig.1 pages 24 – 36).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Double Patenting Analysis
The applicant has filed applications 18/687766 and 18/687789 which are co-pending with the instant application and names the assignee in common, and is directed to similar subject matter as the instant application. At this time of examination, the instant application appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the co-pending applications. Therein, no non-statutory Double Patenting rejections have been applied. The applicant is required to maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications during prosecution, as the Double Patenting analysis can be revisited if the claims of the instant application and the co-pending application converge to claiming the same subject matter. The applicant may wish to proactively file a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) to overcome possible future Double Patenting rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because it is structured as an independent method embodiment claim but it references elements of independent claim 1 which is a system embodiment. Claim 15 would be improved if references to claim 1 were removed and any elements required for the method claim be explicitly recited. Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC § 101 Analysis – Judicial Exception
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter and are not rejected under 35 USC 101 because of a judicial exception. The claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application under prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis as documented in MPEP 2016.04(d). The claims are directed to non-abstract improvements in computer related technology. A claim is non-statutory when it is directed to a judicial exception (e.g. either one of mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) without significantly more. The claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception. Instead, the claimed invention is directed to a technological improvement for operation of a craftsman device where a token is created for user-related control of a craftsman device, the token comprising a processor configured for control-related interaction with the craftsman device, and the processor executing logic to identify a user of the token, and processing stored information, which are indicative of a personalized authorization profile of the user in relation to the craftsman device or allow access to the authorization profile, the processor being configured to allow, set and/or prevent use of the craftsman device by the user on the basis of the personalized authorization profile when the token is coupled to the craftsman device. The ordered combination of the limitations in the claims provide a necessary and useful improvement for enabling safer operation of a craftsman device through the coupling of a computerized token that can authenticate a user of the device and prevent unauthorized users from operating the craftsman device. Therein the claims are statutory under 35 USC 101.
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 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 of this title, 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 – 10 and 14 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0177894 A1; herein referred to as Stock894) in view of Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0173751 A1; herein referred to as Stock751) in further view of Zalewski et al. (U.S. 11381271 B1; herein referred to as Zalewski) in further view of Horie et al. (U.S. 2019/0258797 A1; herein referred to as Horie).
In regard to claim 1, Stock894 teaches a system comprising (see ¶ [0030] “ . . . An object system is also proposed, with at least one object, in particular a machine, in particular a hand-held power tool, and with at least one electronic authorization device according to the disclosure. In this way, unauthorized use of the object system can be avoided. An object system that can be operated particularly safely can be provided. . . .”): a token (e.g. electronic authorization device) for user-related control of a craftsman device (e.g. hand-held power took aka object), the token (see abstract – “ . . . A method is proposed for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information . . .” see ¶ [0003] “ . . . A method is proposed for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information, at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information . . .” see Fig. 13, ¶ [0099] “ . . . the authorization device 20c has a housing 166c, in which the evaluation unit 16c is arranged. The housing 166c is for example formed in the form of a key card or in some other form that appears suitable to a person skilled in the art, for example in the form of a token. . . .”); comprising:
a processor which is configured for control-related interaction with the craftsman device (e.g. object) (see ¶ [0005] “ . . . An “object” is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular a technical device, for example a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle, or an implement, such as for example a machine, a hand-held power tool, a garden implement, a measuring instrument, a ladder or a container, such as for example a machine case or a material cupboard. A “hand-held power tool” is intended to be understood as meaning in particular a workpiece-machining tool, advantageously however a power drill, a hammer drill and/or percussion hammer, a saw, a plane, a screwdriver, a milling cutter, a grinder, an angle grinder, a garden implement and/or a multifunctional tool. An “evaluation unit” is intended to be understood as meaning in particular a unit with an information input, information processing and an information output. The evaluation unit advantageously has at least one processor, a memory, input and output means, other electrical components, an operating program, closed-loop control routines, open-loop control routines and/or calculation routines. The components of the computing unit are preferably arranged on a common printed circuit board and/or advantageously in a common housing . . . “) ;
an identification means configured to identify a user of the token (see ¶ [0005] “ . . . An item of information “relating” to an article or a person is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular an item of information that identifies the article or the person more specifically, comprises at least one characteristic of the article or the person and/or quantifies a descriptive variable of the article and/or the person. It is conceivable that the authorization information is formed as a bivalent item of information, which enables or disables use of the at least one object by the user. It is conceivable that the authorization information is complex and is formed for example as a keycode or is determined on the basis of a keycode, which preferably comprises a daily-updated part and a further part relating to a user. . . .”); and
