RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 23-June-2026 with respect to application 18/941,334 filed 8-November-2024.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 9, and has added new claims 16-18.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC §103(a) as unpatentable over Forgues et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2012/0007748 A1), hereinafter Forgues, view of Gauss et al. (European Patent Application Publication # EP 1746530 A1), hereinafter Gauss.
Consider claim 1: Construction equipment, Forgues discloses controlled electro-pneumatic power tools and associated consumable items which include communication capability [Title; Abstract; 1A-B, 2; Para. 0002-0003, 0014-0018, 0021; claim 1, 21], comprising
a rotatable work tool, the electro-pneumatic power tool (8) incorporating a rotating shaft (20) [Fig. 1A; Para. 0032];
a wireless identification tag reader, wherein the tool contains a wireless communication device (40, and antenna (42)) which may be an RFID (tag) reader [Fig. 4; Para. 0035] and which may identify a consumable associated with the tool [Para. 0021]; and
a control unit, wherein the tool contains a microprocessor (88) [Fig. 7; Para. 0032, 0039],
wherein the rotatable work tool comprises a wireless identification tag configured to store data configured to be accessible via the wireless identification tag reader, wherein a consumable (52, 58) mounted on the tool comprises a tag (54) [Fig. 5-6; Para. 0036-0037],
wherein the data configured to be accessible via the reader comprises identification data to identify a specific rotatable work tool unit attached to the construction equipment; and specifically, that an identifier stored on the tag may be compares with identifiers stored in work tool memory to ensure compatibility and permission for use [Para. 0032-0034];
the specific rotatable work tool unit being one out of several work tool units of same type or specification which are attachable to the construction equipment.
Forgues discloses that stored code information may be specific to the type of consumable to which it is attached, and may be used to automatically set and maintain equipment operating parameters (such as rotation speed) to optimum setting for the particular consumable tool [Para. 0032-0034]; and further, that the equipment may “store the cumulative time of use of said consumable accessory, and means to inform said operator person that the consumable accessory may require replacement based on said parameters entered in said microcontroller.” [Claim 12]
Forgues, therefore, discloses that information obtained from an installed consumable tool is indicative of the tool type and associated operational requirements, and further suggests that the information allows the equipment unit to identify and track a specific tool (in order to track cumulative use for that tool), but does not explicitly disclose this. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Gauss discloses a device for non-contact identification of tools and units, in particular of such tools and units, which are supported in rotatable tool holders of processing machines [Title; Abstract, Fig. 1-2; Para. 0007-0009 (see corresponding English translation)] and specifically: “….information stored in the memory chip of the at least one RFID transponder is selected from the group comprising the identification number, type, dimensions, maximum rotational speed, maximum feed rate, frequency of use, tool life and service life of the machining tool or machining unit.” [Abstract; Para. 0017-0018; Claim 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention for an RFID tag of an exchangeable rotary tool to include information comprising a specific identification number, tool type, operational parameters, and service life of the particular tool as taught by Gauss, applied to controlled electro-pneumatic power tools and associated consumable items which include communication capability, as taught by Forgues, in order that the equipment in which a particular consumable tool is installed, is automatically operated within proper tool parameter limits, and also to allow accumulated use and service life of the consumable tool to be collected, even if such use is intermittent.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The construction equipment according to claim 1, wherein the data configured to be accessible via the reader comprises authentication data to authenticate the rotatable work tool against the control unit. Forgues specifically discloses that an identifier stored on the tag may be compared with identifiers stored in work tool memory to ensure compatibility and permission for use (broadly an authentication process) [Para. 0032-0034].
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1: The construction equipment according to claim 1, wherein the data configured to be accessible via the reader comprises tool specification data associated with the rotatable work tool. Forgues discloses that the communication device (reader) will enable the power tool to read and write the information on the consumable through an antenna (42). The data on the consumable will be transferred to the microcontroller to set and maintain the optimal process parameters [Fig. 4; Para. 0035].