a first memory means (e.g. evaluation unit) with stored information (e.g. authorization information) indicative of or allowing access to a personalized authorization profile (e.g. authorization data) of the user with respect to the craftsman device (see ¶ [0008] “. . . , the at least one evaluation unit reads in, erases, activates and/or deactivates authorization data in dependence on a state and/or in dependence on a change in state of the fastening unit. This allows a large number of authorization data to be used. A particularly efficient process for using authorization data can be achieved. A “change in state” of the fastening unit is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular a transition from a closed state into an open state or from an open state into a closed state. It is conceivable that the evaluation unit reads in, erases, activates and/or deactivates authorization data in dependence on a user input. For example, in a fixed time interval after the closing of the fastening unit, the evaluation unit expects the user to identify himself or herself, and/or it reads in authorization data, such as for example qualifications of the user, data on a work order and/or clearances for certain job sites, for example areas of a building. It is conceivable that the data are read in in a multistage process. For example, data on a work order include details of a working area, and, in a subsequent step, the evaluation unit reads in authorization data for the working area. . . .”; see ¶ [0025] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit exchanges data with at least one authorization database. This allows particularly reliable management of authorization data to be achieved. Data consistency can be achieved in an easy way. An “authorization database” is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular a database with authorization data, such as for example data on the level of training of the user, data on an assignment of the object and/or of the user to a use and/or to a work order, data on a necessity for personal protective equipment relating to the object and/or a spatial working area, data on use of an area or a room, access authorizations for areas of a building and/or of a site, data on a necessity for personal protective equipment relating to a use, to a work order and/or to the at least one object, data on movement patterns for a comparison with sensed data. It is conceivable that the evaluation unit and the authorization database exchange data via a network and/or via a cloud . . .”) ;
wherein the processor (see ¶ [0079] “ . . .the evaluation unit 16a comprises a memory element 168a and a processor element 172a. It is conceivable that the evaluation unit 16a has a plurality of memory elements and/or a plurality of processor elements . . .”) is configured to allow, set and/or prevent use of the craftsman devices by the user based on the personalized authorization profile (see ¶ [0029] “ . . . An electronic authorization device is also proposed, in particular for carrying out a method according to the disclosure, with at least one evaluation unit, for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, and in particular with at least one fastening unit for fastening to an extremity of a user, the at least one evaluation unit being intended for providing an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information. In this way, an authorization unit that is particularly reliable and/or can be used particularly flexibly can be provided. Particularly safe operation of the object, in particular the hand-held power tool, can be achieved . . . “)
Stock894 fails to explicitly teach when the token is coupled to the craftsman device, as Stock only requires connectivity via wireless communications between the token and the craftsman device. However Stock751 teaches when the token is coupled to the craftsman device (see ¶ [0005] “ . . . It is conceivable for the data processing device to be connected, in a coupling step, to the at least one hand-held power tool. It is conceivable for the data processing device, in the coupling step, to check and/or manage an authorization of the user for the at least one hand-held power tool. . . .”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method for operating a power tool in conjunction with a separate data processing device that can be coupled to the power tool to affect its operation, as taught by Stock751 into a system and method for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information, as taught by Stock894. Such incorporation provides that the authorization device can be mechanically connected to the power tool.
The combination of Stock894 and Stock751 fails to explicitly teach,
However Zalewski teaches and
the craftsman device (e.g. power tool) which is configured for coupling with the token (e.g. WCC) (see Fig. 17 Col 23: Lines 34 -40 “ . . . a WCC device can be integrated into a tool, powered or not powered. In powered AC tool, a hot WCC switch can be coupled to ON/OFF trigger of the power tool, to allow simple wireless tracking and transmission of real-time power tool status, useful for example, to integrate into workplace safety and worker productivity tracking systems. In one embodiment, it is possible to log the time of tool operation. . . .”) in such a way that use of the craftsman device coupled with the token by a user is allowed, set and/or prevented based on the personalized authorization profile (e.g. user authentication data) (Col 24: Lines 27 – 39 “ . . . t, a WCC device is an authentication system for securely accessing systems. In simple authentication, a WCC device can be a portable password storage device. For example, a WCC key fob may be configured with user authentication data and, upon manual activation of its power pump, transmit the user authentication data to a wireless USB receiver configured to operate as a PID keyboard. In this example, a user may operate their keyboard as normally but when needing to enter a password, they can simply click the WCC authenticator and it transmits the user authentication data which is injected into the keyboard input channel just as if the user typed it in using the keyboard. . . .”) ;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method that utilizes a wireless communication device that can transfer authentication information for operation into a craftsman device so that operation of the craftsman device is controlled by the authentication, as taught by Zalewski, into a system and method for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information, and a separate control device coupled to the power tool, as taught by the combination of Stock894 and Stock751. Such incorporation enables that authorization information of the tool can be transferred or downloaded.
The combination of Stock894, Stock751, and Zalewski fails to explicitly teach,
However Horie teaches wherein the craftsman device comprises a second memory means for storing the authorization profile (see Fig. 4 abstract “ . . . A power tool comprises a main power tool unit, and a battery pack 4 which can be attached to and removed from the main power tool unit. The main power tool unit and the battery pack each have a storage means for storing at least one authentication code and a communication means for transmitting and receiving the authentication code, and permit use when an authentication code received via the communication means matches at least one of the authentication codes stored in the storage means, and do not permit use when said authentication code does not match any of the authentication codes. The authentication code is set by a management device which is an external device. . . “) , wherein the second memory means can be coupled to the token (e.g. management device) in a communicable manner in order to store the authorization profile (e.g. authentication information) in the second memory means by means of the token and/or to download it from the second memory means by means of the token (see Fig. 8 ¶¶ [0071-0072] “ . . . he CPU of the management device 1 starts up a management application in response to a user's start-up operation (S100). The management device 1 (CPU) searches for a tool to be connected (the power tool main body 3 or the battery pack 4) within a wireless communicable range, and performs a connection process (S102) when there is a tool to be connected (S101, Y). Meanwhile, description has been given on the assumption that the connected tool is the battery pack 4 as an example, but the power tool main body 3 or both of them may be connected. The management device 1 receives a state signal from the connected tool (S103). Here, the state signal is a signal indicating whether or not the use of the tool to be connected can be permitted. For example, whether or not the use of the tool was permitted in the past (at the time of previous use) is stored in the memory 45a of the tool (the memory 35a in a case where the connected tool is the power tool main body 3), and the stored information is received as a state signal. For example, when a use permission OK button is operated in steps S105 and S106 to be described later, the setting of a use permission OK state is stored in the memory 45a as a state signal. On the other hand, when a use permission NG button is operated in steps S105 and S106, the setting of a use permission NG state is stored in the memory 45a as a state signal. In addition, the state signal may be set to be an authentication code of the battery pack 4 serving as an object to be connected to the management device 1 (an authentication code of the power tool main body 3). Here, the process of step S103 and the subsequent processes may be performed even when a manager code of the tool does not match the manager code which is set for the management application (even when the tool does not have a manager code). Alternatively, although not shown in the drawing, in a case where the manager code of the tool matches the manager code which is set for the management application (a manager code specified by authentication information input to the management application) (corresponding to Y of S81 in FIG. 7), the subsequent processes may be performed. In the former case, an old type to be described later can be used, and thus usability can be improved. In the latter case, use can be limited to only a new type to be described later, and thus a theft prevention suppression effect can be obtained. The management device 1 determines whether or not the tool can be used, on the basis of the state signal received from the tool to be connected (battery pack 4) (S104). Meanwhile, the state signal may be set to be an authentication code. In this case, it is determined whether or not the authentication code stored in the storage unit (not shown) of the management device 1, that is, the authentication code registered by the management device 1 in the past and the authentication code received from the tool match each other (whether or not the authentication code is stored in the management device 1). . . “).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method capable of providing a theft prevention function for a power tool and battery pack which each have a storage means for storing at least one authentication code and a communication means for transmitting and receiving the authentication code, and permit use when an authentication code received via the communication means matches at least one of the authentication codes stored in the storage means, and do not permit use when said authentication code does not match any of the authentication codes, as taught by Horie, into a system and method for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information, and a separate control device coupled to the power tool, and the control device can transfer authentication information for operation into a craftsman device so that operation of the craftsman device is controlled by the authentication as taught by the combination of Stock894, Stock751 and Zalewski Such incorporation provides that authentication information can be stored and updated in a memory pf the craftsman device.
In regard to claim 2, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the authorization profile of the user is stored in the first memory mean (see Stock894 ¶ [0073] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit 16a exchanges data with at least one authorization database. The evaluation unit 16a reads out the use-related authorization data from the authorization database. For example, the evaluation unit 16a exchanges with the authorization database authorization data relating to the user, relating to the work order, relating to a spatial working area and/or relating to an item of personal protective equipment 52a. For example, the evaluation unit 16a reads out from the authorization database education data of the user, schedules, access authorization data, movement patterns and/or permission to use data. In the present scenario, the evaluation unit 16a exchanges data with the authorization database via a network . . .”)
In regard to claim 3, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the token comprises communication means configured to communicate by means of a communication network for obtaining the authorization profile of the user identified by the identification means using the access allowing information (see Stock894 ¶ [0070] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit 16a wirelessly exchanges data with the at least one object 10a. The evaluation unit 16a transmits the authorization information wirelessly to the object 10a. The evaluation unit 16a transmits the authorization information to the object 10a by means of a wireless communication interface 134a, which is intended for a data exchange corresponding to a standard for a data transmission, for example corresponding to the Bluetooth standard, corresponding to the Wi-Fi Direct standard and/or corresponding to some other standard that appears suitable to a person skilled in the art. . . “).
In regard to claim 4, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the identification means comprises a user-identifying sensor, in particular a fingerprint sensor or a face recognition sensor (see Stock894 ¶ [0009] “ . . . at least one sensor unit of the authorization device senses data, in particular individual body data, of the user for an identification of the user and transmits the data to the at least one evaluation unit. This allows a user to be identified particularly reliably, conveniently and/or efficiently. In particular, the at least one sensor unit is connected in signaling terms to the evaluation unit. The fastening unit preferably has a housing, in which the at least one sensor unit is arranged. It is conceivable that the at least one sensor unit is arranged on an item of personal protective equipment. For example, the at least one sensor unit has an optical skin scanning unit, an infrared skin scanning unit, a body odor sensor, a DNA analysis unit and/or a face recognition unit. In particular, the evaluation unit provides the authorization information at least in dependence on the value sensed by the sensor unit . . .”).