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1: The construction equipment according to claim 1, wherein the wireless identification tag comprises a temperature sensor arranged to determine and to store a temperature value associated with the rotatable work tool. Forgues discloses active tag operation wherein a thermocouple measures consumable temperature, and where the tag (64) and associated battery (68) allow the temperature to be communicated to the tool [Fig. 6; Para. 0037-0038].
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1: The construction equipment according to claim 1, wherein the wireless identification tag and/or the wireless identification tag reader comprises a timer or clock configured to determine and to store an operating time associated with the rotatable work tool. Forgues disclosed the use of a counter (timer) to store a cumulative time the consumable has been used [Fig. 5; Para. 0036].
Consider claim 16: A wireless identification tag reader comprising: a wireless communication interface configured to communicate with a wireless identification tag associated with a rotatable work tool; Forgues discloses controlled electro-pneumatic power tools which communicate with attached consumable items (rotatable work tools) and where communication by a reader installed in the power tool, and RFID tag on the consumable tool [Title; Abstract; 1A-B, 2; Para. 0002-0003, 0014-0018, 0021; claim 1, 21]; and processing circuitry, wherein the power tool operates under the control of a microcontroller (processor) (88) [Fig. 8; Para. 0018; Claim 12]; configured to:
receive, via the wireless communication interface, data stored by the wireless identification tag, wherein the tool contains a wireless communication device (40, and antenna (42)) which may be an RFID (tag) reader [Fig. 4; Para. 0035] and which may read ab RFID tag on the consumable tool to identify the tool [Fig. 5; Para. 0021, 0036; Claim 10, 12];
wherein the data stored by the wireless identification tag includes identification data to identify a specific rotatable work tool unit attached to the rotatable work tool, the specific rotatable work tool unit being one out of several work tool units of a same type or specification which are attachable to the rotatable work tool; and specifically, that an identifier stored on the tag may be compares with identifiers stored in work tool memory to ensure compatibility and permission for use [Para. 0032-0034]; Forgues discloses that stored code information may be specific to the type of consumable to which it is attached, and may be used to automatically set and maintain equipment operating parameters (such as rotation speed) to optimum setting for the particular consumable tool [Para. 0032-0034]; and further, that the equipment may “store the cumulative time of use of said consumable accessory, and means to inform said operator person that the consumable accessory may require replacement based on said parameters entered in said microcontroller.” [Claim 12]
Forgues, therefore, discloses that information obtained from an installed consumable tool is indicative of the tool type and associated operational requirements, and further suggests that the information allows the equipment unit to identify and track a specific tool (in order to track cumulative use for that tool), but does not explicitly disclose this. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Gauss discloses a device for non-contact identification of tools and units, in particular of such tools and units, which are supported in rotatable tool holders of processing machines [Title; Abstract, Fig. 1-2; Para. 0007-0009 (see corresponding English translation)] and specifically: “….information stored in the memory chip of the at least one RFID transponder is selected from the group comprising the identification number, type, dimensions, maximum rotational speed, maximum feed rate, frequency of use, tool life and service life of the machining tool or machining unit.” [Abstract; Para. 0017-0018; Claim 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention for an RFID tag of an exchangeable rotary tool to include information comprising a specific identification number, tool type, operational parameters, and service life of the particular tool as taught by Gauss, applied to controlled electro-pneumatic power tools and associated consumable items which include communication capability, as taught by Forgues, in order that the equipment in which a particular consumable tool is installed, is automatically operated within proper tool parameter limits, and also to allow accumulated use and service life of the consumable tool to be collected, even if such use is intermittent.
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 16: The reader of claim 16, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to read the identification data from the wireless identification tag and to output information associated with the specific rotatable work tool unit identified by the identification data. Forgues discloses: “….that the controlled electro-pneumatic power tool incorporates a microcontroller that can receive data from the consumable through a communication device. This data can be used to set the optimal process parameters of the power tool before the starts of the process.” [Para. 0018].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Forgues et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2012/0007748 A1), hereinafter Forgues, and Gauss et al. (European Patent Application Publication # EP 1746530 A1), hereinafter Gauss, further in view of Seliya (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2006/0014475 A1).