In regard to claim 5, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the processor is configured to compare a user identity determined by means of the identification means with the authorization profile(see Stock894 ¶ [0055] “ . . . The evaluation unit 16a receives data sensed by the sensor unit 32a for sensing user data and evaluates them. The evaluation unit 16a identifies the user by means of the data sensed by the sensor unit 32a, for example the evaluation unit 16a compares the data sensed by the sensor unit 32a with data stored in the evaluation unit 16a and/or with data read in. In the present scenario, in the at least one method step 40a, the evaluation unit 16a determines the authorization information in dependence on the identification of the user. The method step 40a forms the evaluation step 102a or the evaluation unit 16a performs the method step 40a as a substep of the evaluation step 102a. . . .”) and, based thereon, to control whether the use of the craftsman device by the user is allowed or prevented and/or how the use is set (see Stock894 ¶ [0074] “ . . . the evaluation unit 16a transmits an item of information, in particular the authorization information, for an output to a user to at least one output unit 76a. In the present exemplary embodiment, the output unit 76a is arranged on the fastening unit 26a. It is conceivable that the output unit 76a is formed separately from the fastening unit 26a and is for example arranged on the object 10a. The output unit 76a outputs the authorization information determined by the evaluation unit 16a to the user. It is conceivable that the output unit 76a outputs to the user further information concerning use, for example information concerning authorization data that prevent enabling of the object 12a for the user. The output device 76a outputs for example an item of output information concerning an access authorization, a permission to use something, required training and/or a state of the personal protective equipment 52a. In the present exemplary embodiment, the display 156a of the output unit 76a presents the output information, for example by means of at least one text output by means of symbols or in some other way that appears suitable to a person skilled in the art . . .”).
In regard to claim 6, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the personalized authorization profile comprises at least one piece of information from a group consisting of a usage prohibition related to a user qualification and/or to a physical or biological user characteristic for at least one defined operating mode of the craftsman device, a user-specific usage permission for at least one defined operating mode of the craftsman device, and a work safety-related usage condition for the use of the craftsman device (see Stock894 ¶ [0016] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit provides the authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of information relating to an item of personal protective equipment. In this way, a comprehensive safety concept can be put into practice. The personal safety equipment preferably comprises at least one item of protective clothing, goggles, a helmet, ear defenders, gloves, a respirator unit, shoes and/or further elements that appear appropriate to a person skilled in the art. For example, the information relating to the personal protective equipment comprises an item of information concerning its condition, age, completeness, information concerning a connection of elements of the protective equipment and/or any further information that appears appropriate to a person skilled in the art. . . “;see Stock894 ¶ [0100] “ . . . at least one sensor unit senses data, in particular individual body data, of the user for an identification of the user and transmits the data to the evaluation unit 16c. It is also conceivable that the evaluation unit 16c identifies the user on the basis of input data, for example a keyword or a code. It is also conceivable that a sensor unit senses an identification document and/or authorization document, for example an identity card and/or a driver's license, whereby the user can be identified, and/or whereby a characteristic of the user, such as for example an age and/or a qualification, can be established. . . “see Stock751 ¶ [0008] “ . . . the data processing device defines at least one user-specific processing parameter, in particular a weighting parameter. This enables the method to be adapted to the user in a particularly flexible manner Preferably, the processing parameter is derived from a characteristic of the user, such as, for example, handedness, body mass, body size, age, training level, or other quantity considered appropriate by persons skilled in the art. . . “see Stock751 ¶ [0009] “ . . . It is conceivable for the data processing device to initiate measures for protection of the user in dependence on a processing result and, for example, to generate a warning signal and transmit it to the output unit, to a safety system and/or to a warning system, and/or to block the hand-held power tool for the user. . . “;see Stock751 ¶ [0031] “ . . . the data processing device 14a defines at least one user-specific processing parameter. In the present exemplary embodiment, the data processing device 14a defines a weighting parameter. The data processing device 14a determines the burden quantity as a function of the application quantity and of the processing parameter. The processing parameter is composed of physical characteristics of the user. In the present exemplary embodiment, the processing parameter includes a body mass and a body size of the user. . . “).
The motivation to combine Stock751 with Stock894 is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein. Additionally, Stock751 can process user characteristics to prohibit operation of the device because of physical capabilities of the user.
In regard to claim 7, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the processor is configured to allow or prevent a download of a data set, in particular a data set defining an operation sequence of the craftsman device, from a communication network upon coupling with the craftsman device based on the personalized authorization profile (see Stock894 ¶ [0071] “ . . . the evaluation unit 16a wirelessly exchanges data with at least one further object 12a. In the present scenario, the further object 12a is formed as a machine accessory container. It is conceivable that the further object 12a is formed as some other container, for example for keeping other working aids, or as a further machine, for example a further hand-held power tool. The evaluation unit 16a determines an item of authorization information that indicates whether the further object 12a may be used in the use assessed by the authorization device 20a. The authorization information indicates whether the further object 12a may be used by the user in the use assessed by the authorization device 20a. . .”).
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the processor is configured to enable operation of the craftsman device coupled to the token only if a user identification carried out in advance by means of the token has led to the result that an identifying user is authorized to operate the craftsman device (see Stock894 ¶ [0014] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit actively adapts the authorization information to a changed access authorization of the user in relation to the spatial working area and/or to a changed permission to use the at least one object in the spatial working area. This allows a particularly flexible safety concept to be achieved. Particularly efficient working processes can be achieved. The evaluation unit preferably adapts the authorization information repeatedly, preferably regularly, particularly preferably periodically, to the changed access authorization of the user in relation to the spatial working area and/or to the changed permission to use the at least one object in the spatial working area. The evaluation unit preferably requests the data on the changed access authorization of the user in relation to the spatial working area and/or in relation to the changed permission to use the at least one object in the spatial working area repeatedly, preferably regularly, particularly preferably periodically. . . “).