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1: The construction equipment according to claim 1, wherein the data configured to be accessible via the reader comprises tool dimension data associated with the rotatable work tool.
Forgues discloses that a consumable size parameter may be important to tool operation [Para. 0009], but does not explicitly disclose storing of size or dimension information on the RFID tag. This was known in analogous prior art however, and for example:
Sekiya discloses a grindstone (rotary work tool) in which a radio IC tag (3) may be embedded in a recessed portion (221) of the grindstone (22) [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0001; 0007-0009, 0021-0022], and particularly that data on the characteristic properties such as the thickness and edge projecting length of the grindstone blade (72) and the size and density of the abrasive grains are stored in the radio IC tag (3) [Fig. 6; Para. 0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to store tool and/or tool consumable size and dimension information on an associated RFID tag, as taught by Sekiya, and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues as modified by Gauss, where compatibility of the consumable, and/or operational parameters (such as rotational speed) may be dictated by these dimensions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Forgues et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2012/0007748 A1), hereinafter Forgues, and Gauss et al. (European Patent Application Publication # EP 1746530 A1), hereinafter Gauss, further in view of Alvelid et al. (United States Patent # US 5,176,053), hereinafter Alvelid.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1: The construction equipment according to claim 1,
wherein the wireless identification tag comprises a first and a second temperature sensor, arranged radially from each other on the rotatable work tool,
wherein the first and second temperature sensor is arranged to determine a radial temperature gradient associated with the rotatable work tool.
Forgues discloses the use of multiple sensors to obtain different measurements [Fig. 7; Para. 0039], but does not specifically disclose the use of multiple temperature sensors. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Alvelid discloses a cutting tool with a state indicator comprising a plurality of temperature sensors so as to measure temperature distribution within the tool [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-9; Col. 2, 14-36, 50-62; Claim 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to provide a plurality of temperature sensing elements within a cutting tool as taught by Alvelid and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues, as modified by Gauss, in order to monitor temperature distribution within the tool, and continue monitoring when sensors closer to the surface are worn away.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Forgues et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2012/0007748 A1), hereinafter Forgues, and Gauss et al. (European Patent Application Publication # EP 1746530 A1), hereinafter Gauss, further in view of Hirokawa (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2004/0087248 A1).
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 1: The construction equipment according to claim 1, arranged to regulate a flow of water for cooling the rotatable work tool based on a temperature sensor reading from the wireless identification tag.
Forgues discloses the use of temperature sensors, and the need to monitor temperature with respect to various manufacturing processes [Fig. 6-7; Para. 0037-0039], and suggests that rotational speed may be controlled, at least in part, based on temperature, but does not specifically disclose systems to control tool temperature. Use of cooling water was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Hirokawa discloses a polishing tool and apparatus [Title; Abstract, Fig. 5, 6, 7B; Para. 0002, 0008-0011] and specifically the regulation of a flow of cooling water to regulated tool temperature [Para. 0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to monitor temperature of a rotation tool and use the temperature to regulate the flow of water as taught by Hirokawa, and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues as modified by Gauss, in order to maintain tool work temperature within proscribed limits.
Claims 9-11, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Forgues et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2012/0007748 A1), hereinafter Forgues, Gauss et al. (European Patent Application Publication # EP 1746530 A1), hereinafter Gauss, in view of Chakraborty et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2007/0159330 A1), hereinafter Chakraborty.