In regard to claim 9, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches wherein the processor is configured to allow, set and/or prevent a use of the craftsman device by the user in different ways based on the personalized authorization profile when coupling with different craftsman devices (see Stock751 ¶ [0005] “ . . . It is conceivable for a cable-bound interface of the data processing device, additionally or alternatively, to receive at least one value of the at least one application quantity from the at least one hand-held power tool. Preferably, in at least one method step, the wireless interface receives at least one value of the at least one application quantity from at least one further hand-held power tool. Preferably, the wireless interface receives values of the at least one application quantity in a regular manner, in particular periodically. It is conceivable for the receiving to be triggered upon a change of an operating mode, for example upon a switch-on or switch-off. Preferably, the at least one wireless interface is provided for exchanging data with differing hand-held power tools.
The motivation to combine Stock751 with Stock894 is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein. Additionally, Stock751 enables coupling with different craftsman devices.
In regard to claim 10, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches comprising a detection means, in particular a camera, which is configured to detect processing information indicative of a processing task to be carried out by means of the craftsman device (see Stock894 ¶ [0020] “ . . . The scanning unit is preferably arranged on the fastening unit for the evaluation unit. In an alternative configuration, the scanning unit is arranged on an infrastructure unit. In particular, the scanning unit is connected in signaling terms to the evaluation unit. A “scanning unit” is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular an optical and/or a radio scanning unit, which is for example intended to sense markings, in particular optical markings, and/or RFID tags, which are arranged on elements of the protective equipment. The scanning unit preferably comprises a camera . . . “;
wherein the processor is configured to perform the processing task using the detected processing information (see Stock894 ¶¶ [0054-0055] “ . . . in at least one method step 34a, at least one sensor unit 32a senses data, in particular individual body data, of the user for an identification of the user and transmits the data to the evaluation unit 16a. The method step 34a forms a data sensing step 110a or the data sensing step 110a has the method step 34a as a substep (cf. FIG. 4). It is conceivable that the method step 34a is omitted. In the present exemplary embodiment, the sensor unit 32a has at least one skin sensor, which in at least one operating state senses a temperature, a moistness and/or a surface structure of the skin of the user. It is conceivable that the sensor unit 32a alternatively or additionally has at least one body odor sensor, which in at least one operating state senses odors given off by the skin of the user. It is conceivable that the sensor unit 32a alternatively or additionally has further sensors deemed appropriate by a person skilled in the art, for example a camera for face recognition and/or sensors for sensing data for a DNA analysis. The evaluation unit 16a receives data sensed by the sensor unit 32a for sensing user data and evaluates them. The evaluation unit 16a identifies the user by means of the data sensed by the sensor unit 32a, for example the evaluation unit 16a compares the data sensed by the sensor unit 32a with data stored in the evaluation unit 16a and/or with data read in. In the present scenario, in the at least one method step 40a, the evaluation unit 16a determines the authorization information in dependence on the identification of the user . . .”).
In regard to claim 14, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie teaches comprising at least one of the following features: wherein the craftsman device is configured as an electric hand-held tool, in particular from a group consisting of a drill, a cordless screwdriver, a cordless drill driver, a rotary screwdriver, a pulse screwdriver, a ratchet screwdriver, an impact screwdriver, in particular a cordless impact screwdriver, a hammer drill, a corded hand-held tool and a compressed air-operated hand-held tool (see Stock894 ¶ [0005] “ . . . An “object” is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular a technical device, for example a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle, or an implement, such as for example a machine, a hand-held power tool, a garden implement, a measuring instrument, a ladder or a container, such as for example a machine case or a material cupboard. A “hand-held power tool” is intended to be understood as meaning in particular a workpiece-machining tool, advantageously however a power drill, a hammer drill and/or percussion hammer, a saw, a plane, a screwdriver, a milling cutter, a grinder, an angle grinder, a garden implement and/or a multifunctional tool. . .”);
comprising a plurality of craftsman devices, at least some of which are configured to interact with the token, wherein in particular the craftsman devices comprise at least two different elements from a group consisting of an electrical hand-held tool, a tool or a tool set, a storage system, a consumable (see Stock751 ¶ [0003] “ . . . A “hand-held power tool” in this context is to be understood to mean, in particular, a machine for performing work on workpieces, but advantageously a power drill, a hammer drill and/or percussion hammer, a battery-powered screwdriver, a battery-powered drill, a saw, a plane, a screwdriver, a router, a sander, an angle grinder, a garden appliance and/or a multifunction tool . . .”), and a vehicle (see Stock894 ¶ [0103] “ . . . the electronic closing unit 136c sets use parameters in dependence on an identification of the user and/or in dependence on characteristics of the user, such as for example in dependence on a qualification and/or an age. In the present exemplary embodiment, the closing unit 136c sets a maximum output of a drive unit of the motor vehicle and/or a maximum speed of the motor vehicle. The closing unit 136c is connected in signaling terms to an open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit of the motor vehicle. It is conceivable that the closing unit 136c is integrated in the open-loop and/or closed-loop control unit of the motor vehicle . . .”);