Consider claim 9: A construction equipment system comprising construction equipment and a remote server, Forgues discloses controlled electro-pneumatic power tools and associated consumable items which include communication capability [Title; Abstract; 1A-B, 2; Para. 0002-0003, 0014-0018, 0021; claim 1, 21], the construction equipment comprising
a rotatable work tool, the electro-pneumatic power tool (8) incorporating a rotating shaft (20) [Fig. 1A; Para. 0032];
a wireless identification tag reader, wherein the tool contains a wireless communication device (40, and antenna (42)) which may be an RFID (tag) reader [Fig. 4; Para. 0035] and which may identify a consumable associated with the tool [Para. 0021], and
a control unit, wherein the tool contains a microprocessor (88) [Fig. 7; Para. 0032, 0039],
wherein the rotatable work tool comprises a wireless identification tag configured to store data configured to be accessible via the wireless identification tag reader, wherein a consumable (52, 58) mounted on the tool comprises a tag (54) [Fig. 5-6; Para. 0036-0037],
wherein the data configured to be accessible via the reader comprises identification data to identify a specific rotatable work tool unit attached to the construction equipment, the specific rotatable work tool unit being one out of several work units of a same type or specification which are attachable to the construction equipment, specifically, that an identifier stored on the tag may be compared with identifiers stored in work tool memory to ensure compatibility and permission for use [Para. 0032-0034], the specific rotatable work tool unit being one out of several work units of a same type or specification which are attachable to the construction equipment, wherein stored code information may be specific to the type of consumable to which it is attached, and may be used to automatically set and maintain equipment operating parameters (such as rotation speed) to optimum setting for the particular consumable tool [Para. 0032-0034]; and further, that the equipment may “store the cumulative time of use of said consumable accessory, and means to inform said operator person that the consumable accessory may require replacement based on said parameters entered in said microcontroller.” [Claim 12];
the remote server being communicatively coupled to the control unit and configured to access data stored by the wireless identification tag,
where the remote server implements a digital twin corresponding to the identity of the rotatable work tool.
Forgues discloses that information obtained from an installed consumable tool is indicative of the tool type and associated operational requirements, and further suggests that the information allows the equipment unit to identify and track a specific tool (in order to track cumulative use for that tool), but does not explicitly disclose this. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Gauss discloses a device for non-contact identification of tools and units, in particular of such tools and units, which are supported in rotatable tool holders of processing machines [Title; Abstract, Fig. 1-2; Para. 0007-0009 (see corresponding English translation)] and specifically: “….information stored in the memory chip of the at least one RFID transponder is selected from the group comprising the identification number, type, dimensions, maximum rotational speed, maximum feed rate, frequency of use, tool life and service life of the machining tool or machining unit.” [Abstract; Para. 0017-0018; Claim 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention for an RFID tag of an exchangeable rotary tool to include information comprising a specific identification number, tool type, operational parameters, and service life of the particular tool as taught by Gauss, applied to controlled electro-pneumatic power tools and associated consumable items which include communication capability, as taught by Forgues, in order that the equipment in which a particular consumable tool is installed, is automatically operated within proper tool parameter limits, and also to allow accumulated use and service life of the consumable tool to be collected, even if such use is intermittent.
Forgues does not disclose the use of a remote server, or generation of a twin or digital copy of a tag associated with the work tool. This was also known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Chakraborty discloses a system and method for implementing virtual RFID tags [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A; Para. 0023] and particularly that a virtual copy of an RFID tag may be stored on a remote server (105) in order optimize system operation [Fig. 1A; Para. 0023, 0029-0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to store a digital copy, or virtual twin, of an RFID tag information, at a remote server as taught by Chakraborty, and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues as modified by Gauss, in order to read (or write) information from the tag in an efficient manner, and at times when direct communication with the tag is not possible, such as when the tool is not operating.
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 9: The construction equipment system according to claim 9, where the digital twin is configured to keep track of tool use, tool wear, and/or to determine appropriate service intervals for the corresponding rotatable work tool. Forgues discloses that the tag may be used to monitor and record consumable use intervals and wear [Fig. 5; Para. 0036; Claim 5, 12].
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 9: The construction equipment system according to claim 9,
wherein the remote server is arranged to store information relating to the construction equipment and/or relating to the rotatable work tool, Forgues discloses that the tag stores information about the consumable item and tool [Fig. 5, 6; Para. 0035-0037],
wherein the information is indexable by identification data stored by the wireless identification tag. Chakraborty discloses that a virtual copy of the tag is made in a remote server, and that tag information may be indexed [Fig. 1A, 1B; Para. 0023, 0029-0034, 0038].
Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 9: The construction equipment system according to claim 9, wherein the remote server is arranged to determine a service interval associated with the construction equipment and/or trigger rotatable work tool replacement based on the data stored by the wireless identification tag.