wherein the processor is configured to allow use of the craftsman device by the user only when the user has verified that he is wearing a work protection means prescribed for use of the craftsman device (see Stock894 ¶ [0016] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit provides the authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of information relating to an item of personal protective equipment. In this way, a comprehensive safety concept can be put into practice. The personal safety equipment preferably comprises at least one item of protective clothing, goggles, a helmet, ear defenders, gloves, a respirator unit, shoes and/or further elements that appear appropriate to a person skilled in the art. For example, the information relating to the personal protective equipment comprises an item of information concerning its condition, age, completeness, information concerning a connection of elements of the protective equipment and/or any further information that appears appropriate to a person skilled in the art. . . “) , in particular by means of the token(see Stock894 ¶ [0017] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit provides the authorization information in dependence on a necessity for the personal protective equipment for using the at least one object and/or in dependence on a necessity for the personal protective equipment for at least one spatial working area. As a result, safety-relevant information can be linked together in a particularly advantageous way. The necessity for personal protective equipment for using the at least one object is preferably dependent on an assessment of the potential danger of the at least one object. In particular, the necessity for the personal protective equipment for the at least one spatial working area is dependent on an assessment of the potential danger of the at least one spatial working area . . “), wherein in particular the processor is configured to recognize the work protection means by sensors (see Stock894 ¶¶ [0054-0055] “ . . . in at least one method step 34a, at least one sensor unit 32a senses data, in particular individual body data, of the user for an identification of the user and transmits the data to the evaluation unit 16a. The method step 34a forms a data sensing step 110a or the data sensing step 110a has the method step 34a as a substep (cf. FIG. 4). It is conceivable that the method step 34a is omitted. In the present exemplary embodiment, the sensor unit 32a has at least one skin sensor, which in at least one operating state senses a temperature, a moistness and/or a surface structure of the skin of the user. It is conceivable that the sensor unit 32a alternatively or additionally has at least one body odor sensor, which in at least one operating state senses odors given off by the skin of the user. It is conceivable that the sensor unit 32a alternatively or additionally has further sensors deemed appropriate by a person skilled in the art, for example a camera for face recognition and/or sensors for sensing data for a DNA analysis. The evaluation unit 16a receives data sensed by the sensor unit 32a for sensing user data and evaluates them. The evaluation unit 16a identifies the user by means of the data sensed by the sensor unit 32a, for example the evaluation unit 16a compares the data sensed by the sensor unit 32a with data stored in the evaluation unit 16a and/or with data read in. In the present scenario, in the at least one method step 40a, the evaluation unit 16a determines the authorization information in dependence on the identification of the user. The method step 40a forms the evaluation step 102a or the evaluation unit 16a performs the method step 40a as a substep of the evaluation step 102a . . .”), in particular by means of a camera of the token (see Stock894 ¶ [0020] (“ . . . at least one scanning unit of the authorization device senses an arrangement of the personal protective equipment. This allows an arrangement of the personal protective equipment to be sensed in a way that is particularly convenient for a user. The scanning unit is preferably arranged on the fastening unit for the evaluation unit. In an alternative configuration, the scanning unit is arranged on an infrastructure unit. In particular, the scanning unit is connected in signaling terms to the evaluation unit. A “scanning unit” is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular an optical and/or a radio scanning unit, which is for example intended to sense markings, in particular optical markings, and/or RFID tags, which are arranged on elements of the protective equipment. The scanning unit preferably comprises a camera. . . “) and/or the craftsman device and/or by means of communication with a communication means (see Stock894 ¶ [0021] “ . . . the at least one sensor unit senses a state of use of the personal protective equipment and/or a movement carried out with the personal protective equipment and transmits it to the at least one evaluation unit. This advantageously allows preparation for work to be used for checking the personal protective equipment. For example, the sensor unit senses an operation in which the personal protective equipment is put on. The sensor unit is preferably arranged on the personal protective equipment and senses directly whether the personal protective equipment is being worn, and comprises for example at least one contact sensor, a heat sensor, an acceleration sensor and/or some other sensor that appears appropriate to a person skilled in the art. In particular, the sensor unit is intended for wireless communication with the evaluation unit. or a token of the work protection means(see Stock894 ¶ [0022] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit evaluates the movement carried out with the personal protective equipment. This allows a state of use of the personal protective equipment to be checked continuously and/or particularly reliably. The evaluation unit is preferably intended for a comparison of movements carried out with the personal protective equipment with movement patterns stored in the evaluation unit and/or in a database . ..”) ;
wherein operation of the craftsman device without coupling with the token is prevented (see Stock751 ¶ [0005] “ . . . It is conceivable for a cable-bound interface of the data processing device, additionally or alternatively, to receive at least one value of the at least one application quantity from the at least one hand-held power tool. Preferably, in at least one method step, the wireless interface receives at least one value of the at least one application quantity from at least one further hand-held power tool. Preferably, the wireless interface receives values of the at least one application quantity in a regular manner, in particular periodically. It is conceivable for the receiving to be triggered upon a change of an operating mode, for example upon a switch-on or switch-off. Preferably, the at least one wireless interface is provided for exchanging data with differing hand-held power tools.
The motivation to combine Stock751 with Stock894 is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein. Additionally, Stock751 enables coupling with different craftsman devices.