Forgues discloses that an internal counter circuit of the power tool may be used by the microcontroller to store the cumulative time of use of the consumable accessory, and may inform the operator that the consumable accessory may require replacement based on predetermined parameters [Claim 12].
Forgues does not disclose that this operation is performed by a remote server, but Chakraborty discloses use of a server in which tag copies may reside.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that this function might be performed by either the tool microprocessor or the server according to well-known principles of distributed computing
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 16: The reader of claim 16, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit data to the wireless identification tag to update stored information associated with the specific rotatable work tool.
Forgues discloses that the reader of the power tool may both read from a consumable RFID, and write information to the tag [Fig. 4; Para. 0035].
Gauss similarly discloses both a read and write function [Para. 0009].
Neither Forgues nor Gauss specifically discloses updating information on the consumable tag. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Chakraborty discloses a system and method for implementing virtual RFID tags [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A; Para. 0023] and particularly that a maintenance record update may be stored in a tag applied to a machine (medical device, car, airplane) each time it is maintained. [Fig. 1A; Para. 0023, 0108].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to update use or maintenance data by writing to the RFID tag of the tool, as taught by Chakraborty, and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues as modified by Gauss, in order to be able to read the use and maintenance history of that specific consumable fool, even if it is used by a plurality of different power tools, and a server connection is not available.
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Forgues et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2012/0007748 A1), hereinafter Forgues, Gauss et al. (European Patent Application Publication # EP 1746530 A1), hereinafter Gauss, and Chakraborty et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2007/0159330 A1), hereinafter Chakraborty, further in view of Steketee et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0372534 A1), hereinafter Steketee.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 9: The construction equipment system according to claim 9, wherein the remote server is arranged to determine one or more statistics associated with the construction equipment and/or with the rotatable work tool.
Forgues teaches the detection and monitoring of tool usage and wear [Fig. 5; Para. 0016, 0036], but does not specifically disclose communicating these to a server, or aggregation into statistical data. Such aggregation is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Steketee discloses a monitoring and maintenance system directed toward construction vehicle and tools, and where usage and wear data is aggregated (as statistics) and presented to users [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 2; 29, 32, 70; Para. 0010-0014; 0055, 0093, 0198, 0201, 0317-0318, 0328, 0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to aggregate use data collected for tools for statistical analysis and presentation as taught by Steketee, and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues as modified by Gauss and Chakraborty, in to better manage use of the tools (for ordering of replacement consumables, for example).
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 9: The construction equipment system according to claim 9, wherein the remote server is arranged to determine a training need of an operator using the construction equipment based on the data stored by the wireless identification tag.
Forgues teaches that information and warnings may be provided to a tool operator [Fig. 4; Para. 0035], but does not specifically disclose communicating these to a server, or an indication that the user needs further training. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Steketee discloses a monitoring and maintenance system directed toward construction vehicle and tools, and where usage and wear data is aggregated (as statistics) and which may include the scoring of an operator’s performance, and determine if training is necessary [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 2, 16; Para. 0010-0014; 0164, 0178-0180].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to aggregate use data collected for tools for statistical analysis and particularly for operator scoring and training assessment as taught by Steketee, and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues as modified by Gauss and Chakraborty, in to better manage use of the tools (assist in ensuring that the tools are used correctly).
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 9: The construction equipment system according to claim 9,
wherein the wireless identification tag comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU,
wherein the IMU is configured to monitor a vibration signature of the rotatable work tool, and to detect any of; crack formation in the tool, blade core skew or unevenness, blade wear, and tool glazing or polished diamonds, based on the vibration signature.