In regard to claim 15, Stock894 teaches A method for user-based control of the craftsman device by means of the token of the system“ . . . A method is proposed for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information . . .” see ¶ [0003] “ . . . A method is proposed for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information, at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information . . .” see Fig. 13, ¶ [0099] “ . . . the authorization device 20c has a housing 166c, in which the evaluation unit 16c is arranged. The housing 166c is for example formed in the form of a key card or in some other form that appears suitable to a person skilled in the art, for example in the form of a token. . . .”); , wherein the method comprises:
identifying a user of the token (see ¶ [0005] “ . . . An item of information “relating” to an article or a person is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular an item of information that identifies the article or the person more specifically, comprises at least one characteristic of the article or the person and/or quantifies a descriptive variable of the article and/or the person. It is conceivable that the authorization information is formed as a bivalent item of information, which enables or disables use of the at least one object by the user. It is conceivable that the authorization information is complex and is formed for example as a keycode or is determined on the basis of a keycode, which preferably comprises a daily-updated part and a further part relating to a user. . . .”) ;
finding a personalized authorization profile of the user of the token (see ¶ [0008] “. . . , the at least one evaluation unit reads in, erases, activates and/or deactivates authorization data in dependence on a state and/or in dependence on a change in state of the fastening unit. This allows a large number of authorization data to be used. A particularly efficient process for using authorization data can be achieved. A “change in state” of the fastening unit is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular a transition from a closed state into an open state or from an open state into a closed state. It is conceivable that the evaluation unit reads in, erases, activates and/or deactivates authorization data in dependence on a user input. For example, in a fixed time interval after the closing of the fastening unit, the evaluation unit expects the user to identify himself or herself, and/or it reads in authorization data, such as for example qualifications of the user, data on a work order and/or clearances for certain job sites, for example areas of a building. It is conceivable that the data are read in in a multistage process. For example, data on a work order include details of a working area, and, in a subsequent step, the evaluation unit reads in authorization data for the working area. . . .”; see ¶ [0025] “ . . . the at least one evaluation unit exchanges data with at least one authorization database. This allows particularly reliable management of authorization data to be achieved. Data consistency can be achieved in an easy way. An “authorization database” is intended to be understood in this connection as meaning in particular a database with authorization data, such as for example data on the level of training of the user, data on an assignment of the object and/or of the user to a use and/or to a work order, data on a necessity for personal protective equipment relating to the object and/or a spatial working area, data on use of an area or a room, access authorizations for areas of a building and/or of a site, data on a necessity for personal protective equipment relating to a use, to a work order and/or to the at least one object, data on movement patterns for a comparison with sensed data. It is conceivable that the evaluation unit and the authorization database exchange data via a network and/or via a cloud . . .”); and
(see ¶ [0029] “ . . . An electronic authorization device is also proposed, in particular for carrying out a method according to the disclosure, with at least one evaluation unit, for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, and in particular with at least one fastening unit for fastening to an extremity of a user, the at least one evaluation unit being intended for providing an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information. In this way, an authorization unit that is particularly reliable and/or can be used particularly flexibly can be provided. Particularly safe operation of the object, in particular the hand-held power tool, can be achieved . . . “)
Stock894 fails to explicitly teach, but Stock751 teaches upon coupling the token with the craftsman device (see ¶ [0005] “ . . . It is conceivable for the data processing device to be connected, in a coupling step, to the at least one hand-held power tool. It is conceivable for the data processing device, in the coupling step, to check and/or manage an authorization of the user for the at least one hand-held power tool. . . .”).
The motivation to combine Stock751 with Stock894 is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
The combination of Stock894 and Stock751 fails to explicitly teach but the combination of Zalewski, and Horie teaches according to claim 1 (see Zalewski Fig. 17 Col 23: Lines 34 -40, Col 24: Lines 27 – 39; see Horie Fig. 4, abstract, Fig. 8 ¶¶ [0071-0072] as described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein).
The motivation to combine the references is described for the rejection of claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0177894 A1; herein referred to as Stock894) in view of Stock et al. (U.S. 2017/0173751 A1; herein referred to as Stock751) in further view of Zalewski et al. (U.S. 11381271 B1; herein referred to as Zalewski) in further view of Horie et al. (U.S. 2019/0258797 A1; herein referred to as Horie) as applied to claims 1 – 10 and 14 – 15 in further view of Hoossainy et al. (U.S. 2019/0043292 A1; herein referred to as Hoossainy).
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie fails to explicitly teach but Hoossainy teaches comprising a mechanical coupling means configured for mechanical coupling with different craftsman device, wherein the token (e.g. battery pack) is configured to control a craftsman device by means of the processor upon mechanical coupling of the mechanical coupling means with the craftsman device (see Fig. 14, ¶ [0071] “ . . . As shown in FIG. 14, the power tool 104 also includes a switching network 216, sensors 218, indicators 220, a battery pack interface 222, a power input unit 224, and a controller 226. The battery pack interface 222 includes a combination of mechanical (e.g., the battery pack receiving portion 206) and electrical components configured to and operable for interfacing (e.g., mechanically, electrically, and communicatively connecting) the power tool 104 with a battery pack 104b. The battery pack interface 222 transmits the power received from the battery pack 104b to the power input unit 224. The power input unit 224 includes combinations of active and passive components (e.g., voltage step-down controllers, voltage converters, rectifiers, filters, etc.) to regulate or control the power received through the battery pack interface 222 and provided to the wireless communication controller 250 and controller 226. . . “).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s application to incorporate a system and method for power tool hardware that has a compartment for receiving another device such as a separate control device that can be inserted mechanically into the compartment, as taught by Hoossainy, into a system and method into a system and method for authorizing use of at least one object, in particular at least one machine, in particular at least one hand-held power tool, in which at least one evaluation unit of an electronic authorization device provides an item of authorization information at least in dependence on at least one item of use-related information, and a separate control device coupled to the power tool, and the control device can transfer authentication information for operation into a craftsman device so that operation of the craftsman device is controlled by the authentication, and the craftsman device has a storage means for storing at least one authentication code and a communication means for transmitting and receiving the authentication code, and permit use when an authentication code received via the communication means matches at least one of the authentication codes stored in the storage means, and do not permit use when said authentication code does not match any of the authentication codes, as taught by the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie. Such incorporation enables the separate control device to have a mechanical insert into the power tool.
In regard to claim 12, the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, Horie, and Hoossainy teaches
wherein the mechanical coupling means is configured to couple the token detachably from the craftsman device (see Hoossainy Fig. 1, ¶ [0053] “ . . . FIG. 1 illustrates a communication system 100. The communication system 100 includes power tool devices 104a, 104b, 104c, and 104d, each generically referred to as the power tool 104, and an external device 108. The power tool devices 104a, 104b, 104c, 104d each include a wireless communication controller to enable wireless communication between the power tool 104 and the external device 108 while they are within a communication range of each other. Some of the power tool devices 104d include the wireless communication device integrated into the power tool device 104 such that insertion or removal of the wireless communication device is prevented. Other power tool devices 104a, 104b, 104c, however, include a compartment configured to receive the wireless communication device. The compartment allows the wireless communication device to be optionally added to the power tool 104, but prevents removal by including an irreversible lock that, once engaged with the wireless communication device, cannot be unlocked. . .”);
wherein the mechanical coupling means has an electromechanical interface, in particular a universal electromechanical interface for different craftsman devices (see Hoossainy ¶ [0105] “ . . . Because the secondary device 700 is coupled to the exterior of the housing of the power tool 104, the size and specific design of the secondary device 700 may not be as restricted as compared to when, for example, the secondary device 700 fits inside the housing of the power tool 104. Accordingly, the secondary device 700 may include additional features than those described with respect to the wireless communication device 300 and the back-up power source 252. When the secondary device 700 includes the wireless communication device 300, the external position of the secondary device 700 may increase the power and range of the wireless communication device 300 as compared to when the secondary device is enclosed within the housing of the power tool 104. For example, the secondary device 700 may include a larger back-up power source 252 and be less susceptible to electromagnetic interface from the power tool 104 with the additional spacing provided from battery terminals and electronics of the tool. Additionally, with an external mounting, the secondary device 700 may serve as a theft deterrent due to its visibility on the power tool 104. While the secondary device 700 is illustrated in FIG. 21A as being coupled to a first side 725 of the power tool 104, in some embodiments, the secondary device 700 may be coupled to a second side 730 of the power tool 104. In yet other embodiments, the power tool 104 may be coupled to more than one secondary device 700. Each secondary device 700 may include, for example, the wireless communication device 300, the back-up power source 252, a different device, or a combination thereof. The compartment receiving each secondary device may have a similar or different structure than that described for coupling with the secondary device 700. . . “);
wherein the token is configured to form a communication link, in particular a contactless or contact-based communication link, with the craftsman device when the mechanical coupling means is mechanically coupled to a craftsman device (see Hoossainy ¶ ¶ [0103-0104] “ . . . the engagement structure 710 include a hook 712, also referred to as a lock mating tooth, that is inserted into a shaft to engage with a mating tab on the power tool housing (see, e.g., the lock mating tooth 325 engaging the mating tab 330 in FIG. 6). Similar to the design described with respect to FIG. 6, the hook 712 engages with the mating tab of the power tool to provide an irreversible locking mechanism. In the illustrated embodiment, the secondary device 700 is brought into contact with the power tool 104 in a horizontal direction (e.g., in the direction of arrow 720 and perpendicular to the handle of the power tool 104). The secondary device 700 is then rotated toward the power tool 104 to engage the locking mechanism. In the illustrated embodiment, the secondary device 700 is positioned on one side of the foot of the power tool 104, does not extend below the foot of the power tool, and extends in a generally vertical manner (e.g., parallel to the handle of the power tool 104). The secondary device 700 further includes conductive data and power terminals 714 (FIG. 21C) that engage conductive data and power terminals 716 of an interface printed circuit board 718 of the power tool 104 (FIG. 21D). The interface printed circuit board 718 is fixed in the housing with the conductive data and power terminals 716 exposed to the compartment 277. When the secondary device 700 is secured to the power tool 104, the conductive data and power terminals 714 engage the conductive data and power terminals 716. The engaged terminals enable data communication between the wireless communication device 300 of the secondary devices 700 and the power tool 104 and to enable the wireless communication device 300 of the secondary device 700 to receive power from a battery pack coupled to the power tool 104. In some embodiments, the wireless communication device 300 of the secondary device 700 receives power from a battery pack coupled to the lower portion 665. The secondary device 700 may receive power from a battery pack when it is coupled to the power tool 104, and may use power from the backup battery source 252 when a battery pack is not coupled to the power tool 104. . .”).
The motivation to combine Hoossainy with the combination of Stock894, Stock751, Zalewski, and Horie is described for the rejection of claim 11 and is incorporated herein. Additionally Hoossainy describes specific mechanical coupling of the external control device with the craftsman device.
Conclusion
There are prior art made of record which are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. They are listed on the PTO-892 accompanying this action
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N FIORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9909. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 - 5 PM Mon - Fri..
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, John A. Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES N FIORILLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2444