Forgues discloses use of a variety of sensors, including: rotational speed, strain gauges, temperature, pressure and torque [Para. 0032, 0039], but does not specifically disclose vibration sensors or monitoring of a vibration signature. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Steketee discloses a monitoring and maintenance system directed toward construction vehicle and tools, and where usage and wear data is aggregated (as statistics) and which may include the monitoring of vibration to determine component wear and imbalance [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 2, 47; Para. 0010-0014; 0240-0242, 0262-0265; Claim 1-2, 14-15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, to aggregate accelerometer data collected for tools to determine vibration patterns indicative of tool wear as taught by Steketee, and applied to an electro-pneumatic power tool as taught by Forgues as modified by Gauss and Chakraborty, in to determine whether tool service or replacement is indicated).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 23-June-2026 have been carefully and fully considered by the Examiner, and responses are provided as follow:
Consider Applicant arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 8 under 35 USC §102 as anticipated by Forgues (US 2012/0007748 A1) [Remarks: Page 6-8]:
Regarding independent claim 1: Applicant arguments, directed toward the specific amending limitations have been considered, but are rendered moot by a new rejection of the claim under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Gauss (EP 1746530 A1), where the combination teaches tracking of individual tools, particularly with respect to accumulated operating time for a particular consumable tool in order to assess used and remaining service life. Consider in particular, that Forgues discloses the tracking of the cumulative time of use of a particular consumable tool item, and that Gauss discloses that an identification number of the consumable tool may be stored by the RFID tag.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5 and 8: No specific or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 1. These claims are now also rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Gauss, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis applied to each in this Office action.
Regarding independent claim 16: Arguments with respect to this claim are also moot, the claim not having been previously examined. The claim, however, recites limitations similar to those for claim 1, and is now also rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Gauss, based on the particular citations and analysis applied in this Office action.
Regarding claim 17: Arguments with respect to this claim are also moot, the claim not having been previously examined. The claim is now also rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Gauss, based on the particular citations and analysis applied in this Office action.
Consider Applicant arguments with respect to rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Seliya (US 2006/0014475 A1): No specific or additional arguments have been made with respect to this claim, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 1. This claim is now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues, Gauss and Seliya, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis applied in this Office action.
Consider Applicant arguments with respect to rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Alvelid (US 5,176,053): No specific or additional arguments have been made with respect to this claim, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 1. This claim is now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues, Gauss and Alvelid, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis applied in this Office action.
Consider Applicant arguments with respect to rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Hirokawa (US 2004/0087248 A1): No specific or additional arguments have been made with respect to this claim, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 1. This claim is now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues, Gauss and Hirokawa, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis applied in this Office action.
Consider Applicant arguments with respect to rejection of claims 9-11 and 14 under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Chakraborty (US 2007/0159330 A1) [Remarks: Page 8-9]:
Regarding independent claim 9: This claim has been amended in similar fashion as for claim 1, and the same arguments presented. These are similarly rendered moot by a new rejection of the claim under 35 USC §103 over Forgues and Gauss and Chakraborty, where the combination teaches tracking of individual tools, particularly with respect to accumulated operating time for a particular consumable tool in order to assess used and remaining service life. Consider in particular, that Forgues discloses the tracking of the cumulative time of use of a particular consumable tool item, that Gauss discloses that an identification number of the consumable tool may be stored by the RFID tag, and that Chakraborty discloses that a virtual copy of the RFID tag for each consumable tool, on a remote server, which necessitates a sufficient identification to distinguish a particular tag and tool from all others.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 15: No specific or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 9. These claims are now also rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues, Gauss and Chakraborty, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis applied to each in this Office action.
Consider Applicant arguments with respect to rejection of claims 12, 13 and 15 under 35 USC §103 over Forgues, Chakraborty and Steketee (US 2017/0372534 A1): No specific or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability is asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 1. These claims are now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Forgues, Gauss, Chakraborty and Steketee, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the particular citations and analysis applied to each in this Office action.
Consider Applicant arguments with respect to new claims 16-18: Applicant remarks have been considered but are also moot; these claims have not been previously examined. Claims 16 and 17 are now rejected under USC §103 over Forgues and Gauss, and claim 18 is rejected under USC §103 over Forgues, Gauss and Chakraborty based on the particular citations and analysis applied to each in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Weisshaupt et al. (U.S. Patent # US 9,033,251 B2) disclosing an RFID tag.
King (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0253793 A1) disclosing radio frequency identification tags and methods employing ceramic components which may be suitable for use in extreme environmental conditions.
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 STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. 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.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights